Joe Sacco minimizes the seriousness of Islamic terror in India

The Washington Post wrote some fluff-coated takes on GNs published this year, and it includes one by the anti-Israel cartoonist Joe Sacco, who's now apparently trying to downplay the seriousness of Islamic terrorism in India, in the pages of a GN titled "Once and Future Riot":

For decades, Sacco has carved out a space for rigorous, fact-based journalism in comics, with books on the Palestinian territories, the Bosnian war and other topics. Here he examines the Muzaffarnagar riots that tore through Uttar Pradesh, India, in 2013. Interviewing survivors and perpetrators on both sides, he carefully depicts how relations between the region’s Hindu and Muslim communities broke down. In the process of telling the story of these few days of violence and pain, he lays out a larger narrative about the rise of Hindu nationalism that is all the more troubling for the evenhanded way he explains it.

When he attacks Indian nationalism, it's harder to believe his approach is "evenhanded", especially when the following panel suggests otherwise:

So the Muslim figure on the panel is denying there's such a thing as "love jihad", even though there have been cases of this occurring in what could be described as one of the worst forms of coercion, and attempts to force women to convert to Islam. Also notice how the panel depicts non-Muslims attacking one who is Muslim, and it's set up to make it look like they're doing it out of false accusations. What "careful depictions" is Sacco working on here? This is shameful, right down to how the non-Muslims assaulting the Islamist are made to look nasty, while the cleric, by contrast, is depicted as calm and sympathetic. The riots in Muzaffarnagar were sparked by the murder of 2 men by 7 culprits who were Islamists (and certainly had names often used by followers of the Religion of Peace), and were handed down sentences eventually for their repugnant crimes. It won't be shocking if Sacco obfuscated all that. What's drawn in the panel is anything but "fact-based".

Sacco continues to prove he's one of the worst pro-Islam propagandists in the political comics business, and I hesitate to think what disfavors he's done for 9-11 survivors in the USA in the near quarter century since the tragedy in NYC. The Wash. Post is similarly doing disfavors by sugarcoating his works, and only make clear they're one of the worst papers to talk about the comics medium in any format.

How Yitzhak Rabin enabled jihadism to be established at Israel's expense

Amnon Lord writes about how the late left-wing Israeli premier Yitzhak Rabin's "legacy" is not one of "peace":

For three decades, memorial ceremonies and community events commemorating Rabin have drawn their meaning largely from the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics since his assassination. Some argue that the unspoken "charge" behind the legal campaign against Netanyahu has always been his supposed moral responsibility for Rabin's death, a kind of modern blood libel that reenergized the Left.

Unlike other countries where leaders have been assassinated, in Israel an entire segment of society was blamed collectively. The tragedy is that Rabin's death enshrined the Oslo Accords as a sacred legacy of the Left, while for the Right they symbolized deception and national endangerment. Rabin himself had long resisted the idea of negotiating with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Only two months before the signing ceremony on the White House lawn did he agree to meet Yasser Arafat and accept the PLO as a partner. Until then, he remained committed to the official Washington talks with the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation he inherited from Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

Many on the Right felt betrayed, that Rabin had concealed his true intentions during the 1992 election campaign. True, he repeatedly ruled out direct talks with the PLO, but he did say publicly that he planned to grant the Palestinians autonomy in the territories within nine months of taking office. That was his policy, not a capitulation to Shimon Peres or Yossi Beilin, except insofar as he later signed that autonomy agreement with Arafat. [...]

But Rabin and his colleagues failed to foresee that the territories handed to the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, would become bases for rocket fire and terrorism. He dismissed warnings from Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon that rockets would one day be launched from Gaza toward Ashkelon. "From Gaza? Impossible," he scoffed.

During that same period, Meretz MK Yossi Sarid declared, "Rabin must be encouraged." And indeed, as Labor shifted leftward, the Israeli Left was already legitimizing contact with Hamas, the terrorist arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. In December 1992, Rabin's government expelled 415 Hamas leaders to southern Lebanon. The move was turned by the Left and by US President Bill Clinton into a propaganda victory for Hamas. Israel was forced to bring the deportees back, and left-wing activists, led by Uri Avnery, protested in solidarity with Hamas in Jerusalem. Avnery later boasted that their campaign had proven that Israel could never again carry out such expulsions.

