General

Alejandro Mayorkas: Epstein’s Concubine Concierge

/6 Comments/in /by

The H-1Booty Visa

Democrats are exulting over their brilliant move of bringing Jeffrey Epstein “survivors” to Trump’s state of the union address. (It didn’t seem to faze him.). I gather that this means Democrats and the media have moved on from their complete indifference to Epstein’s victims to deep concern. Notwithstanding their current garment-rending, liberals could not have been less interested in Epstein’s victims when they first came forward.

Back in 2006, across the entire national news landscape, only Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly billboarded Epstein’s sex crimes, and attacked the first government official to betray the girls, Palm Beach D.A. Barry Krischer. Incomprehensibly, he had intentionally thrown the case, giving Epstein a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a $30 a month fine and a promise of good behavior for 18 months.

The New York Times ran a single article on the sweetheart deal — on page A-19, under the riveting headline: “Questions of Preferential Treatment Are Raised in Florida Sex Case.” (That almost beats the winner of Michael Kinsley’s Most Boring Headline Contest: “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.”)

Over the next ten years, the Times seems to have run only three more articles about the underage sex ring until someone in the newsroom shouted, OMG! Trump and Epstein had once been friends!

Surprised by the media’s sudden interest in his sexual depredations, Epstein himself emailed journalist Michael Wolff in 2018, saying, “Dems think I have the silver bullet.”

Whether we’re supposed to “Believe Women!” or “Ignore Women!” evidently rests entirely on the media’s ability to assemble a link between Epstein and Trump, with Scotch tape and chewing gum. And no, we would rather not discuss Epstein’s consorting with Democrats Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Bill Richardson and Larry Summers.

But as long as we finally have the media’s attention, perhaps they’d be interested in knowing how simple it was for Epstein to traffic his sex slaves into the U.S. under our immigration laws.

The bulk of Epstein’s sexual playthings came from Eastern Europe, as indicated by innumerable witness statements and the hundreds of flight itineraries for females from Russia, Poland, Belarus, Latvia and Ukraine. (As any number of lonely American guys can tell you, 50 years of communism really did a number on the morals of Eastern European girls.)

Epstein operated like the worst of American corporations, getting his concubines here with phony student visas, work visas, sham marriages and English language visas. (Yes, you can get a visa to come to our country simply in order to enroll in an English language class, although this strikes me as putting the cart before the horse.)

Consider how Epstein gamed our immigration laws on behalf of his Belarus girlfriend, Karyna Shuliak.

Fraud No. 1:

Epstein first brought Shuliak to the U.S. on a student visa to attend Columbia’s dental school, despite the fact that she’d never received a bachelor’s degree, an admission requirement.

Fraud No. 2:

Shuliak had also requested asylum, meaning she’d simultaneously filed two completely contradictory immigration applications. Student visas require the applicant to prove an intent to return to her native country, whereas asylum requires the exact opposite: proof that the applicant is being persecuted in her native country and wouldn’t return if you threatened her with hot pokers.

Fraud No. 3:

After Shuliak overstayed her visa, Epstein called on some Democrat bigwigs to bend the law for her. Specifically, Greg Craig, Clinton’s special counsel on the impeachment trial (Craig has an illustrious history of going to bat for sexual predators!) and … guess who! Alejandro Mayorkas, who, as head of Obama’s INS, was apparently available to perform special favors for Jeffrey Epstein. (In a country of laws, knowing somebody who knows a guy is not supposed to be the path to citizenship.)

Fraud No. 4:

Whether on their advice or his own initiative, a few months later, Epstein arranged for Shuliak to “marry” another one of his girls, “Jennifer.” This is the same Jennifer whom Epstein had directed to date Elon Musk’s brother, in a futile attempt to ingratiate himself with the Space X founder.

On the basis of these four sleazy maneuvers, Shuliak became a U.S. citizen in 2018 — and promptly divorced her fake “wife.”

Democrats keep carrying on about Trump’s “racist” immigration policies, on the grounds that — although Biden alone rushed in more than four million Latin Americans, 700,000 Venezuelans and 400,000 Haitians — Trump’s admission of 59 white South Africans is straight out of the Nazi playbook.

I will leave it to you to parse the logic there, but you know what would be a great way for Trump to prove he won’t admit just anyone for being white?

