Frans Hals Two Laughing Boys with a Mug of Beer 1626
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1970169307867890068
https://twitter.com/Juliesnark1731/status/1970092182196642217
https://twitter.com/TheBritLad/status/1970047562565488823
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1970153374310945092
Hmmmm. “‘This would have taken a moose or two down, [or] an elk.’”
• ‘Absolute Miracle’ May Have Saved Lives During Charlie Kirk Murder (ET)
A spokesperson for Turning Point USA provided an update on the assassination of the group’s founder, Charlie Kirk, earlier in September and said Kirk’s body “stopped” the bullet from producing an exit wound. Citing a surgeon at the hospital that assisted Kirk, spokesman Andrew Kolvet wrote in a post on X that the bullet that killed Kirk on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University “‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round.’ “‘I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything,’” the surgeon said, according to Kolvet’s post. “‘This would have taken a moose or two down, [or] an elk.’” But the bullet “didn’t go through” because “Charlie’s body stopped it,” Kolvet said in the Sept. 20 post.
“I mentioned to his doctor that there were dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie on the other side of the tent,” he said. The doctor then told Kolvet, according to his post, that it “‘was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed’” by the bullet. According to the doctor, the shot “‘likely would have killed those standing behind [Kirk] too.’” “Even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him,” Kolvet wrote, noting that the doctor told him that the bullet had been recovered. It was discovered underneath Kirk’s skin. Officials have said the gun used in the shooting was a Mauser 98 model chambered in .30-06. According to prosecutors, the suspected assassin, Tyler Robinson, had told a male with whom he was in a romantic relationship that it was his grandfather’s gun. Authorities also said DNA on the trigger of the rifle that killed Kirk matched that of Robinson.
The authorities have released text messages said to be between Robinson and his romantic partner, whom prosecutors said identifies as a transgender female and was Robinson’s roommate. In these messages, Robinson allegedly said he plotted the attack for about a week and used a scope. Officials said Robinson had become “more political” in recent years, expressing more left-wing and pro-transgender views. When the roommate asked the suspect why he shot Kirk, according to the charging documents, Robinson said in response: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”Kirk had become a prominent force in politics and was credited with energizing the Republican base, particularly among youth, and helping President Donald Trump win back the White House in 2024.
Robinson’s roommate appeared shocked in the text exchange after the shooting, according to court documents, asking Robinson “why he did it and how long he’d been planning it.” While authorities say Robinson has not been cooperating with investigators, they say his family and friends have been talking to officials. Robinson made his first court appearance last week, with a judge declaring the suspect indigent and provisionally appointing a public defender. That public defender has not yet been named. The suspect faces capital aggravated murder, obstruction, witness tampering, and other charges. A capital murder charge means that Robinson could receive the death penalty. His next court date is set for Sept. 29. Robinson has not issued any public statements in response to the allegations.
Read more …
“Kolvet’s claims have been met with widespread skepticism online.”
• Bullet That Hit Charlie Kirk Purportedly Made No Exit Wound (HUSA)
Call it a miracle—though many are calling bullshit. Andrew Kolvet, the executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” said Saturday that he spoke with the surgeon who worked on conservative activist Charlie Kirk at the hospital. According to Kolvet, the surgeon said the .30-caliber bullet that hit conservative activist Charlie Kirk made no exit wound because Kirk is “like the man of steel.” “He said the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc.’ But it didn’t go through. Charlie’s body stopped it,” Kolvet said on Twitter/X.
The surgeon supposedly explained that “his bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel. It should have just gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too.” The coroner found the round just beneath Kirk’s skin, Kolvet added. By comparison, the .30-caliber round that Secret Service counter-sniper David King fired at alleged would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks made five wounds. According to the medical examiner who autopsied Crooks, he suffered five gunshot wounds—an entry wound, an exit wound, a re-entry wound, and “two corresponding, partial re-exit wounds.”
“There is a corresponding, partial gunshot re-exit wound on the lateral right upper back … There is an additional, corresponding partial gunshot re-exit wound on the lateral right upper back,” stated Crooks’s autopsy report, which was obtained exclusively by Headline USA. The bullet that hit Crooks came from a 300 Win Mag cartridge, which is more powerful than the .30-06 that allegedly was used in the Kirk assassination—but both have the same caliber bullet. Kolvet’s statement comes amidst public questions about what happened to the .30-06 round said to have slain Kirk. Ballistics experts have floated various theories about what really happened, speculating that Kirk may have been shot from somewhere else—possibly from his right side or even from below. Kolvet’s claims have been met with widespread skepticism online.
https://twitter.com/KitKlarenberg/status/1969707314618790326?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1969707314618790326%7Ctwgr%5E47736aecc70ef1bad7a6a7699346024dd87bba18%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fheadlineusa.com%2Fbullet-that-hit-charlie-kirk-purportedly-made-no-exit-wound%2F
Read more …
“‘Except a corn of wheat fall onto the ground and die, it abideth alone.”
• Building a Legacy: Charlie Kirk’s Memorial (Salgado)
The most important officials in the United States, including the president, gathered to pay tribute to one man yesterday. Pastors glorified his faith, academics praised his intellect, and hundreds of thousands of people chanted his name. This man did not hold elected office. He was not a billionaire or an entertainer or a star athlete. He was a patriot who believed so strongly in free speech and the truth that he changed history. In a little over a decade, Charlie Kirk went from being a teenager with a lot of enthusiasm but no money or connections to becoming leader of a world-shaping movement, a man whom the most famous and powerful patriots of our era were proud to know. His loss to assassination was a grievous blow for America, which needed his talent and his vision for years to come. It was also a personal tragedy for his wife and little children.
