The brutal murder of 6 Israeli hostages, including an Israeli-American on Saturday, August 31^st is another example of Hamas barbarism since they murdered more than 1,200 Israeli civilians on October 7^th, 2023.

Sadly, a great deal of outrage following this latest mass murder has been directed at Israel’s government and not the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated this despicable act.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who pressed the Biden-Harris administration to keep schools closed for a prolonged period of time during the COVID pandemic, waded into this foreign policy debate by criticizing Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Weingarten said, “anger must be placed at Netanyahu’s feet” for his alleged “refusal to consummate” a ceasefire/hostage release deal.

After spending nearly two weeks on beaches in California and Delaware, while claiming he was working non-stop to reach a hostage release deal, President Biden joined the chorus expressing displeasure with Netanyahu. Biden’s criticism ignores the fact that Israel put forth a hostage deal in April and agreed to U.S. hostage release proposals in May and August. Hamas rejected those initiatives and continues to object to any proposal that allows Israel to monitor passageways that have been used to smuggle weapons to the Hamas terrorists.

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley took Biden to task for his criticism of Israel. “For Biden to claim Israel isn’t doing enough is a win for Hamas, plain and simple. It’s beyond dangerous and shows that Biden/Harris don’t know the difference between good and evil,” Ambassador Haley said.

After claiming for days that Israeli bombs had killed the hostages, Hamas issued a statement acknowledging they had executed them and said they would execute more hostages if Israel used military force to rescue them.

Our hearts go out to the families of hostages who have been killed and those who remain in captivity. However, blaming Israel for the impasse in negotiations risks encouraging the Hamas terrorists to drag their feet and hold out for an outcome in which Israel is pressured to capitulate to their unreasonable demands.

Israel has long sought to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbors. However, Hamas and their sponsors in Iran are committed to Israel’s destruction. They want to kill Jews and Christians alike, and cannot be allowed to maintain control in Gaza. Standing for justice means standing with Israel, and the United States should be clear about supporting such a policy.

Parents under pressure. That’s the title of a new advisory issued by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Murthy says many parents tell him quote, they feel lucky to be raising kids, but they are struggling, often in silence and alone. He’s got data to back it up, too. 33% of parents report high levels of stress in the past month, compared to 20% of other adults. Parents are nearly twice as likely to feel daily stress. That is, quote, completely overwhelming. These are real problems. They are on the rise. The Surgeon General is correct. Here’s a key question, though, what does the federal government have to do with this? Well, Murthy says that public policy can help. He’s lobbying for government funding for families plus universal paid parental leave. The Biden Harris administration is pushing for universal daycare, the real solutions to the problem of parental stress, though, aren’t going to come from the government. They are going to come from the culture, and Murthy seems to recognize that, he notes that parents spend much more time on parenting than our predecessors did 30 and 60 years ago. Murthy is correct that more intensive parenting is a stressor, yet many commentators have assumed it was a good thing. They say we are trading quantity for quality. That is, parents with fewer kids invest more time and money in each kid, which is supposed to help the kids climb the ladder. These days, intensive parenting is part of upper middle class and middle class culture, and this trend is driving this crisis of parental stress and the epidemic of childhood anxiety that Murthy noted a few months ago. Parenting culture isn’t the only problem, though, the collapse of community connection is another source of parental stress. When policymakers propose massive child allowances, universal daycare and other government supports for parents, they are acknowledging something true and important. It takes more than two people to raise a kid. Parenting is inherently a communal undertaking. Throughout human history, parents have needed the support of in laws, grandmothers, neighbors, churches and other institutions of civil society. Our culture is less connected than before. We belong to fewer things. We know our neighbors less the worst part is that young parents, or would be parents today, don’t seem to know what they are missing when it comes to connection and community support. They think that parents should be able to raise kids on their own, and so when they find it too hard, they either blame themselves, or they look for government support. Parenting is more stressful than before because our culture is family unfriendly. The Surgeon General is right that we need to fix this. Changing a culture for the better, though, is not something that Uncle Sam can do. I.