How about deporting Epstein’s immigration-scamming, Eastern European hustlers, and disbarring the lawyers who enabled their frauds?

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER

The movement for transgender surgery for children is over. The New York Times has spoken.

/3 Comments/in /by

When the left appeals to science, it’s pretty much always an appeal to leftist ideology. And of course the same goes for the reality of race and race differences in IQ, criminality, etc. Burying and vilifying race realist research has been going on for decades and unfortunately is not discussed here.

Medical Associations Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care

Listen to this article · 12:40 min Learn more

Mr. Singal is writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States and writes the newsletter Singal-Minded.

American advocates for youth gender medicine have insisted for years that overwhelming evidence favors providing gender dysphoric youth with puberty blockers, hormones and, in the case of biological females, surgery to remove their breasts.

It didn’t matter that the number of kids showing up at gender clinics had soared and that they were more likely to have complex mental health conditions than those who had come to clinics in years earlier, complicating diagnosis. Advocates and health care organizations just dug in. As a billboard truck used by the L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy group GLAAD proclaimed in 2023, “The science is settled.” The Human Rights Campaign says on its website that “the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth and adults is clear.” Elsewhere, these and other groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, referred to these treatments as “medically necessary,” “lifesaving” and “evidence-based.”

The reason these advocates were able to make such strong statements is that for years, the most important professional medical and mental health organizations in the country had been singing a similar tune: “The science” was supposedly codified in documents published by these organizations. As GLAAD puts it on its website, “Every major medical association supports health care for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.”

But something confounding has happened in the last few weeks: Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.

The next day, the American Medical Association — which has long approved of such procedures — announced that “in the absence of clear evidence, the A.M.A. agrees with A.S.P.S. that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

These statements were released days after a woman named Fox Varian became the first person to win a malpractice case after undergoing gender transition care and later regretting it. Ms. Varian and her lawyer argued that her psychologist and plastic surgeon in suburban New York, despite her serious mental health problems and apparent ambivalence over her transgender identity, failed to safeguard her by going forward with a double mastectomy when she was 16. (Many gender medicine practitioners and advocates believe that to carefully scrutinize or even explore claims of a transgender identity is to engage in de facto conversion therapy.) The jury’s $2 million award will most likely give pause to hospitals and clinics that continue to provide these treatments without substantial guardrails.

The science doesn’t seem so settled after all, and it’s important to understand what happened here. The approach of left-of-center Americans and our institutions — to assume that when a scientific organization releases a “policy statement” on a hot-button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate — is a deeply naïve understanding of science, human nature and politics, and how they intersect.

At a time when more and more Americans are turning away from expert authority in favor of YouTube quacks and their ilk — and when our own government is pushing scientifically baseless policies on childhood vaccination and climate change — it’s vital that the organizations that represent mainstream science be open, honest and transparent about politically charged issues. If they aren’t, there’s simply no good reason to trust them.

The most striking finding of the Cass review, a 2024 British inquiry that found “remarkably weak” evidence to back up the practice of youth gender medicine, was the shoddy quality of the professional guidelines for this treatment.

Researchers at the University of York, who provided underlying work for the Cass review, found that rather than being linked to careful, independent evaluations of the evidence, these guidelines relied heavily on other organizations’ guidelines. The authors wrote that this “may explain why there has until recently been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice for which evidence remains lacking.”

A 2018 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics provides a useful example of how these documents can go wrong. At one point, it argues that children who say they are trans “know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their developmentally equivalent peers,” an extreme exaggeration of what we know about this population. (A single study is cited.) The document also criticizes the “outdated approach in which a child’s gender-diverse assertions are held as ‘possibly true’ until an arbitrary age” — the A.A.P. was instructing clinicians to take 4- and 5-year-olds’ claims about their gender identities as certainly true. It’s understandable why the Cass reviewers scored this policy statement so abysmally, giving it 12 out of 100 possible points on “rigor of development” and six out of 100 on “applicability.”

Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization, rather than dispassionate scientific analysis. The journalist Aaron Sibarium’s reporting strongly suggests that a small group of A.A.P. members, many of whom were themselves youth gender medicine providers, played a disproportionate role in developing these guidelines.