But at only 31 years of age, Charlie Kirk left behind him a legacy much greater than that of many an octogenarian. As Donald Trump said, Charlie was “one of the giants of our nation,” a true “martyr for American freedom.” White House official Stephen Miller, speaking with intensity, declared, “The day Charlie died the angels wept, but their tears have turned to fire in our hearts.” He told Charlie’s enemies, “You have nothing, you are nothing, you are wickedness….You thought you could kill Charlie Kirk; you have made him immortal.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth compared Kirk to St. Paul and described him as “a warrior for country, a warrior for [Christ],” in the best tradition of American courage. His fellow cabinet member, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said that Charlie Kirk, like Christ his Master, “changed the trajectory of history.
Charlie’s other overarching passion was free speech,” and “there’s a lot worse things than death and one of those is if we lost our constitutional rights in this country.” As the true warrior he was, Hegseth continued, “Charlie died with his boots on, and he died so that we did not have to undergo those fates worse than death.” Every speaker referred to the importance of faith for Kirk, from his pastor Rob McCoy to gospel singers to the president (read Chris Queen’s piece). As Kennedy said, “Charlie’s mission was Jesus Christ and also free speech.” Erika Kirk, before forgiving her husband’s murderer, said that “more than anything, Charlie wanted to do not his will but God’s will,” and “after Charlie’s assassination we didn’t see violence, we didn’t see rioting,” but “instead we saw what my husband always prayed we’d see in this country. We saw revival.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Charlie would want everyone watching or attending the memorial to believe we’re created by God, that we sinned and were redeemed, and that at the end of time all believers will have a great re-union, including with Charlie himself. Jack Posobiec, rosary in hand, urged attendees to put on the armor of God, “for Charlie.” Dr. Ben Carson read John 12:24 because Charlie was shot, he said, at 12:24 p.m. on Sept. 10: “‘Except a corn of wheat fall onto the ground and die, it abideth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.’ And I want to thank Charlie for his sacrifice, because much fruit is going to be realized.” Kirk’s encouragement to young people to get married and raise families was also a recurring theme. Kirk’s Chief of Staff, Mikey McCoy, thanked Charlie for urging him to get married and helping him meet his wife, who stood beside him holding his arm.
While some ignorant, elitist leftists sneered at Kirk’s lack of a college degree, Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry Arnn lauded Kirk’s intellect and was proud to remember that Kirk had taken multiple online courses through Hillsdale. “I keep a list in my head of the 6 or 8 young people, and I’m very privileged, I get to know many inspiring young people who are the best I ever saw. Charlie is the only one who was never a full-time student at Hillsdale College who was on that list,” Arnn said, announcing an honorary degree for Kirk. Donald Trump Jr. said Kirk “was like a little brother to me,” but amid the heartbreaking tragedy, “we won’t be intimidated…Our message of faith, family, and country will not be silenced.” Don Jr. urged, “His legacy must be that when they took his life, a million more Charlies stepped up to fill the void. We are all Charlie!”
Vice President JD Vance, tears in his eyes, said of Kirk, “He changed the face of conservatism in our time and in doing so he changed the course of history….[Debate] was the vehicle for bringing the light of truth to dark places.” The most moving speech of the day was the eulogy by Mrs. Erika Kirk, who stood strong even as she wept, filled with love and forgiveness for friends and foes alike, describing the beauty of her marriage, the excruciating heartache of Charlie’s assassination, and her plans to carry on her husband’s vital work of free speech and outreach to young Americans.
Finally, Donald Trump paid tribute to the man he credits with ensuring his 2024 election victory. “Charlie’s murder was not just an attack on one man,” Trump stated, but on “our entire nation….The gun was pointed at him but the bullet was aimed at all of us.” Kirk changed history in his three decades of life on earth, Trump declared, before ending by calling Erika out on stage again to embrace her.
It was my great honor to attend the memorial of Charlie Kirk, a visionary and American hero. As someone only a few years younger than Kirk, his sudden death provokes a question in me as well as many of my fellow Gen Z and millennial Americans — what will my legacy be? Charlie Kirk was one in a billion. But while he was the indispensable man, he needed the staff, volunteers, fans, and friends who helped him make his movement a success. Now that he is gone, We the People are left to take up his banner, practice his courage, display his faith and patriotism, and prove to the bloodthirsty Democrats that we are all Charlie Kirk now.
Read more …
Trying to beat Russia amounts to suicide.
• Moscow Ready To Respond To Any Threat – Putin (RT)
Russia is ready to respond to any threats, President Vladimir Putin has said, adding that Moscow still supports a diplomatic path to ease tensions despite the West’s destructive policies.Speaking ahead of the Security Council meeting on Monday, Putin sounded the alarm with regard to the “extreme danger of further deterioration” of the geopolitical situation, particularly amid the Ukraine conflict.= He added that while Russia had offered “specific ideas” to correct this trajectory, these “warnings and initiatives received no clear response.”There should be no doubt about this: Russia is capable of responding to any existing and newly emerging threats. Responding not with words, but through the application of military-technical measures, Putin warned.