You know, I have a very deep interest in the debate about presidential debates. When I ran for President in 2012 I participated in 21 debates. So I have some notion of how this all works, and I have an idea for a very bold reform. As you know, we’re currently seeing vice president Harris try to maneuver to set new rules, to change the structure that had been used when President Trump and President Biden debated, I have to say, Calista and I watched the Trump Biden debate, and we were astounded. Sort of indicated why Biden not only would be forced to drop out of the race, because he just he couldn’t function. He couldn’t he couldn’t survive 90 minutes. Well, the Harris people legitimately because, you know, during this campaign to win, not not to get a good government award, the Harris people are trying very hard to convince the Trump people that they should change the rules, that they should keep the microphones open, I assume, so she can interject comments and try to get him irritated, and they should be sitting because she wants to be allowed to bring notes in so she can have note cards to remind her what she’s supposed to say. Trump, of course, doesn’t particularly want to be on ABC because the supervisor at Disney who’s in charge of ABC News is a very close long term friend of Vice President Harris, and because the ABC reporters have been amazingly hostile and left wing and pro Harris and anti Trump. So he feels like it’s a rigged deal. Well, I have a proposal. The most famous presidential debates in American history were Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. Douglas was the incumbent senator, the most famous Democratic politician in the country, everyone expected him to be the next president. He was up for reelection and was campaigning across the state of Illinois. Lincoln wanted to debate him about the big issues, the issue of freedom, the issue of slavery, the issue of enforcing and upholding the Constitution. Douglas did not want to debate Lincoln. He saw himself as was called at the time, a little giant. He wasn’t very big physically, and Lincoln, of course, was very big, but he had been called the Little Giant for years. He’s a great speaker, very effective, very energetic. So he didn’t want to get on the same platform as Lincoln. So what Lincoln started doing is, whenever Douglas would speak, Lincoln would show up the next night and tear apart Douglas’ speech. Well, after three of those experiences, Douglass said, All right, how about if we get on the same stage? There were seven congressional districts that had not yet been visited by either Douglas or Lincoln, and so they decided that they would go to those seven districts. It became the most famous debate in American history. No reporters, nobody in between two candidates and a timekeeper. I think that’s what Harris and Trump should do. No reporters, no Mickey Mouse, a timekeeper. Let the two candidates ask each other questions and let them do it on C span, which is a neutral network that doesn’t have anti Trump reporters. You.

Though overshadowed by the 2024 election and the DNC the House Oversight judiciary and Ways and Means committees produced a report on the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden that’s still running. Their findings merit deep consideration, and in a just world, they would lead not only to the president’s impeachment, but removal as a starting point of punishment for having sold out our country to adversaries that would serve as a deterrent to other office seekers or holders who would seek to do the same. According to the house probe, the President engaged in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family, leading his family to rake in 10s of millions of dollars from enemies and corruptocrats based on their belief the Bidens would provide influence and access to the patriarch, who often appeared in person or via phone with his family’s foreign business partners as the closer essentially President Biden, met her, spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, the report says, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia and Kazakhstan the transactions involved were structured in such a way as to conceal the conspiracy. Hunter Biden and his business associates leveraged Vice President Biden’s official position to garner favorable outcomes in foreign business dealings and legal proceedings. Several witnesses testified that Hunter Biden invoked his father in business dealings with Romanian, Chinese kazakhstanian, Ukrainian companies, resulting in millions of dollars flowing to the Biden family. The report details, as the House Republicans add, their Democrat colleagues, set the precedent during Trump impeachment, one that abuse of Office defined as the exercise of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest is an impeachable offense. The report also notes that their investigation corroborates the findings of the IRS whistleblowers covered extensively here at straight iron news, showing the DOJ obstructing and tanking the investigation into the Biden’s international influence peddling scheme, the special treatment afforded Hunter Biden, the impeachment investigators right, which only sees that the onset of congressional attention on the department’s investigation may be a basis for impeachment as the distortion of an official investigation was a basis in the perspective impeachment of President Nixon in 1974

the members right. Additionally, the house need not show that the President directly ordered his subordinates to obstruct an investigation. In certain circumstances, the President may be impeached for the actions of subordinate officials. They add What’s more, the impeachment investigators allege that the Biden Harris DOJ and White House obstructed the house investigation through hiding key documents and witnesses all told. The committees allege that Joe Biden abused power engaged in foreign entanglements, corruption and obstruction of investigations into these matters rising to the level of impeachable conduct. It is unclear that he will face anything more than a report that stands as an afterthought with President Biden being rendered a sort of president in name only sitting in political purgatory for five months while the world burns and unceremoniously tossed aside by his party, with the Congress unwilling to hold him to account. And think about that, America’s representatives snapped to their feet to impeach a former president twice on incredibly dubious, novel grounds, including while he was already out of office, but would not impeach a President who sold out the country to our worst adversaries through his family’s international influence peddling activities and sought to cover it up. The deeper rotten corruption in our system than that of the Biden family might be the unwillingness for that system to recognize the corruption and punish it swiftly and severely, while punishing wrong thinkers, of course, to the hilt. Joe Biden will never face justice for his cronyism corruption, and his deceiving of the American people about it, while demagoguing his political foes, the only justice will have been in him, having been knifed by his own party and sidelined in the 2024 election never to be president again in.