Dr. Julia Mason, a 30-year member of the organization, wrote in The Wall Street Journal, with the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir, that the A.A.P. deferred to activist-clinicians and stonewalled the critics’ demands for a more rigorous approach. Dr. Sarah Palmer, an Indiana-based pediatrician, told me she recently left the A.A.P. after nearly 30 years because of this issue. “I’ve tried to engage and be a member and pay that huge fee every year,” she said. “They just stopped answering any questions.” This is unfortunate given that, as critics have noted, in many cases the A.A.P. document’s footnotes don’t even support the claims being made in the text.

In 2020, Republican-led states began pushing in earnest to tightly restrict or ban youth gender medicine. In response, the professional organizations — including the A.M.A., the A.A.P. and the American Psychological Association — wrote a flurry of letters to legislators, amicus briefs and sciencey-sounding documents opposing the bans. These documents routinely exaggerated the evidence base for the treatments in question. There was more talk of consensus: “Every major medical association in the United States recognizes the medical necessity of transition-related care for improving the physical and mental health of transgender people,” explained the A.M.A. in a letter from 2021.

During this same period, a sea change occurred in Europe. Finland, Sweden and Britain conducted systematic evidence reviews of youth gender medicine — a much more transparent and regimented process designed to attenuate the influence of human bias. Every such review revealed deep uncertainty about the evidence base, and as a result the countries that conducted the reviews began more tightly regulating youth gender medicine. (Denmark has since followed suit, and there are some signs France and Norway may as well.) Which science, then, should be trusted? The confident American professional organizations or the skeptical European health care systems? What about when even the professional organizations start to schism?

I’ve been covering this controversy for about a decade from a left-of-center perspective, and I’ve found that anyone who questions these treatments, even mildly, is invariably accused of bigotry. It would be shocking if the professional organizations chiming in on these issues — which, like all such organizations, exist in part to increase the esteem of their members and to enhance their own influence — were immune from such influences. And now that the political winds have shifted radically, with the Trump administration launching an all-out assault on both the practice of and research into youth gender medicine, it seems some of them are realizing they would benefit from appearing a bit more moderate.

Perhaps I’m being unfair. But it’s impossible to know, because these organizations are quite opaque about the processes that give rise to their public statements. They’ve tried to have it both ways: They’ve presented themselves as representing “the science” while sometimes violating science’s traditional norms of transparency and open debate. (Neither the A.A.P. nor the A.M.A. would grant me an interview. The American Psychological Association responded to some of the questions I sent the organization via email.)

The documents, separated by about a year and a half (and, perhaps as significantly, one presidential election), straightforwardly contradict each other. The A.P.A. in 2024 argued that there is a “comprehensive body of psychological and medical research supporting the positive impact of gender-affirming treatments” for individuals “across the life span.” But in 2025, the group argued that “psychologists do not make broad claims about treatment effectiveness.”

In 2024, the A.P.A. criticized those “mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence.” In 2025, it cautioned that gender dysphoria diagnoses could be the result of “trauma-related presentations” rather than a trans identity, and noted that “co-occurring mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder) … may complicate or be mistaken for gender dysphoria.” It seems undeniable that the 2025 A.P.A. published what the 2024 A.P. A considered to be “misinformation.” (“The 2024 policy statement and the 2025 F.T.C. letter are consistent,” said Ms. McGuire in an email, and “both documents reflect A.P.A.’s consistent commitment to evidence-based psychological care.”)

Along those same lines, how did the American Medical Association go from arguing that “forgoing gender-affirming care can have tragic consequences” for “pediatric patients” in its 2021 letter to its present stance that one such treatment, surgery, should be delayed — potentially for many years — as a general matter of course?

If, as I suspect, political forces are the culprit, that would lead to an inescapable conclusion: You cannot automatically trust what these organizations say at a given moment. Not unless they provide a lot more information about their decision-making processes.

Mark Wauck: Trump In War And Peace—Mostly War

/3 Comments/in /by

Notice that Tucker tried and failed to persuade Trump to call off the war.

Trump In War And Peace—Mostly War

The Russians—meaning, Medvedev—are claiming that the Rothschilds are plotting to provide Ukraine with nukes, to force a better deal out of the Russians.

Well, no, that’s not actually what Medvedev said. He said that Russian intelligence reports that the governments of France and the UK are plotting to do that—two Rothschild controlled entities.