It's vital to remember that Sharon later turned against his electorate and enabled just what Rabin set out the groundswork for. In contrast to Rabin, Sharon is otherwise not celebrated today, and deservedly so. But this makes clear how Rabin was a bad lot, and he was a disgrace. Some of his actions were also deeply harmful to Americans and Europeans. That he has any kind of a following today is also very sad, as his attack on the Altalena during the 1940s was horrific.

Andrew Cuomo should be blamed if Zohran Mamdani is elected NYC mayor

Phillip Klein makes some valid points why New York's former governor should be blamed if Muslim mayoral candidate Mamdani is elected, and not Curtis Sliwa:

But if Mamdani wins, the blame should rest with Cuomo.

To start, nothing does more to fuel the rise of somebody proposing radical change from the status quo than a sense that the status quo is broken. No doubt, Mamdani benefited greatly from the fact that Mayor Eric Adams was under federal indictment before being pardoned by President Trump, to whom Adams had cozied up. But he benefited doubly from the fact that when the dust settled, his main challenger ended up being Cuomo.

Cuomo was a failed governor. Not only did his disastrous Covid policies contribute to thousands of nursing home deaths, but then his administration tried to cover up the failure by manipulating the data. And he was forced to resign in disgrace over charges of sexual misconduct. It’s hard to imagine a better avatar for Mamdani’s argument that the existing system is corrupt and broken than Cuomo.

I’m generally reluctant to call anybody a “spoiler” given that elections are ultimately about earning votes. If you’re an older Republican voter who has lived in New York long enough, you probably grew up hating Andrew Cuomo’s father, Mario Cuomo (New Yorkers of a certain age will remember the late talk-radio host Bob Grant’s salute to “the sfaccim”). Andrew Cuomo in 2014 said that conservatives had no place in the state.

That Cuomo's running in the first place is surely peculiar, given his shoddy record. Again, chances are he did so in order to make Mamdani look better by comparison. And it's entirely valid to say Cuomo will be responsible if, in the end, Mamdani stands elected as mayor.

Since we're on the subject, it's decidedly crucial to note one of the groups in New York that's backing Mamdani:

Turning to political developments in New York City, Block addressed concerns over the potential election of Mamdani as mayor. "The Jewish community in New York is very diverse. Some support Mamdani, including Satmar communities that are anti-Zionist," he said. "But overall, the community is troubled by having a mayor who doesn't support Israel and has spoken out against it."

It was reported previously that the Satmar clan warmly welcomed Mamdani at a meeting, and no doubt, plenty of Satmar will vote for him. As horrible as that is, it will make clear a clan whose customs are as prudish as theirs sees nothing wrong with sharia, no matter how much worse it is. If Mamdani's elected due to the Jewish vote, the Satmar will decidedly also have to be blamed, though obviously, considering how twisted they are, some will argue it's a moot point. In any event, chances are we'll awaken to a very sad scenario in the coming week.

The Islamic response to Charlie Kirk's murder was sadly predictable

In the few days now since the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, it's been discovered, far from surprisingly, that Muslim activists have only responded to the terrible incident with nothing but hatred:

The warped but inventive minds that make up the U.S. Islamist movement have been busy the last few days, trying to get some traction on social media and pile on the hate for Charlie Kirk.

It's Islamists, so the very first thing that comes to mind is "conspiracy."

Daniel Haqiqatjou, founder of Muslim Skeptic, blamed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for Kirk's death.

Haqiqatjou took the standard left-wing line that Trump was going to use Kirk's death as a sort of "Reichstag Fire" to begin a general crackdown.

Haqiqatjou added in another post that Charlie Kirk was murdered as a result of a "Zionist conspiracy." The nutcase failed to explain how Kirk, a huge supporter of Israel, as he pointed out earlier, could be a victim of "Zionists." [...]

The U.K. Islamist news outlet 5Pillars gloated over Kirk's death, criticizing him for his statement that Islamic values are incompatible with Western values, and asserting, “It’s not Islamophobia to notice that Muslims want to import values into the West that seek to destabilize our civilization.”

None of this is surprising, although the idiocy of positing Netanyahu's involvement in the assassination should disabuse those who believe Islamists are rational players who can live in peace with the West. Their notions of individual liberty are either absent or so skewed as to be unrecognizable. Their tolerance of other religions doesn't exist. And let's not even discuss the way they treat women like cattle.