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have chosen to make abortion a central issue in this presidential campaign. Donald Trump and JD Vance should explain that the Harris-Walz abortion agenda is extreme and out of step with most of the American people. Trump and Vance should also affirm the service of pregnancy care centers and other initiatives that help women facing difficult pregnancies.

The Biden-Harris administration has expressed their support for the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” and Harris has pledged to sign such legislation into law. That legislation doesn’t limit a single abortion at any time for any reason, and it effectively imposes a national policy of abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth. 

Harris and Walz claim their legislation only allows abortion up until viability. However, the bill has a post-viability “health” exception and they deliberately decline to define “health” in the legislation – despite defining numerous other terms.

The Biden-Harris Administration is joined at the hip with the World Health Organization (WHO), so it’s notable that the preamble to W.H.O.’s Constitution defines “health” in the broadest terms possible:

       “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 

Therefore, we can assume that Harris administration regulations will define “health” in accordance with that W.H.O. definition, meaning that post-viability abortions – including the 8th and 9th months of pregnancy – will be allowed for any reason because that definition of health encompasses any possible “social well-being” reason under the sun.

The Harris-Walz abortion bill will require taxpayers to fund abortion for any reason throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. It overrides every federal and state conscience protection for doctors and nurses who don’t want to be forced to perform abortions, and it makes a special point of overriding protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Walz has already signed this kind of extreme legislation at the state level, and he repealed protection for babies born alive during a late-term abortion procedure. Harris and Walz have both expressed a desire to shut down pregnancy care centers that help women facing difficult pregnancies. They are the most extreme abortion advocates who have ever run for president and vice president. This shouldn’t be hard for Trump and Vance to explain. They just need to step up and do it.

China is Russia’s lifeline. It supplies almost all key components of the Russian war machine among them microelectronics for missiles, tanks and aircraft machine tools for ammunition production and nitrocellulose, a critical explosive ingredient for artillery shells.

Just as important, China pays at least half of Russia’s war expenditures. The war is estimated to cost the Kremlin between 340

and $375

million a day, at 190 $7 million per day. China’s payments for Russia’s oil, LNG and natural gas, covered between 58 and 52%

of that amount.

At long last, the West is waking up to the situation. This past June, the g7 leaders were reported labeling China the savior of Putin’s Russia. Three weeks later, in Washington, the NATO Summit declaration called Beijing the decisive enabler of the war against Ukraine.

And yet the West is still dreaming of enlisting China to restrain Russia, or even to end the war with one phone call, in the words of the Finnish President Alexander Stubb

but there’s a problem with this plan.

Xi Jinping, assistant to Russia, and goes beyond obvious tactical considerations, it is bound up with passionately held ideological convictions. The name is Marxism.

No General Secretary since Mao has pledged allegiance to Marxism with Xi’s order

less than two months into his tenure, in one of his first speeches as the party leader, she directed the newly elected Central Committee members to keep up with the living soul of Marxism

communism, he said was the party’s highest ideal and its ultimate goal. He called Marx the greatest thinker in human history. In 2018

she celebrated Marx’s 200th birthday with a speech at the Great Hall of the People. The title of the oration was Marx’s theory still shines with truth.

What makes Xi’s reverence for Marx relevant to our story is a philosophy of history which is central to Marxism, known as historical materialism. It postulates the inexorable development of society’s forces of production, or economic base when economic progress comes in conflict with the political and cultural superstructure of a society, a revolution led by the oppressed classes overturns the old order and replaces it With a new system befitting the economy. Eventually, this process would lead to the overthrow of capitalism and the onset of communism.