He noted Moscow’s decision to abandon the unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles last month, describing it as a forced step caused by the need to counter plans to deploy US- and other Western-made missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Putin stressed, however, that Russia is not interested in warmongering and saber-rattling. “We are confident in the reliability and effectiveness of our national deterrent forces, but at the same time we are not interested in further escalating tensions or fueling an arms race.” He added that Russia has always prioritized “political and diplomatic methods for maintaining international peace, based on the principles of equality, indivisibility of security, and mutual consideration of interests.”
Putin signaled that Moscow is ready to prolong the 2010 New START Treaty, the last remaining arms control pact between Russia and the US, which expires in February. It limits each side to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems, and provides for inspections and data exchanges to verify compliance. This initiative, Putin said, “could make a significant contribution to creating an atmosphere conducive to substantive strategic dialogue with the United States.”
Read more …
“The New START Treaty will expire on February 5, 2026, signaling the imminent end of the last international accord directly limiting nuclear missile capabilities.”
• Putin Makes Nuclear Treaty Offer To US (RT)
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow will continue to adhere to a key nuclear arms control treaty signed with the US for one year after its expiration, provided Washington agrees to do the same. Speaking ahead of a Security Council meeting on Monday, Putin said global strategic stability has been increasingly threatened by what he described as the destructive actions of Western nations. He stressed that while Moscow is ready to meet any threat, it is and always has been interested in political and diplomatic methods of resolving conflicts.
Russia is prepared to follow the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) treaty for one year after its expiration next February, provided the US reciprocates and refrains from actions that could break the nuclear status quo, such as deploying interceptor systems in space, Putin offered. The Russia-US treaty establishes limits on the numbers of intercontinental-range nuclear weapons both sides can deploy. Below is the full text of Putin’s speech, as published on the Kremlin website:
Good afternoon, colleagues,
We have several topics to discuss today, including matters related to migration policy. However, I would like to begin with an issue of prime importance, one that is critical to safeguarding our national interests, Russia’s sovereignty, and without exaggeration, international security as a whole. I am referring to the situation in the realm of strategic stability, which, regrettably, continues to deteriorate. This is driven by a combination of factors, which are negative, compounding existing strategic risks and generating new ones. As a result of the destructive actions previously taken by Western countries, the foundations of constructive relations and practical cooperation between nuclear powers have been significantly undermined.
The basis for dialogue within relevant bilateral and multilateral frameworks has been eroded. Gradually, the system of Soviet-American and Russian-American agreements on nuclear missile and strategic defense arms control – long relied upon to stabilize relations between the two largest nuclear powers and to enhance global security – has been nearly dismantled. Let me reiterate: We have repeatedly examined the causes and potential consequences of this situation. We attribute the numerous challenges that have accumulated in the strategic sphere since the beginning of the 21st century to the destructive actions of the West, their destabilizing doctrines and military-technical programs designed to undermine global parity and pursue absolute, overwhelming superiority.
We have consistently and thoroughly addressed these issues, criticized this approach, and not only highlighted the extreme dangers of further deterioration but also repeatedly proposed concrete ideas for joint solutions. However, our warnings and initiatives have not received a clear response. Let me emphasize and let there be no doubt: Russia is fully capable of responding to any current or emerging threat, not with words, but through concrete military-technical measures. A clear example is our decision to end the unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-based short- and intermediate-range missiles. This was a forced move needed for ensuring an adequate response to the deployment of similar US and other Western-made weapons in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s security.
Our plans to strengthen the country’s defense capability are being developed with full regard to the evolving international situation, and they are being implemented in a comprehensive and timely manner. We are confident in the reliability and effectiveness of our national deterrent forces. At the same time, we are not seeking to further escalate tensions or fuel an arms race. Russia has consistently upheld the primacy of political and diplomatic methods for maintaining global peace, based on the principles of equality, the indivisibility of security, and mutual respect for interests.
Let me remind you that the last major political and diplomatic achievement in the field of strategic stability was the conclusion of the Russian-American New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2010. However, owing to the profoundly hostile policies of the Biden administration, which undermined the fundamental principles on which this treaty was built, its full implementation was suspended in 2023. Nevertheless, both parties have declared their intention to continue voluntarily observing the central quantitative limits of the strategic offensive arms treaty until its expiry. For nearly 15 years, this agreement has played a constructive role in maintaining balance and predictability in the sphere of strategic offensive weapons.
The New START Treaty will expire on February 5, 2026, signaling the imminent end of the last international accord directly limiting nuclear missile capabilities. A complete renunciation of this treaty’s legacy would, from many points, be a grave and short-sighted mistake. It would also have adverse implications for the objectives of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In order to prevent the emergence of a new strategic arms race and to preserve an acceptable degree of predictability and restraint, we consider it reasonable to maintain at this turbulent time the status quo established under New START. Accordingly, Russia is prepared to continue observing the treaty’s central quantitative restrictions for one year after February 5, 2026.
Following that date, based on a careful assessment of the situation, we will make a definite decision on whether to uphold these voluntary self-limitations. We believe that this measure is only feasible if the United States acts in a similar spirit and refrains from steps that would undermine or disrupt the existing balance of deterrence. In this connection, I would like to ask the relevant agencies to maintain close oversight of American activities related to the START arsenal in the first place. Particular attention must be directed towards US plans to expand strategic components of its missile defense system, including preparations for the deployment of interceptors in outer space. We believe that the practical implementation of such destabilizing measures could nullify our efforts to maintain the status quo in the field of strategic offensive arms. We will respond appropriately in this case.