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

27m

 Putin: “The enemy cannot defeat Russia. It is impossible. But they really want to. They are trying everything. They will lead themselves to the point of no return and then regret it.”

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

1h

 Medvedev — answering RT’s question about France and Britain’s plans to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine:

“I’ll say something obvious and harsh.

Information from the SVR about France and Britain’s intention to transfer nuclear technologies to the Kiev Nazi regime radically changes the situation. And it’s not about the destruction of the NPT and other things in international law. This is a direct transfer of nuclear weapons to a warring country.

There can’t be the slightest doubt that under such circumstances, Russia will have to use any, including non-strategic nuclear weapons, against targets in Ukraine that pose a threat to our country. And if necessary, against the supplier countries that become accomplices in a nuclear conflict with Russia.

This is the symmetrical response to which the Russian Federation has the right.”

Where is Trump in this. I remind readers that Scott Ritter reminded us all—without naming Trump—that it was Trump who reversed Obama’s decision not to provoke Russia into war. It was Trump who stationed nuclear capable missile launchers in Poland and Romania. The US claimed that these were purely defensive launchers directed at Iran, but all you need to do is read the Polish rhetoric of the time to realize the truth that was obvious to everyone: Those were offensive launchers directed to intimidate Russia. When Obama backed down, the Poles were in full cry: ‘You’ve turned us over to Russia!’ At the same time Trump was flooding Ukraine with heavy military equipment. Trump did that because he was paid to do that, just as he was paid to back out of arms control treaties with Russia and the JCPOA with Iran.

Now his paymasters are demanding an insane war against Iran, even as they continue their obsessive plotting against Russia.

We reported yesterday the stories that head of the Joint Chiefs, Raisin’ Caine, is arguing against war. Those published reports put Trump in a very difficult position if he launches into a war that results in US casualties. He will be seen as the POTUS who—because he was paid to do it—started a senseless war on behalf of a country that is no friend to the US (Jonathan Pollard, USS Liberty, and etc., etc.) against the advice of the US military. Trump’s attempt to deny this dynamic can’t change it. Trump will own anything that goes wrong and that ownership will be all the worse for having gone against expert advice. Somebody obviously feels strongly about this because they’re setting the narrative ahead of time:

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

16h

 Donald Trump posted that media reports claiming General Daniel Caine opposes war with Iran are “100% incorrect,” insisting that Caine would support military action if ordered and believes it would be easily won. Trump said he alone makes the final decision, prefers a deal with Iran, but warned that without one it would be “a very bad day” for the country.

The post follows multiple US media reports alleging that Caine privately cautioned Trump and senior officials about the risks of striking Iran. According to those reports, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that US munitions stockpiles have been depleted by ongoing support for Israel and Ukraine, that any major Iran operation would be complex and could involve US casualties, and that limited allied backing would add further risk. Caine’s office has said he provides the president with military options and outlines associated risks confidentially in his role as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I wrote the above before listening to Chas Freeman. Freeman is in agreement. He says the military is obviously positioning itself to be able to say “I told you say” when Trump launches war and bad things happen—which Freeman expects.

Megatron @Megatron_ron

13h

BREAKING:

 President Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with what aides describe as the limits of military leverage against Iran, according to CBS News.

Military planners have advised that any strike on Tehran’s assets would likely not deliver a decisive, one-off blow and could instead escalate into a wider, prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

A senior military official told CBS that military planners are providing “unbiased advice.”

Megatron @Megatron_ron

3h

NEW:

 Tucker Carlson met with Trump to try to convince him not to drag the US into a war with Iran because of Israel – Andrew Napolitano

According to an interview with Andrew Napolitano for TASS, Tucker Carlson met with Trump on Feb. 23rd in an attempt to dissuade him from striking Iran.

Napolitano describes it as a “last-ditch effort” on Carlson’s part, to prevent the U.S. from being pulled into another “sensless war for Israel.”

But Carlson failed and it’s almost certain Trump will go forward with strikes — the only question is how large-scale the military campaign will be.

Continues….

JTA on the Huckabee-Carlson Interview

/1 Comment/in /by

Within 24 hours of going online late Friday, Tucker Carlson’s nearly three-hour interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee had elicited multiple rebuttals of antisemitic conspiracy theories from Huckabee, prompted Carlson to issue an apology and sparked an international incident.