This is all truly obscene, and decidedly calls for a lawsuit by the Kirk family against the Religion of Peace adherents who defamed the poor guy for daring to state facts. There've been a lot of leftists who lost jobs for making offensive comments about the Kirk murder, with one of the most prominent being Matthew Dowd, now formerly of MSNBC news. All responsible businesses in the USA and elsewhere who wish to retain a responsible image should also make sure to distance themselves from any Islamists who've done anything similar.

The murderer of Charlie Kirk had a transsexual partner

In the continuing investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk, it's been discovered the murderer had a transsexual partner:

Charlie Kirk was assassinated Wednesday while answering a question about transgender shooters, and the alleged assassin is a 22-year-old man with a transgender partner. [...]

Now, FOX News’ Brooke Singman is reporting that Robinson “lived with his his transgender partner.”

So in other words, the murderer, Tyler Robinson, was possibly a homosexual man living with another man who pretended to be a woman?!? Ugh. Next thing you know, we'll learn the partner believed in usurping women in the worst ways possible. This is one of the most abominable tragedies to occur in recent history, and has left a wife without her husband, and children without their father. Mr. Robinson must receive severe punishment for his crime, and the LGBT movement should be absolutely ashamed of what they've led to.

Here's Mrs. Kirk's eulogy to her husband:

“I want to thank the millions of people who have shown their love for Charlie here in Phoenix, across America, and worldwide,” Erika said. “I want to thank my husband’s dear friend, Vice President Vance, and his phenomenal wife, Usha, for their love and support. You guys honored my husband so well, bringing him home.”

“I want to thank President Trump and his incredible family for the same. Mr. President, my husband loved you,” Erika continued. “And, he knew that you loved him too. He did. Your friendship was amazing. You supported him so well.”

Again, my condolences to the family.

Since we're on the subject, here's also commentary by Shuvael ben-Gvir, son of the internal security minister in Israel, who once met Kirk:

Shuvael Ben Gvir, the son of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, spoke about the personal meeting he had in the US with the pro-Israeli right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated this week.

He said that the meeting took place during a trip he took before he drafted in an elite IDF unit. “I met Charlie during a trip I took before drafting. I approached him and told him that he was an inspiration for the videos I upload. We started talking and when I told him that I was from Israel, he immediately had a big smile and he replied enthusiastically, “God bless you.”

The young Ben Gvir described how Kirk shared the reasons why he works on his projects and his vision to make America and the world a better place. “I shared with him that I was on a trip before enlisting in the IDF and he was very enthusiastic - even more so when he found out that I was Ben Gvir’s son. I ended the conversation by telling him that he was the future of the US, and I truly believed it.”

Ben-Gvir also said that Kirk made a deep impression on him. "Charlie was 31 years old, eloquent, intelligent, courageous, and above all, willing to sacrifice a lot to achieve his goals. Charlie was a great lover of Israel, and his death is not only a huge loss to the US, but to the entire world. May his memory be blessed."

Amen to that.

Awful leftist rhetoric still remains in 24th year since 9-11

Juda Honickman wrote about what the sadly murdered Charlie Kirk stood for:

Charlie spoke boldly at a time when boldness often comes with a price. He defended faith, family, and freedom when so many preferred silence. And perhaps most importantly for me, he stood unapologetically with Israel. In a world eager to downplay or dismiss the Jewish people’s right to defend themselves, Charlie refused to bend.

He said it plainly: Israel’s fight is America’s fight, because the forces that want to destroy Israel are the same forces that despise freedom everywhere.

When Hamas terrorists slaughtered innocent Jews on October 7th, Charlie didn’t hide behind the cowardly “both sides” rhetoric that poisoned so much of the media and academia. He called evil by its name. He condemned Hamas with clarity and conviction, and he exposed the hypocrisy of a world that cheered America’s strikes against terror after 9/11 but condemned Israel for daring to defend its own people.

He stood shoulder to shoulder with Israel, and even more than that, shoulder to shoulder with the truth.

That is why his loss cuts so deeply. We didn’t just lose a commentator. We lost a defender. We lost a man who gave courage to countless others simply by refusing to back down. For many of us, Charlie was a reminder that we were not alone in the fight. And now, in his absence, we feel that loneliness all over again.