I believe that Russia’s initiative, if implemented, could make a substantial contribution to creating the conditions necessary for a substantive strategic dialogue with the United States – provided, of course, that the grounds for its full resumption are secured and that broader steps are taken to normalize bilateral relations and remove core security contradictions.
Let us now turn to the current agenda.
Read more …
“..a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.”
• Trump Declares Antifa a Terrorist Group (Catherine Salgado)
President Donald Trump officially designated Antifa a domestic terror organization on Monday. In his Sept. 22 executive order, Trump defined Antifa as “a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law. It uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals.” Antifa became particularly infamous during the 2020 summer of love and the so-called “mostly peaceful” protests, and it remains a source of violence in the United States, with Portland just one city still enduring months of anti-ICE Antifa riots.
Antifa, as defined, Trump continued, “involves coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists.” It is obvious that the federal government needs to take action against Antifa, which follows in a very long tradition of Democrat domestic terrorism stretching back to the mid-19th century. The KKK’s power is almost entirely a matter of the past, and hopefully that will be said one day soon of Antifa.
The president explained further that “Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity, then employs elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members.” This enhances the threat, as does the fact that Antifa has ties to other political organizations. Therefore, since Antifa has made it obvious through the cities it has torched and the other crimes that its members have committed that it is a domestic terror organization, Trump officially announced:
Because of the aforementioned pattern of political violence designed to suppress lawful political activity and obstruct the rule of law, I hereby designate Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” All relevant executive departments and agencies shall utilize all applicable authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa, or for which Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa provided material support, including necessary investigatory and prosecutorial actions against those who fund such operations. The president previously expressed his intention not only of investigating Antifa and its funding sources further, but of designating other radical leftist organizations as domestic terror groups too.
Read more …
And these guys still work at the FBI?
• Biden’s FBI Tried to Entrap Trump’s Border Czar Before the Election (Margolis)
Another day, another Biden scandal that the media desperately tries to dump on Trump. This time, MSNBC is working overtime to spin a damning story about Joe Biden’s FBI into yet another bogus hit piece on the Trump administration. Last year, while Biden and his minions were still calling the shots at the FBI, the bureau launched a brazen undercover operation targeting incoming Border Czar Tom Homan. Federal agents, posing as shady businessmen, tried to bait Homan with a $50,000 bribe in exchange for help securing contracts under a future Trump administration. It was a manufactured setup, designed from the start to entrap a Trump ally. The whole thing blew up in Biden’s face. When FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reviewed the case, they immediately exposed it as a political hit job.
“This matter originated under the previous administration,” they said in a joint statement. “They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.” Translation: Biden’s FBI wasted taxpayer dollars trying to entrap one of Trump’s top immigration advisors, and they failed. But instead of admitting Biden’s corruption, MSNBC twisted the story with a headline that made it sound like Trump’s DOJ covered up wrongdoing: “Tom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump’s DOJ shut it down.” This isn’t journalism—it’s propaganda. Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that Biden’s team launched the sting while Homan was advising Trump’s 2024 campaign—knowing full well he would play a major role in Trump’s second term? They weren’t investigating a crime; they were trying to create one.
“Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you’re referring to. So you should get your facts straight, number one,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday during the White House daily press briefing. “Number two, this was another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump’s strongest and most vocal supporters in the midst of a presidential campaign.” She added, “You had FBI agents going undercover to try and entrap one of the president’s top allies and supporters, someone who they knew very well would be taking a government position months later.” Leavitt continued, “They found zero evidence of illegal activity or criminal wrongdoing. And the White House and the president stand by Tom Homan 100% because he did absolutely nothing wrong, and he is a brave public servant who has done a phenomenal job in helping the president shut down the border.”
This is the Biden playbook: weaponize the Justice Department against political enemies. They tried it with Trump himself, dragging him through endless witch hunts. When that didn’t stop him, they moved on to targeting his inner circle. And when even that failed, the media stepped in to try and salvage the narrative. MSNBC’s shameless story proves the corporate media isn’t just biased—they’re active participants in political persecution. They took a story that completely vindicates Homan and twisted it into anti-Trump propaganda, counting on their audience to never read past the headline. The sad truth here is that Americans are being lied to by “journalists” who sold their souls to the Democrat Party.
Read more …
“..a Democratic Party that is diametrically opposed to the reconciling systems on which this nation was founded.”
• Why We Are at War (Richard C. Lyons)
Polarity is in the nature of things, in fact, just as the poles of north and south exist, matter itself is drawn into being at opposites, as in the forces of magnets. So are we; we are social creatures of this world given to being at opposites. When our nation’s founders gathered in Philadelphia 238 summers ago, with the wealth of all of their collected libraries, they studied history’s opposed factions: from the Plains and Coastal parties of the Athenians, to the factions of Marius and Sulla in Rome, to the Byzantine parties of the Blue and the Green, to the Guelphs and Ghibellines of the Florentines, to the literary houses of Verona, the Montagues and Capulets, whose differences devoured the lives and loves of innocents. One of the great fears of that great intellectual company was that America would fall, broken by such opposing factions.
They deliberately wrote the Constitution, our social compact, to overcome such factions. Firstly, by creating a Constitution based on common law, with protections of individual and property that shield everyone against the ambitions of government, or any party thereof. The founders crafted a Constitutional Republic based first on federalism, which allowed people as varied in interests as a Boston lawyer and a Key West fisherman to live under distinct state and local laws best suited to themselves. Much of our Constitution has to do with voting into office, by a majority, those representatives freely chosen to represent the citizens’ interests. If anyone does not represent the citizens’ interests, they are as easily voted out, thus ensuring that governance is representative of the people’s will.