From the very beginning of his rule, 12 years ago, Xi Jinping has emphasized two points, first, the historical materialist view that capitalism will inevitably die out and socialism will inevitably triumph. Is just as valid today as it was over a century and a half ago when Marx and Engels articulated it is so because, as she added, this doctrine describes what he called the irreversible general trends of social and historical development.

Xi’s second emphasis has been on what he called Marx’s unremitting fight to overturn the old world and establish a new one. This new world, she declared, cannot be dominated by capitalism in the West, and the time will come for a change. No wonder that the old Marxist, Leninist, Fidel Castro called she one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.

The prospect of revolutionary change is all the more alluring to the General Secretary and President because of what he described as unprecedented, once in a century and most profound changes sweeping the world today, paraphrasing Xi Jinping the.

Government Peoples Daily stated that the West’s dominance of International Relations became hard to sustain, as did their orientation toward western values. Enter Putin’s war above and beyond the obvious geopolitical gains for the zealous Marxist in Beijing, Russia’s win would constitute a powerful vindication of the Marxist vision of history. A demoralized and degraded West would be Exhibit A of the decay of the bourgeois democracies, and thus validate the party’s place on the right side of history and human progress, in the words of a central committee resolution

Marx called violence the midwife of every old society, pregnant with a new one.

She’s mentors Lenin Stalin and Mao all forged or expanded communist regimes

during or in the immediate aftermath of wars in allying the Soviet Union with Hitler’s Germany between 1939 and 1941

the devout Marxist Joseph Stalin established an especially pertinent precedent,

a communist state aiding a fascist regime in its war on the capitalist west,

to quote the People’s Daily again, She is driven by a powerful sense of mission and by concerns about the future and destiny of mankind,

and so the West’s hopes for China’s help in ending Putin’s war on Ukraine are likely to be a pipe dream led by a faithful Marxist. China is almost certainly to stand by Putin in pursuit of a victory foretold by a dogma which its ruler so fervently believes in. The.

There is an interesting amount of conversation among paleontologists and geologists about what would have happened if the asteroid, which ended the era of the dinosaurs, had missed there’s now some evidence that that huge asteroid about six miles across, basically the size of a city, came from out near Jupiter, but there was no reason it had to hit the Earth. And most of these asteroids don’t hit the Earth. As it was, it now looks like that asteroid hit in the most dangerous possible area, which was a shallow part of the ocean, which allowed it to push all of the minerals on the bottom of the ocean up into the atmosphere, creating a cloud and creating an effect across the planet, which ended vegetation growing. And when the vegetation couldn’t grow, the dinosaurs that ate plants couldn’t eat, and when they couldn’t eat, the dinosaurs which ate, dinosaurs couldn’t eat, and you suddenly had one of the two or three greatest die offs in the history of the planet. Now, what if that asteroid had missed? There’s no reason to believe that the age of dinosaurs would have ended. And then you get into a really interesting question, and a number of very serious professional paleontologists have been exploring this. What would evolution have been like if, in fact, the age of the dinosaurs didn’t end? First of all, we know that dinosaurs were very competitive and that mammals were not able to compete very well with them. So the largest mammals that we find in the age of the dinosaurs are really about the size of a small dog. There’s no big mammal that was able to exist because the dinosaurs were simply better predators and better able to suppress them. So you would have had birds which were being successful and which basically are a branch of dinosaurs would have continued to flourish. They had the huge advantage of flight, and they would have gradually spread more and more complexly. There are more bird species than there are mammal species. There have been remarkably successful. We don’t see them that way because we value walking around on ground, and we undervalue flying, even though a very substantial number of mammals or bats and fly in a unique way, different than birds. So birds would have done all right. Dinosaurs would have done all right. They would have dominated. And humans, in fact, probably wouldn’t have existed. The reason simple, there was no evidence that the mammals could have ever grown into competing with the dinosaurs. And there’s a serious argument that the most effective of the hunting dinosaurs, animals called troudas, were also the smartest dinosaurs, and that over another 20 or 30 million years, they might have evolved in ways that we can hardly imagine, but it would not have been humans, and it would not have been life as we’ve known it.