But here is the reality: Charlie’s death cannot just be a moment of mourning. It must be a moment of decision. It must be a turning point.

On 9/11, nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered. The United States responded with overwhelming force, striking terrorists across oceans and even eliminating leaders in foreign capitals. The world applauded. On October 7th, Jews were slaughtered in their homes. Israel responded by striking those who planned and funded the massacre, including in Doha. And suddenly, many of those same voices who had cheered America condemned Israel. Charlie Kirk had no patience for that hypocrisy, and neither should we.

Now, as America reels from Charlie’s death, we face our own hypocrisy test. Will we honor his memory by standing boldly with truth, or will we retreat into silence and despair? Do we carry forward the torch he lit, or do we allow it to be extinguished?

One of the worst things to occur in the years since 911 is that there's now a whole generation that actually considers the abominable act "justified", so it's not like those Chomskyites actually support the USA's efforts to defend itself against jihadists, and an almost foregone conclusion they never did.

And it's important to remember that the Muslims of Gaza celebrated 911 years before, and October 7, 2023 years later. That's precisely why, aside from the fabricated "ethnicity", they don't deserve to be leaders. Obviously, it's bad that the Hamas has using torture against their subjects. But that still doesn't excuse or absolve any and all who supported barbarism as they did back in late 2001. When are these particular facts going to be taught in schools for a change?

Anyway, condolences again to Kirk's family. What happened in Orem, Utah is absolutely terrible.

Update: here's some commentary by Joseph Haddad.

Update 2: president Donald Trump announced the FBI now has the Utah assassination culprit in custody. Let's hope so. It remains to be seen what else will be reported about this terrible case.

Update 3: according to this report, the weapons/ammo discovered that the murderer used had transsexual slogans scrawled on them.

Update 4: and now, the culprit has been identified:

The alleged Charlie Kirk assassin now in custody is identified as a 22-year-old Utah resident named Tyler Robinson, according to NBC News. [...]

On Thursday morning, Breitbart News reported that Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) Commissioner Beau Mason spoke at a press conference and said the shooter “appears to be of college age.” Now a 22-year-old is in custody.

Breitbart News noted that a CNN report indicated the suspect was taken into custody after confessing to his father.

The monster should be thrown into a dark dungeon and put to an end for the repulsive crime he committed.

John Daniel Davidson's wrong about how the USA should deal with middle eastern issues

One of The Federalist's leading editors, John Daniel Davidson, has written a very sloppy and concerning take on Donald Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, one that sounds like he doesn't think the USA should promote and demand civilized values in the middle east:

Not only did Trump lambast neocon “nation-building” in the region, he more or less vowed never to pursue the kinds of neocon misadventures that spilt American blood and treasure over the past 25 years in the insane pursuit of creating western liberal democracies in the Middle East.

In stark and unmistakable terms, the president reminded the world of the abject failure of decades of neocon and liberal interventionist U.S. foreign policy under both Democrat and Republican leadership. He specifically called out the trillions of U.S. tax dollars wasted in a totally unsuccessful attempt to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into western-style democracies as part of the global war on terror.

“In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Trump said. “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad.”

Ahem. If we take Afghanistan as an example, they didn't even try to do that, and most importantly, refused to wean the country off of the Islamic religion. How does Mr. Davidson expect there to be any long range peace and quiet if there's a dominant ideology that leads to a boomerang effect, where years later, they can, much like a "sleeper agent", go right back to old and dirty tricks?

In other words, Trump’s vision of American foreign policy isn’t driven by a zeal to remake the world into some version of a liberal western democracy. In Riyadh, he was saying that Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states can just be Islamic monarchies, and as long as they present no threat to American interests, and as long as they promote peace and stability, then we can do business with them.