The foreign ministers of 14 Arab and Muslim governments jointly condemned Huckabee’s comments about Israel’s claim to the Middle East, which they called “dangerous and inflammatory” and a violation of international law.

Carlson had asked Huckabee, the first evangelical Christian ambassador to Israel, what he thought of the Biblical passage in which God grants Abraham’s children the land “from the Euphrates to the Nile, and that would include basically the entire Middle East.”

Huckabee’s answer: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

He elaborated: “They don’t want to take it over. They’re not asking to take it over.” When Carlson asked if such a takeover would be “legitimate,” Huckabee responded, “I’m not sure that it would be.” He added, “If they end up getting attacked by all these places and they win that war and they take that land, then OK, that’s a whole other discussion.”

The comments and backlash, which come as the region braces for a potential U.S. attack on Iran, represented just one explosive element among many during the interview, filmed at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport last week.

For Carlson and Huckabee, two powerful Christian conservatives with deeply divergent opinions on Israel who both hold direct channels to the White House, the conversation offered a window into the divide over Israel and antisemitism among conservatives. Huckabee, an evangelical Christian who sees Israel as an important U.S. ally in the Middle East, represents a more traditional Republican outlook, while Carlson, who has amplified antisemitic voices and opposes U.S. support for Israel, represents an ascendant far-right flank.

In recent months, the rift on the right has been flung open, largely following Carlson’s friendly interview last fall with the avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes. He has conducted similarly combative interviews with other pro-Israel conservatives, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has since become one of the right’s loudest voices speaking out against antisemitism among conservatives. While President Donald Trump has expressed distaste for antisemites in the Republican ranks, Vice President JD Vance has said he does not believe right-wing antisemitism is a problem.

Tensions between Huckabee and Carlson — and the question over whose view will win out — were palpable.

“Honestly, I think you’ve probably got more access to the White House sometimes than I do,” Huckabee told Carlson at one point.

At another, Carlson sought to argue that his criticism of Israel reflects only care for Gaza, saying, “I’m not against Israel. I’m against the total destruction—” Huckabee interjected with a zinger: “You hide that very well.”

Indeed, Carlson used the interview to air a host of anti-Israel views, including several associated with antisemitic conspiracies.

He opened with a monologue in which he called Israel “probably the most violent country in the world” and insinuated that he believed the Israeli government could be targeting him.

During the conversation, Carlson pressed Huckabee extensively on the question of whether Ashkenazi Jews including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have a true connection to Israel.

“Why don’t we do genetic testing on everybody in the land and find out who Abram’s descendents are?” he asked at one point, using the name that the patriarch Abraham used before accepting the covenant with God that made him the first Jew. “Bibi’s family, we know they lived in Eastern Europe. There’s no evidence they ever lived here.”

Huckabee later denounced Carlson’s questions on social media as reflecting an antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars, a Turkic minority, rather than from Jews who lived in ancient Israel.

Carlson also claimed that Israel had sheltered a suspected sex offender from consequences after a sting operation in Nevada and that the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, whose dealings are roiling governments across the globe, had ties to Israel’s Mossad security service.

Carlson claimed that Israeli President Isaac Herzog visited Epstein’s private island, an allegation that had not previously surfaced and that Herzog categorically rejected. He later apologized for the accusation on X, saying it had been based on a reference to an unspecified “Herzog” in one of Epstein’s emails. (The recently released files have fueled a slew of antisemitic conspiracy theories.)

Carlson also apologized, as he has before, to Christian Zionists for disparaging them over their views about Israel. He repeatedly asserted that Christians in Israel are mistreated, a view that Huckabee has espoused but emphasized in the conversation that he has not personally experienced.

Carlson also accused Huckabee of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States. After Huckabee praised Israel for dropping leaflets on intended targets in Gaza, noting that the U.S. military doesn’t take the same step, Carlson, in a fiery moment, accused him of calling the Israel Defense Forces a more moral military than the United States’.

The pair found one point of unlikely alignment when Huckabee backed a Carlson hypothetical: a freeze of all U.S. funding to Israel unless the country outlaws abortions. “I would be OK with it because I hate abortion. I think it’s horrible,” he told Carlson. (Israel, which recently loosened abortion restrictions as the United States tightened them, has the highest birth rate among industrialized nations.)