Are the global speech police coming for Americans, and what are our purported leaders prepared to do about it? Troubling warning signs have been on the horizon for years that anti free speech jurisdictions would use coercive means to impose their orthodoxy on social media platforms to, in turn, impose their orthodoxy on the citizens who use those platforms in a backdoor way, thereby imposing those first amendment, eviscerating standards on we, the American people, attacking us based platforms, threatening their business models through not just maligning their executives, but controlling their content moderation standards under the threat of massive legal andor financial pain, for example, via regulatory regimes punitively aimed at combating missed DIS and Mal information andor hate speech is one way in which this effort has manifested itself lately and perhaps not coincidentally, in a hugely significant election year in America and in many countries throughout the world, this effort now fusing digital speech police and literal speech police seems to be intensifying. It’s a sign that globally, and particularly in the West, which is supposed to be a bulwark for free speech, leaders are less interested than ever in protecting that right and more interested than ever in controlling their populations by quashing dissenting views that might threaten their power. One recent example comes out of the EU where Commissioner Thierry Breton warned on the eve of ex owner Elon Musk’s free, willing conversation with former President Donald Trump, that Musk better be careful about what was said during the space or else, of course, he did so in bureaucrat ease, in the anodyne, soft, tyrannical way that the administrative state addresses its would be prey as the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with 300 million users worldwide, of which 1/3 in the EU that has been designated as a very large online platform, Breton warned you have the legal obligations to ensure excess compliance with EU law, and in particular the DSA Digital Services Act in the EU Bertolt instructed Musk that he need take quote all proportionate and effective mitigation measures regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. Berton added that Musk was obligated to tell the EU what his plans were to meet its regulatory standards, to be responsive to claims of quote, unquote, illegal content, while adding the not so subtle jab that formal proceedings are already ongoing against x under the DSA, and that the musk Trump space could only further imperil the platform. Bertone’s brow beating of musk and x followed what he called recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation. This was a seeming illusion in part to anti immigration fervor that has been bubbling up among nationalists and populists across Europe in the wake of mass Islamic immigration and the impacts on European societies, and which recently exploded. In the UK, there a 17 year old stabbed and murdered three young girls at a Taylor Swift themed event for children in the UK. It was rumored that this was a Muslim immigrant from the Middle East, though it turned out the killer was born to Rwandan parents. The rumor spread among the populace, unfortunately, leading to protests, riots and violence against the UK as Muslim immigrant population. In the wake of those riots, London’s metropolitan police commissioner came out with his own threat. It wasn’t against the violence, it was against the ideas behind it. We will throw the full force of the law at people, and whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you. He told Sky News after insinuating Elon Musk was helping whip up hatred. When asked by a reporter about related speech coming from other countries, he replied, being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law, adding, if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, we will come after those individuals, just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs who are causing the problems for communities. In remarks read as threatening the extradition of foreign citizens, including Americans, for engaging in thought crimes. While the EU officially distanced itself from Breton’s remarks, it did not condemn them. Musk, for his part, told Breton to pound sand. The British government did not so respond to the Metropolitan Commissioner’s threats. They remain American lawmakers were almost uniformly silent, with the exception of Republican senators like Mike Lee and the Republican leaders of the House Judiciary Committee. This is an outrage where President Biden and vice president Harris, where’s the State Department? This is a question that ought to be on the ballot in 2024 will you defend Americans from being extradited? Protected speech. Will you defend American platforms that facilitate free and open discourse from foreign attacks, and indeed, as reflected in the musk Trump threats from election interference, our freedom of speech and thus, all our other freedoms will die if no one will stand for them. You.

One throughout Donald Trump’s presidency. Kamala Harris and other progressives strongly opposed the construction of a wall along our southern border. They argued it was xenophobic and a waste of money, since walls don’t work this week. However, as the democratic national convention was held in Chicago, the convention site was surrounded by metal fencing and concrete barriers. Dump trucks and other heavy duty vehicles were also deployed. Apparently, walls and other barriers work when they’re protecting elite politicians from progressive protesters, but they’re racist when we seek to maintain order at America’s border in order to enter the convention center, attendees were required to also provide ID photo IDs, when Republicans in Congress and state legislatures had proposed photo IDs required for voting progressives, they argued that such a requirement is unnecessary and racially discriminatory. As governor of Minnesota during the riots of 2020 Tim waltz delayed calling up the National Guard for several days, Minneapolis suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, and businesses were destroyed as images of buildings and automobiles and other property burned, they were broadcast all over the national news, and then they were distributed on social media. So then riots spread all over the country. Every city in America now had excuse to come outside of the pandemic and Riot because of George Floyd. Also this week, Illinois Governor JB Pitts activated hundreds of National Guard troops to supplement a large contingent of Chicago police in order to protect the convention attendees. So while police were often constrained from stopping rioting and destruction during the Summer of Love in 2020 progressive politicians welcomed their presence and protection as they gathered in Chicago this week. Protecting America’s national security and ensuring public safety are primary responsibilities of government. That’s why we need to secure our national border and appropriately screen people who seek to enter our country. The people inside the Chicago Convention Center need to recognize that average Americans have the same rights to be protected as those attending their national convention. The candidates and other speakers said they are committed to protecting democracy, but they continue to oppose common sense measures to protect our election system. In order to maintain trust in the government and election outcomes, it is vital that the appropriate safeguards are implemented and that they’re enforced. We also need oversight and transparency throughout every step in the process, especially in states that have weeks of early voting and large number of votes cast by mail, national security, law enforcement and election integrity are key components of a strong and healthy democracy. The.