Well, this is telling something. So it's okay if Islam continues to govern such countries - and additionally chilling, if it ends up dominating Europe and the USA - so long as it supposedly doesn't affect the USA? Also, what's this about a "liberal" western democracy? Why not a conservative western democracy? This has got to be another chilling flaw in Mr. Davidson's argument. Something only somebody who doesn't value foreign lives as much as local ones could possibly write. He later says, very insultingly:

Critics will simply repeat platitudes like we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, or that a world of liberal democracies is in the American interest. Maybe that’s true in theory, but in practice it amounts to a carte blanche to intervene anywhere in the world for any reason. What’s more, no one seriously believes that America has the ability or competence to plant stable democracies in Africa or Asia — or anywhere, for that matter. The reason for this is simple: stable democracies cannot be planted by any outside power, no matter how rich and powerful. They have to grow organically and domestically from the people themselves. We can applaud emergent democracies, we can do business with them, but there is precious little we can do to guarantee them, much less build them in the first place.

And not every nation has to be a democracy. The great lie of the Bush-era war on terror was that all people yearn for freedom and democracy. No they don’t. Some yearn much more for justice, or righteousness, or simply revenge. Some will be hereditary monarchies, or Islamic caliphates, or any number of other things. That’s fine. We shouldn’t be troubled by our differences with other nations, so long as they don’t threaten us. The idea that we could turn Afghanistan into a modern democratic state was perhaps the greatest delusion of the past quarter-century. As Trump said on Tuesday, “I am willing to end past conflicts and forge new partnerships for a better and more stable world, even if our differences may be very profound.”

Ahem. Maybe democracy isn't what every nation need be, but should any nation be a spot where barbarism, misogyny and racism can reign? Absolutely not. And it's unacceptable that any country have totalitarians savaging their own subjects. Similar points can be made about communism. Davidson's argument is defeatist in that it additionally refuses to recognize that indoctrination to evil is another grave wrong that can't go unopposed. And it goes without saying that said indoctrination is what's led to "honor murders" by Islamofascists. And it's insulting to Americans' intellects to say the USA doesn't have the ability to establish sturdy democracies on continents like Africa and Asia. By that logic, they didn't have what it took to tame Germany and Japan either.

And Adam Johnston isn't doing much better with his claim the USA shouldn't go to war with Iran, which has some strange descriptions of certain commentary figures:

Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is under fire from neocons after she recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee “that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized [restarting] the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

This caused neoconservative media personality Mark Levin and 2024 GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley to push back on Gabbard, both sharing an op-ed from former John Bolton Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz, who called the intelligence reports referenced by Gabbard “stupid intelligence.”

I can't currently recall Levin ever being described before as a "neocon". Is this some kind of absurd propaganda to undermine those who believe force is the only true way to defeat savage evil? And are the lives of innocent women in Iran persecuted for not dressing in abayas worthless? Well that's what Johnston runs the gauntlet of implying, and that's no improvement over Davidson's approach. Maybe the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but that's only if you fail to get rid of the Islamist indoctrination that since became more prevalent there. Same can be said about Iran. Are we to assume Johnston and Davidson also believe Lebanon should remain in the clutches of the Islamists too?

Yet under the growing influence of the more nationalist and non-interventionist America First movement, this longstanding alliance is beginning to fracture. A new generation of right-wing leaders — figures who are notably more realist and restraint-oriented, and less reflexively pro-Israel, such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Elbridge Colby, and influential media figures like Tucker Carlson — are questioning endless American interventionism in the Middle East and whether U.S. interests are always best served by unconditional support for Israel.

Wow, with this kind of mentality, we'd never have won WW2, let alone WW1. Interesting Carlson comes up in discussion here, because he's regrettably proven negative to Israel, and that's not good. Also, what's so wrong with being "hawkish"? Does that mean that when a left-winger is "dovish" that's a great thing? Forget it, these propagandists have gone too far, and the Federalist's just proven a most embarrassingly bad publication with this embarrassment.

Now in more news related to Trump's recent Saudi Arabia conference, Christine Williams has addressed the issue, and points to serious info on what crimes al-Sharaa's organization has done:

A MEMRI article entitled, “Qatar Continues To Finance Terror With U.S. Consent: Will Fund Syria’s New Regime, Led By HTS Terror Organization, Just As It Funded Hamas,” examined the terrorist history of Syrian leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who reverted to his original name Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, to create a false impression that he had changed, even though he remains dedicated to the jihadist cause, ie. to establish the Sharia.

Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) “was established in 2012 by Al-Sharaa (then known as Al-Joulani) at the behest of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who would soon become the founder of ISIS. In 2013 the group became the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria after Al-Joulani broke with Al-Baghdadi and swore allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”

Al-Sharaa’s followers have slaughtered Christians, Alawites and Druze since toppling Al-Assad.