The interview proved controversial before it aired, as Carlson asserted that his staff had been detained by Israeli airport security and Huckabee and Israel denied the claims. (The interview was conducted in the Tel Aviv airport, which Carlson never left during his hours-long stay in Israel.)

It remained so after launching, with Yoram Hazony, an Israeli who is an architect of the national conservatism movement, commenting extensively on Carlson’s claim that he had refused to broker a conversation between Carlson and Netanyahu. Saying that Carlson had told him Trump wanted him to end the antisemitism rift on the right, Hazony said he had demurred because he was not the right person to make the ask and did not see how Netanyahu would benefit.

He also said that he sometimes learns in private conversations that people with whom he disagrees are more nuanced in their views but that no such revelation had come in his dealings with Carlson.

“In Tucker’s case, the private person turns out to be exactly who we’ve been seeing in public,” Hazony wrote, adding, “Whatever his motives for turning his podcast into what seems to be a circus of anti-Jewish messaging, right now that project is clearly more important to him than helping the administration keep its coalition together so it can govern effectively and win elections in 2026 and 2028.”

Huckabee and Carlson did not discuss Fuentes, the Hitler apologist and avowed white nationalist whose friendly interview with Carlson last fall broke open the widening rift over antisemitism on the right. But Huckabee did push back on a different interview Carlson had conducted: with Tony Aguilar, a former U.S. Special Forces officer who became a whistleblower against what he said were inhumane conditions at Gaza humanitarian sites.

“Tony Aguilar is a liar,” the ambassador told Carlson. “You platformed a guy. You had him on your show.”

Carlson responded with a brisk articulation of his approach that could have been intended for Huckabee himself. He retorted: “I don’t platform anyone.”

TOO writer Alexander Jacob plays Wagner Piano Transcriptions!

/1 Comment/in /by

Alexander Jacob plays Wagner Piano Transcriptions!

Alexander Jacob will play a concert of transcriptions for solo piano by Richard Kleinmichel and Karl Klindworth!

RSVP
Alexander Jacob plays Wagner Piano Transcriptions!

Date

Apr 23, 2026, 7:30 PM – 9:30 PM EDT

Washington, Arts Club of Washington, 2017 I St NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA

Details

Alexander Jacob will play a concert of transcriptions for solo piano by Richard Kleinmichel and Karl Klindworth; program to be announced.

Dr. Jacob received his PhD in the History of Ideas at Pennsylvania State University and his Licentiate Diploma in Piano from the Trinity College of Music, London.

RSVP

Larry Johnson: Trump’s problem’s mounting. Huckabee says it’s acceptable for Israel to control land from Nile to Euphrates

/3 Comments/in /by
Huckabee said this during his interview with Tucker Carlson. Just like the Bible says. Arabs are not happy. But the good news is that it might prevent Trump from engaging in Israel’s war with Iran. Larry Johnson is a regular guest on Judge Nap’s podcast.
The Tucker interview had some interesting moments but at well over 2 hours it was hard to take, with Huckabee constantly repeating Israeli talking points. And I thought Tucker was underprepared on some of the basics of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Even the New York Times was more on point on the ethnic cleansing on the West Bank, Israeli apartheid, and the genocide. Huckabee kept insisting that Israel did more than any other military to avoid civilian casualties. Absurd. 

DONALD TRUMP’S PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST (AKA WEST ASIA) ARE MOUNTING

 by  223 Comments

XTelegramVKFacebookEmailCopy LinkShare

It appears that Sunday is the final moment when Trump will make his decision whether or not to attack Iran… It is the last paragraph in this Xwitter (pronounced, “SHITTER”)message that caught my eye:

However, his calendar now indicates that he will instead participate in two meetings at the White House that day. The cancellation has also been confirmed by the U.S. Consulate in Milan.

An Israeli reaffirms this information in a related Xwitter:

General Kenneth S. Wilsbach currently serves as the 24th Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. I have it on good authority that his attitude is:

Time to piss or get off the pot. We have to push now or wait a month. The Iranians can’t shoot for shit but we need the night.