Our free enterprise system came into being with our nation; The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, was published in the same year as the Declaration of Independence; and the personal property rights espoused by John Locke were ensconced in our highest law in the 5th Amendment, among the Bill of Rights, including the “takings clause,” which forbids government from taking from an individual what they have earned by their labors and investments. Lastly, at the time of our nation’s founding, the Judeo-Christian ethic was omnipresent, with it’s Ten Commandments, the first common law of humanity, and its highest law: to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Each of these systems of law, of federalism, of representation, of free enterprise and of the ethos of Judeo-Christianity has helped reconcile our society as a whole and has been responsible for our nation’s peace and prosperity since the Constitution’s signing 237 years ago.
Who can argue with a common law that protects the wealthy and the poor? Who can argue about a system of diffused power, allowing localities and states to create their own laws? Who can argue with the right of people to empower those whom they would wish to represent them? Who can argue with the principle that the people who are entitled to wealth are those who have earned that wealth themselves? Who can argue with the notion that Judeo-Christianity is perhaps the best ethos for advancing peace through mutual respect, respect for the law, charitability, and humility? So why are we so opposed and at the point of war with one another in our nation today? Until November1963, both of our political parties, their patrons and, their constituents believed in every one of these societally reconciling systems. Then the momentum in the Democratic Party to more fully institute socialism began.
Today, the Democrats believe devoutly that the Constitution is a “living” document, which is to say, they can change or disregard whatever they don’t like in the text or kill it altogether as a document of “negative rights.” Today, the Democrats don’t believe in federalism; they desire all the wealth and power of the nation to be invested in one capital, Washington D.C., to be parceled out to family, friends and allies of their own. Today, Democrats do not believe in representative government; they believe in bureaucrats appointed for life to eternal agencies in the never constitutionally enumerated power of the Administrative State. Their only concern for the chambers of Congress is as a central exchange between the taxpayer and those agencies, which are the power base of the Democrat Party.
Today, Democrats do not believe in property rights; they believe that what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is theirs. They believe anyone who has earned wealth has done so illegitimately and those who haven’t have a superior moral right to it anyway, so long as the Democrats get an overall cut. Lastly, the Democrats’ idea of Judeo-Christianity is to pronounce publicly that they privately believe in it, while acting against it with every meaningful national vote they take and every regulatory rule they make. What is at opposition today is a conservative Republican Party that believes profoundly in the reconciling promise of these foundations of our society. And a Democratic Party that is diametrically opposed to the reconciling systems on which this nation was founded.
The Democratic Party has become what this nation fought against in the Second World War, the Cold War and the Middle Eastern wars. The Democrats — or the liberal left, progressives, or Democratic Socialists — have become a tyrannical bunch of bastards who have renounced their good parentage, and they are getting very violent about it. God Bless Charlie Kirk, who fought and died for all of these reconciling societal blessings.
Read more …
But you can still not watch it.
• Disney Gives Kimmel Show Back, But Nexstar & Sinclair Still Refuse To Air (ZH)
Hours after 400 artists signed an ACLU letter in response to Jimmy Kimmel’s firing, the late-night host’s ‘indefinite termination’ for propaganda surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination has been turned into a week’s vacation. According to Variety, Disney and ABC are bringing the comedian back to its schedule Tuesday night. “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive,” the company said in a statement. “We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”
Of note, none of the Nexstar or Sinclair affiliates will carry the show. Despite Kimmel’s return, it is not immediately clear if his show will be available across the entire country. Sinclair, for its part, had said that it would not go back to running Kimmel’s show on its stations until the late night host apologized for his comments, met with Sinclair representatives and made a donation to Turning Point, the organization that Kirk founded. Sinclair, it should be noted, owns the ABC station in the Washington, D.C., metro area, among other markets. Nexstar, similarly, could also choose to continue to preempt the show, though of course it would still be accessible online across the country after it runs on ABC. -Hollywood Reporter
Kimmel’s show was pulled last Wednesday after the host said that Charlie Kirk assassination suspect Tyler Robinson was ‘MAGA’ – when he’s very clearly not based on what we know. In response, FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened to revoke ABC affiliate licenses over the comments, which he described in a podcast interview with host Benny Johnson as “the sickest conduct possible.” As The Blaze’s Auron Macintyre opines: “ABC is putting Jimmy Kimmel back on the air because terrorism works in America.” Guess who predicted it? Does Roseanne Barr get her show back too now?
Read more …
“So Kimmel is now a hero of democracy — all he had to do was spread disinformation. That makes this the funniest joke that Kimmel never told.”
• The Funniest Joke Jimmy Kimmel Never Told (Turley)
Democrats were finally outraged this week. No, it was not about the murder of Charlie Kirk, but rather the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night comedy show. Democratic leaders are taking to the airways to denounce the decision to take Kimmel off the air after he spread disinformation about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer. The same leaders and pundits who have for years fought for censorship in the name of combating disinformation are now making the very arguments they ridiculed just months ago. Democrats once wrote letters to Internet carriers suggesting that Fox News, the most popular cable news network, should be taken off the air in the name of combating disinformation. That was when the Democrats controlled the White House and were targeting conservatives.