The MEMRI article also exposes the modus operandi of Qatar, “the world’s greatest financer of extremist Islamist elements such as the Muslims Brotherhood and jihadi terror organizations.”

[...] The fall of the al-Assad Syrian regime was bad news for its staunch ally, Iran, which was good news to America and Israel. But like the mujahideen of Afghanistan, Al-Sharaa is no friend to America and Israel, and neither is Qatar. In December, Qatar “rushed to position itself as a pivotal player in shaping Syria’s future” after the fall of al-Assad. Qatar was hand in hand with “its closest regional partner,” Turkey, which was responsible for facilitating and backing al-Sharaa before and after al-Assad’s fall.

Now al-Sharaa is making significant inroads, as his leadership is legitimized by Muslim Brotherhood-supporting Qatar (and Turkey), with new US support to boot.

Seriously, it's very sad and regrettable it's come to this, because not only does it not help Israel, it also does not help any innocent Druze, Kurds and Yazidis in the area. Williams does note though:

One thing for certain is that Trump inherited Joe Biden’s complete betrayal of American interests, both domestically and abroad. Biden left open borders, poured billions into the coffers of Iran, left billions of dollars worth of state-of-the-art military equipment in Afghanistan for free use by the Taliban, and virtually factored America out of the equation of any global influence. Biden left Trump to contend with a nuclear threshold Iran and a turbulent Middle East that saw America under the declining Biden as nothing more than a joke.

It’s also no secret that Qatar has been buying out American campuses, where pro-Hamas, intimidating protests proliferated, with little to no intervention by the campus administration.

The picture looks grim. But one needs to remember that Trump, not Biden, cracked down on campus antisemitism, which was disguised as “free speech” when it was really a promotion of jihad terror against Israel and Jews.

Yes, but that doesn't mean Trump should allow jihadism to gain footholds even abroad. As some conservatives may realize, the day will come when right-wingers will have no choice but to do battle overseas if that's what it takes to ensure future generations of decent folk everywhere will have a future. Let's also consider that Iran may not be the only Islamic regime with nuclear research in store.

Of course, the cautionary tale of the mujahideen in Afghanistan should be remembered. However, considering Trump’s past policies of protecting American borders from the worst criminals and jihadists, as well as his reinstatement of the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries of concern, it makes little sense to assume without further evidence that he would betray America to the jihadist cause. Let’s hope there is a method (and long-term results) to the madness — as appears to be the case even at this point. In the meantime, expect the inevitable media circus as America continues to emerge from disastrous, nightmarish Democrat rule.

Certainly it's important to protect USA borders, and to back Israel, but that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on any innocent souls in Islamic regimes who should be liberated from the Religion of Peace's tyranny. And even communist regimes are a bad omen. Mainly because of how they're more than perfectly willling to do business with the Religion of Peace, and maybe even sell out their countries to Islam in the end. Interestingly enough, Trump's deal with al-Sharaa in Syria doesn't seem to have met any opposition or complaints from the Democrats. Surely that's not telling something?

Then, here's some more observations about Trump's gamble on Syria:

“Obviously, it is a bit of a gamble,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, told the DCNF. “If you take a look at historical cases in which an entity has been on a terrorist list and then has transitioned towards becoming more acceptable as they become a political party or take over a country, whether it’s the [African National Congress], the [Irish Republican Army], or the [Palestinian Liberation Organization], it’s nevertheless been a process with specific demands and time in order to make sure that this is not just a temporary change of heart.”

What it really is, is taqqiya (deception). And vehement refusal by the PLO to abandon Islam only worsens the matter.

Al-Sharaa has attempted to distance himself from his jihadist past, but HTS still retains the salafist jihadist interpretation of Islam that al-Qaeda espouses, with the latter viewing HTS as traitorous.

Point: if we take the case of Egypt's past autocrat Anwar Sadat as an example, there are jihadists who won't accept that he pulled an act of deception of his own on Israel, and that's how Sadat was slain a few years after the Camp David accords. So it's no surprise if al-Qaeda doesn't accept al-Sharaa's own acts of deception regardless of his intentions. Either way, both al Qaeda and al-Sharaa are bad news, and nobody should have to make a choice between either.