Music. Since Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, we have heard a lot about vibes. We have been told that Harris is bringing joy back to American politics. We have been informed that she and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, are happy warriors, and that they have inspired democratic unity, enthusiasm and confidence. We haven’t heard details, not about Harris’s record or her plans. The first TV ad of her presidential campaign, for example, is heavy on biography and light on substance. It leaves out Harris’s four years in the US Senate, when she compiled a voting record that put her in the same company as left wingers Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Nor does the ad mention Harris’s run for president in 2020 when she called for the abolition of private health insurance, the decriminalization of border crossings and the passage of the economy crushing Green New Deal then dropped out two months before Iowa. The name of the man for whom Harris has served as vice president for the past three and a half years, also goes unuttered In the television spot, and Harris never says what concretely she would do as president, but her actions provide clues. In her first weeks as a major party candidate, Harris is aligned with forces in the Democratic Party pushing a left wing agenda like Biden. She masks radical change behind a genial, moderate smile. Unlike Biden, she has no discernible physical or mental infirmities, and can read a teleprompter without struggle. That makes her more competitive with Donald Trump and more dangerous

when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on july 24 for example, Vice President, Harris was nowhere to be seen. She and roughly half of the Democrats serving in Congress skipped Netanyahu speech in protest or in fear of the consequences of associating with Israel amid rising anti semitism in their party. The next afternoon in Washington, Harris greeted Netanyahu by saying, like a teacher to an unruly student, we have a lot to talk about. When the talk was over, Harris appeared alone before the cameras. Harris said she supported Israel. She read aloud the names of the five Americans that Hamas holds captive. But then her speech took a turn for the worse. She suggested that Netanyahu, not Hamas, is responsible for the devastation in Gaza. She adopted the pro Hamas framing of massive, indiscriminate civilian casualties and widespread food insecurity in Gaza, she suggested that Netanyahu, not Hamas, is the real obstacle to a hostage deal, and proclaimed that the war in Gaza is not a binary issue.

In fact, there is no more binary issue in the world today than a democratic nation retaliating against a genocidal terrorist organization that rapes and murders innocents, hides behind hospitals and schools and burrows underground

on july 29 President Biden took to the Op Ed page of the Washington Post to announce his planned renovation of the US Constitution,

angered by recent Supreme Court decisions on abortion and presidential immunity, while saying nothing of the numerous cases on which the Court agrees unanimously and triggered by a flurry of spurious charges of ethical impropriety against two conservative justices, Biden proposed several drastic countermeasures. His reforms are the most daring assault on the separation of powers and judicial independence since the court packing scheme of 1937, finally, Joe Biden has something in common with FDR. Biden’s ideas are hypocritical. Only at the end of his 50 year career does he embrace turbulence, and then for someone else, his ideas are also unconstitutional, unworkable, and with the GOP controlled House of Representatives, dead on arrival. Biden’s core proposal isn’t high-minded or considered or realistic or connected to the rule of law. It’s a payoff to the left wing of his party. It’s a bid to mobilize the Democratic base this November, and Vice President Harris signed on immediately. When you shift your gaze from Harris’s scripted campaign appearances and wall-to-wall positive media coverage and look at Harris’s treatment of Netanyahu and her reckless approach to the Supreme Court, a more accurate picture of the Democratic nominee begins to emerge. A Harris presidency would be as incompetent and as unpleasant as Joe Biden’s, but even, if you can imagine, farther to the left. Who is Kamala Harris? She’s afraid we might find out.