Suddenly, now, disinformation is no longer a valid reason to censor and alleged government-corporate alliances are a menace to free speech. After the tragedy in Utah, many on the left immediately tried to deflect responsibility for the murder by claiming that Kirk’s killer was actually a Trump supporter. On his show, Kimmel declared that “the MAGA Gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The far-left motivations of the alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, were already well known. His family confirmed that he had been radicalized with leftist ideology and cited pro-transgender views. This was not even a joke — it was just a false factual claim made by Kimmel on national television. And it came at a time when others were spreading this lie.
Despite stories to the contrary, many repeated the false claim. For example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe posted that “Kirk’s apparent assassin seems to have been ultra-MAGA, exploding the GOP/MAGA attempt to pin the blame for this tragedy on liberals.” (Previously, Tribe had claimed that the October 2023 massacre of Israelis by Hamas was a “wag-the-dog” operation to distract from corruption allegations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu). The disinformation took hold on the Internet and social media. One poll showed that a plurality of Americans think Robinson was a conservative. Call it assassination denial. It is all the rage. Former MSNBC and ESPN host Keith Olbermann wrote after Kimmel’s suspension, “Burn in hell, Sinclair. Alongside Charlie Kirk.” He added that “nothing [Kimmel] said was untrue.”
Curiously, some of these politicians and pundits are claiming that, yet again, democracy will die if Kimmel is not allowed to spread disinformation. There are reports that Kimmel was refusing to apologize and planned to double down on the attacks on conservatives in his next show. Faced with a revolt by affiliates and a potential exodus of advertisers, Disney’s head, Bob Iger, pulled the plug. (By the way, Kimmel’s ratings had been falling for years, and he had a smaller audience than the Colbert Show, which was itself discontinued due to loss of money). The hypocrisy was pure comedy. For years, these same voices demanded censorship of individuals deemed to be spreading disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. The last category was used by the Biden administration to target statements “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
At the same time, they mocked claims that corporations were working with the government to maintain this censorship system. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ran on a pledge to impose new criminal and civil penalties for anyone spreading disinformation. Now, however, censorship is intolerable. Warren told CNN “we know there was federal interference … We saw the government step up and give a hard shove and then we saw a compliant company turn around and suspend Mr. Kimmel.” She added that his collaboration with corporations “truly undermines the whole premise of the First Amendment.”
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) called the suspension one of “the most blatant attacks on the free press in American history.” Schiff had previously demanded that Twitter suspend an array of users and “reduce the visibility” of blacklisted individuals — including a journalist who held opposing views. When Elon Musk reduced censorship at X, it was Schiff who warned Facebook not to follow his example by restoring free speech protections. Schiff threatened legislative action if the company moved to “alter or roll back certain misinformation policies.” This week, Schiff is outraged by a company’s decision to suspend a host who refused to correct a false story he had spread.
For years, I appeared before these same leaders in Congress as they defended corporate censorship and dismissed allegations of collaboration with the government. I would not cancel Kimmel so long as his show was profitable. But I have long maintained that companies can limit the free speech of employees at work. I do not believe Kimmel should be censored on social media for spreading false information. At the same time, ABC does not have to lose money or viewers because an employee attacks others with vile, false claims. Now Disney is accused of killing democracy itself, in league with Trump. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) attacked Trump for “trying to destroy our democracy” and acting like “many would-be despots.”
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) used Kimmel’s suspension as evidence that “fascism is not on the way, it is here.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) insisted that suspending a host for spreading false information about a murder was “North Korea-style stuff” while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted that it is “what Putin would do.” It is a curious spin, since Putin and Kim Jong Un value media figures who spread false information — particularly about murders. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) went so far as to compare Kimmel to Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense and “Penman of the revolution.” So Kimmel is now a hero of democracy — all he had to do was spread disinformation. That makes this the funniest joke that Kimmel never told.
Read more …
It deactivates something?!
• Trump Links Tylenol To Autism Risk During Pregnancy (RT)
US President Donald Trump has drawn a connection between the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and rising autism rates in America, calling the increase in diagnoses “one of the most alarming public health developments in history.”Speaking at a White House briefing alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday, Trump said pregnant women should avoid acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, unless absolutely necessary. He said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would begin updating warning labels and launch an information campaign aimed at pregnant women.
“Taking Tylenol is not good,” Trump said during the event. “They are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol use during pregnancy unless medically necessary… If you can’t tough it out, if there’s a problem, you’re going to end up doing it, but ideally you don’t take it at all.”= Citing an increase in autism rates, Trump said the condition has become far more prevalent over the last two decades. “The meteoric rise in autism is among the most alarming public health developments in history,” he said. The FDA issued two separate news releases confirming a formal response to growing evidence of neurological risks linked to acetaminophen during pregnancy. The agency said it has initiated a label change for all acetaminophen-containing products, including Tylenol, to reflect studies suggesting an association with autism and ADHD.
“The FDA is taking action to make parents and doctors aware of a considerable body of evidence about potential risks associated with acetaminophen,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said. The FDA acknowledged that while some studies show an association between prenatal acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders, a causal link has not been established. It stressed that acetaminophen remains the only over-the-counter medication approved for fever relief during pregnancy and warned that alternatives like ibuprofen and aspirin can pose known risks to fetal development.
Tylenol manufacturer Kenvue responded to the developments by defending the drug’s safety. “We strongly disagree with any suggestion that acetaminophen causes autism,” the company said, warning that discouraging appropriate use during pregnancy may put mothers and infants at risk from untreated fever or pain. In another announcement, the FDA said it is initiating approval of leucovorin calcium tablets for patients with cerebral folate deficiency (CFD), a condition linked to developmental delays and autistic features. Though the agency cautioned that more studies are needed to assess the drug’s full efficacy in autism-related populations, it said the initiative reflects a broader strategy to repurpose existing medications for neurological conditions.