More important information comes from Dr. Yehuda Balanga:

Last Wednesday, US President Donald Trump met with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (al-Julani). It appears Trump chose to ignore the fact that until that meeting, al-Sharaa had been a wanted terrorist in the eyes of the Americans. Overnight, he became wanted in Washington under very different circumstances. "A young and attractive guy," Trump said of al-Sharaa. "A tough guy with a strong background. A very strong background. A fighter." Notably, the American president failed to mention that this "fighter" he praised led a Sunni Islamist-jihadist organization that persecuted and killed men, women, and children during the Syrian civil war solely because of their religious beliefs or political affiliations. [...]

To date, no Islamist movement that seized power has ever abandoned its ideology. Quite the contrary - every past success has emboldened a wider Islamist surge. This was true in Iran after the 1979 revolution, and again after the Arab Spring, when Islamist movements, many tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, rose to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and now Syria. Given al-Sharaa's past in al-Qaida and Islamic State, a shift in worldview seems unlikely.

See, this is exactly what may be overlooked in this whole concerning development. Do MAGA supports and America Firsters intend to let this go without public comment?

Anyway, after discovering what the above writers/editors for the Federalist were using for apologia, I decided I'd had enough, and the time had come to remove them from my side menu. Even the Daily Caller so far hasn't written anything that foolish, which is amazing considering Carlson was one of their co-founders. The Federalist had turned out some very tasteless, disturbing and divisive op-eds before, and these latest are only compounding a very embarrassingly bad situation. We could decidedly do without their shoddy "opinions".

The Death of the 'Progressive Moment'

I don't know if we're talking about just a "moment." We should be burying a movement. And they're not "progressives." They're leftists, communists. Let's see them decimated over the next four years --- and beyond.

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Progressive Moment in Global Politics Is Over":

Weak economic growth and record immigration are driving gains by the right, especially populists.

The progressive moment is over—at least for now.

This past year showed that the progressive politics that dominated most industrialized countries over the past two decades or more is shifting to the right, fueled by working-class anxieties over the economy and immigration, and growing fatigue with issues from climate change to identity politics.

The return of Donald Trump to the White House is the most dramatic and important example—but it is far from the only one.

Across Europe, where economic growth has largely stalled, conservatives and populist right-wing parties are making unprecedented gains. Three-quarters of governments in the European Union are either led by a right-of-center party or are ruled by a coalition that includes at least one.

The shift is set to continue. Canada appears poised to kick out a deeply unpopular progressive prime minister and Germany is expected to dump its center-left government. Polls show the top two parties in Germany represent the center-right and the far-right.

Part of the shift is the normal pendulum of politics swinging back and forth between established parties on the left and right. The difference this time is a strong strain of populism and a growing rejection of traditional parties.

In country after country, many working-class voters—especially those outside the biggest cities—are signaling the same thing: They mistrust the establishment—from academics to bankers to traditional politicians—and feel these elites are out of touch and don’t care about people like them.

Years of increased migration and trade, coupled with low economic growth, have led to a backlash and a rise in nationalism, where people want more of a sense of control, political analysts say. The rise of social media has exacerbated divisions and led to an upsurge in antiestablishment parties.

“It’s a broad shift that goes across countries,” said Ruy Teixeira, a lifelong Democrat who now works for the center-right American Enterprise Institute think tank. “Working-class people are just pissed off—about immigration, about all the culture war stuff, and the relatively poor economic performance that has shaped the working-class experience in the 21st century.”

While one of the two establishment parties won in the U.S., the Republicans have largely been taken over by the insurgent figure of Trump, who clearly has a mandate from voters to shake things up, said Teixeira. He said he doesn’t see either the left or conventional right easily recapturing Trump’s populist, multiracial working-class majority.

In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s center-left Liberal Party looks to be careening toward a decisive election loss, trailing the Conservative Party by roughly 20 points in opinion polls. Trudeau must hold a vote by October 2025...

More.

And for Canada, see, "Trudeau to Resign as Voters Sour on His Vision for Canada."

Plus, at Instapundit, "WELL, BYE." 

And BCF, "Justin Trudeau Has Quit. Will The Legacy He Built Survive? … Well It Will Take Time To Rebuild The Ruined Nation He Leaves Behind So There’s That."