Read more …
“I’ve never talked to a Democrat who ever wanted to listen. They start to glitch out if you try.” — Sasha Stone
• Personal Note (James Howard Kunstler)
This past summer, I tried to open a line of communication with a West Coast relative. We exchanged a few letters. I tactically steered the conversation away from the political. Here was the closer salvo from my relative:
Jimmy, on a completely personal level, and in different times, I think we could have been very good friends. At this point in our history, I find what you say in your blogs and Kunstlercast to be outrageous, deceptive, and ugly. I disagree with almost everything you hold dear politically, and even if, for instance, we agree about the horrors of Big Pharma, your worship of Kennedy makes me ill. Your language falls right into all the clichés of the far right ideologies I loathe.Maybe someday things will change. For now, this is the last you’ll be hearing from me.
Frankly, what stung most keenly was the accusation that my language fell “into all the clichés of the far right ideologies. . . .” I like to think that I am allergic to clichés, though it’s possible that I am deluded about that. If anything, the dynamic collective thought disorders of our time present themselves in astonishingly fresh ways — for instance, a Supreme Court nominee who can’t define what a woman is. (Makes you kind of wonder how such a mind could parse Article Two of the Constitution.)
Mostly, I would have liked to know what those “far right ideologies” are, exactly, but it looks like I will never find out now. Maybe it is being opposed to censorship. . . or against Ukraine’s entry into NATO. . . or wanting coherent procedure for foreigners seeking to enter the USA. . . or keeping biological men out of the women’s swim lanes. . . or saying that ivermectin is a safe and effective anti-viral med. . . or supposing that people charged with felonies should not be released to the streets without significant cash bail. Stuff like that.
As it happened, we were not discussing these matters in our brief correspondence, but I was at something of a disadvantage since I am a professional writer who posts his opinion for public scrutiny and my relative is not. Of course, I describe what is a pandemic of broken family relations in our country. And social relations. I have been cancelled by most of my old friends, too, and I’m quite sure that I am not a special case. I am mystified by what these relatives and old friends actually believe these days. When we were hippies back in the day, they were very much opposed to war, turned-off by attempts at censorship, and deeply averse to the dark operations of the CIA and FBI. Now, they seem avid for intel ops and hoaxes, eager for war, and all-in for censoring ideas that make them feel “unsafe.”
There are various useful theories for this state-of-affairs, all pretty cross-compatible. Strauss and Howe’s Fourth Turning template of generational cycles explains a lot. Elizabeth Nickson has some fine insights about the extreme discontents of women these days leading them to summon political demons. Mattias Desmet, the Belgian psych professor has his Mass Formation theory, which states that societal anxieties provoke aligned “radical intolerance” among a populace. I recommend Wendy Williamson’s recent blog discussion of The Law of Reversal. Joseph Tainter’s classic, The Collapse of Complex Societies lays out the pitfalls of our “over-investments in complexity.” I wrote a book in 2005 titled The Long Emergency which describes the drawn-out collapse of our techno-industrial economy — the widespread apprehension of which helps define the societal anxieties described by Dr. Desmet that bring on his “Mass Formation Psychosis.”
All these theories tend to imply an inflection point where our assumptions about human progress get undermined, provoking an intense loss of faith in institutions and authorities, resulting in epochal socio-political disorder. Wouldn’t you agree we are seeing exactly that now? That the net effect of all this is of a society driven insane. Surely, the craziness is amplified by the novel connectivities of the Internet and exacerbated by many other high-tech innovations from ubiquitous camera surveillance to cryptocurrency to drone warfare.
In our country these days, all of this has apparently produced two camps at war psychologically, now verging on something like a hot civil war. One camp calling itself “progressive” insists on a roster of ideas, policies, and practices that look patently absurd, abusive of the public interest, and hostile to the values of Western Civ. The other camp styles itself as “conservative” seeking to preserve Western Civ and the advancement of our so-called way of life — an ever growth-seeking high-tech economy.
Personally, I doubt that the latter is possible. I believe we’re due for a pretty serious time-out from the sort of economic “growth” we enjoyed the past two-hundred years. That high-tech mega-fiesta has thrown off a lot of entropy, which is now working hard to slow things down and make us stop a lot of what we are doing. It manifests in many ways, but most vividly by flinging us into social disorder, turning what had been communication and correspondence into a rising babel that is driving us crazy. That is exactly why it is so hard to talk to our relatives and old friends. But mark this: there is a time coming when we will get tired of being crazy, and then things will go differently for us. We’ll start talking again.
Read more …
“At the European Council in December 2026, there will be blood on the walls..”
• EU Looks To ‘Le Pen-Proof’ Its Budget – Politico (RT)
The EU leadership is trying to fast-track talks to reach a deal on the bloc’s new budget before the French presidential election in April 2027, Politico reports. EU officials reportedly fear it could be won by right-wing firebrand Marine Le Pen or one of her allies from the National Rally party. The EU’s next seven-year budget is scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2028. The proposal by the European Commission currently being discussed amounts to €1,816 trillion ($2,136). It requires unanimous approval from all 27 member states to pass. The risk of the right-wing forces defeating French President Emmanuel Macron in the election is the main reason budget negotiations are being accelerated, the outlet said in an article on Monday, citing five officials and EU diplomats.
The concern in Brussels is that the National Rally’s platform, which includes slashing Paris’ contribution to the EU budget and reducing military aid to Ukraine, could disrupt the already complex talks, it said. Le Pen has been banned from running for public office after a French court found her guilty of embezzling European Parliament funds earlier this year. She has challenged the ruling. The National Rally’s second most prominent figure, Jordan Bardella, is also believed to be capable of winning the election, according to the article. European Council President Antonio Costa is working to secure a budget deal in the council by the end of 2026, his spokesperson, Maria Tomasik, told journalists on Friday.
“At the European Council in December 2026, there will be blood on the walls,” a senior EU diplomat told Politico, referring to the negotiations. There is “annoyance” over attempts to speed up the budget talks in countries including Italy and Poland, which argue that it leaves them less time to make changes to the proposal and benefits the Northern European nations, according to the outlet. A poll by Ifop published on Saturday suggested that Macron’s ratings have fallen to 17%, the lowest during his two-term presidency. Hundreds of thousands protested across France last week against government policies, including additional austerity measures proposed by newly appointed Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu.
Read more …
Word from your banker.
“Ignoring international law would lead to “the beginning of total chaos,” the French president has said..”
• Macron Warns Against Seizing Frozen Russian Assets (RT)
French President Emmanuel Macron has pushed back against the idea of seizing frozen Russian assets, warning that doing so could backfire on the West and undermine global stability. In an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation aired on Sunday, Macron was asked about what the West was planning to do with the $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets which were frozen after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. “We are all very much attached to being compliant with international rules. You cannot seize these assets from the central bank, even in such a situation,” the French leader said, describing it as “a matter of credibility.”
“When some countries start to disrespect international laws… this is the beginning of a total chaos. So we will respect international law. We are predictable, and we will not do all impossible things with these frozen assets,” he added, recalling that Kiev’s Western backers are already using proceeds from the frozen assets to prop up Ukraine. Throughout the conflict, Western policymakers have considered seizing Russian assets – most of which fall under EU jurisdiction – but have so far refrained due to the lack of a legal basis and fears it would damage global trust.
Last year, however, G7 nations supported a $50 billion loan to Ukraine secured by the income from Russian reserves. Western nations have also directly handed over to Kiev approximately $4.3 billion in proceeds from Russian assets. This month, the EU Commission floated a proposal to use Russian assets to back a reparation loan to Ukraine, which Kiev would be obligated to repay only if it receives “compensation” for damages from Moscow. Russia has denounced both the freeze and the profit-transfer scheme as “theft,” warning that confiscation would damage the global financial system and trigger retaliation from Moscow.
Read more …
“Protests in London will change nothing – Britain’s people were bred to endure..”
• Britain’s Fate Is Decline, Not Upheaval – And History Explains Why (Bordachev)
The demonstrations in London earlier this month – up to 150,000 people protesting immigration and government incompetence – drew attention in Russia and abroad. Some observers even wondered if Britain might finally be approaching a breaking point. Perhaps, like Nepal or France in past years, mass anger could reshape politics. But such hopes are misplaced. Britain will never experience revolutionary upheaval. Its culture is not one of defiance but of endurance. The United Kingdom has, over centuries, become a bastion of injustice disguised as stability, where ordinary people are conditioned to accept their powerlessness. This cultural inheritance, once an imperial advantage, now guarantees slow decline.
Britain is unique in Western Europe: it was created not through union or invitation, but through conquest. In 1066 Norman knights crushed the native English and divided the land into fiefdoms. Unlike Russia, where foreign warriors were invited to defend the realm, or Hungary, where nomads fused with locals to form a people, England’s story was one of subjugation. That pattern hardened in 1215, when barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. Propaganda later elevated the charter as the foundation of English liberty. In reality it entrenched oligarchy: the power of the wealthy over crown and people alike. Where monarchs elsewhere often stood with peasants against feudal tyranny, in England the crown itself was shackled by landowners. Injustice became not an aberration but the system’s operating principle.
Geography reinforced the pattern. For centuries there was no frontier of freedom. Only in 1620 did dissenters finally flee on the Mayflower, planting English settlements in North America. By then, 600 years of endurance had shaped a national character: patient, fatalistic, and resigned. In Russia, by contrast, peasants had begun migrating east as early as the 11th century. Freedom was found in movement: new villages, new lands, and eventually a new people. This restless expansion created Russia’s unique statehood and ethnic identity. The English, trapped on their island, cultivated instead a tradition of enduring injustice. By the 18th century, Britain was sending its sons to wars around the world. They returned crippled, if at all – as Rudyard Kipling later immortalized. Yet they went meekly. A society drilled in obedience did not question orders, however insane. That made Britain dangerous abroad, but docile at home.
Popular uprisings were crushed without hesitation. Laws such as the Settlement Act of 1662, tying workers to their parishes, or the Poor Law of 1834, abolishing basic relief, stripped away rights. Only after 1945, under pressure from the USSR’s example, did Britain adopt limited welfare protections. Even these are now eroding, with no real resistance. This tradition once gave Britain its edge. Armies could be raised, colonies conquered, wars fought with little domestic dissent. But in the modern world, where political vitality depends on public will, the same habit of resignation has become a liability. Unlike Russians, who carved out freedom by settling new lands, or French and Germans, who rebelled and migrated, the English learned to endure. Their legacy is a society where injustice is not challenged but accepted – and where any hope of transformation evaporates before it begins.
Read more …
statin
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