Sunday marks the last day of limited moonlight. As I mentioned in my last article, the Air Force planners prefer to operate with the cover of darkness… Flying into a contested zone with a half-moon or full moon creates additional risks, at least in the minds of the planners. Now it is true that the kidnapping of Maduro was conducted with a full moon — very uncharacteristic for a Special Operations mission — however, US intelligence assets had secured the cooperation of the Venezuelan military to turn off the Venezuelan air defenses and to allow the kidnapping of Maduro to take place without any significant opposition.

Iran is a different animal. It fully expects to be attacked and has been preparing to fight back against any aerial assault… Plus it has had its air defense capabilities significantly enhanced by Russian and Chinese assets. Trump’s decision on Sunday will be whether to launch now or delay. There is always the possibility that Trump will ignore the warning from General Wilsbach about launching an attack without the cover of darkness. However, senior military and intelligence officials are telling Trump that Iranians can’t shoot for shit and that the US Air Force has high confidence it can effectively Suppress Enemy Air Defense aka SEAD.

If Trump decides to go, US Air Force and Navy assets are likely to start attacking Iran late Sunday night/early Monday morning Iran time.

But there is another wrinkle that may force Trump to postpone: Fourteen Muslim countries — which include all of the countries the US claims as allies — along with three major Islamic organizations, are furious with Trump because of the intemperate remarks of US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, during his conversation last Tuesday with Tucker Carlson, said it would be acceptable for Israel to exercise control over territories belonging to Arab States, including the occupied West Bank.

That stupid remark has ignited an inferno of outrage from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkiye, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, the State of Palestine, along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the League of Arab States and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Talk about bad timing.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are currently hosting hundreds of US combat aircraft and tankers that refuel those planes. Does this mean that they will block any US attempt to launch an attack from their territories? Maybe. It also is noteworthy that both the Saudis and the Emiratis signed on to this stern denunciation because they have been busy pissing on each other during the past two weeks. This is the strongest joint-condemnation of Israel since the start of the genocide in Gaza.

Continues at Sonar21…

Without Victory, There Is No Survival

/1 Comment/in /by

How many times do Americans have to vote for Donald Trump to make the point that they want illegal immigrants deported? They voted for him in 2016, despite sheer hysteria from Democrats, the entire media, and nearly all elected Republicans. They voted for him again in 2024 by an even larger margin, with some misgivings, because he promised a mass deportation force.

Do we have to make Stephen Miller president so you finally get the point? Is this Groundhog Day? Why do we always have to start at square one on the question of: Should we have a country?

The open borders crowd has two counter-arguments: Virtue signaling and lying.

First, the virtue signaling. While never so much as acknowledging the Americans brutalized, raped and murdered by illegal immigrants, the media are awash with humanizing details about “irregular migrants.”

Apparently, it’s especially heinous for ICE to arrest an undocumented person if he or she is engaged in some “homey” activity, like “taking their dog to the vet,” or “working on their car” or “shopping for ingredients for a stew.” (Personally, I would accept that defense so long as the migrant can prove that the groceries she was purchasing were actually for a stew. Not “a roast beef sandwich,” or some kind of salad, but a bona fide stew.).

The Trump administration has deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, but the only ones obsessively focused on by the media are the ones with toddlers. If you’ve ever known one, they cry a lot. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons, sometimes for no reason at all. They were probably crying coming into the country. But I guess we’re not allowed to have a country if any illegal alien child cries.

Another popular argument from the compassion exhibitionists is to inform us—the psychopaths who believe the country’s laws should be enforced—that illegal immigrants are human beings!

A few classics:

— Joe Biden: “Republicans are playing politics with human beings.”

— Rep. Joaquin Castro: “They are human beings.”

— Republican presidential candidate Jeb-exclamation point: “I hope that all of us, as we deal with this immigration issue, will always see it as an issue that resolves around real human beings.…”

— Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman: “we`re dealing with human beings here.”

Yeah, thanks, you big-hearted love-bugs, but that’s the problem. If they were carburetors or holiday-themed placemats, illegal immigrants wouldn’t be an unfathomable burden on our police, hospitals, social services, housing, prisons, schools, roads, and parks. They wouldn’t be illegally voting in our elections. They wouldn’t be raping little girls, taking over apartment complexes, and hauling in the drugs that have killed millions of Americans. They wouldn’t be scamming Medicaid, COVID-19 relief funds, child nutrition programs, and a long list of other services funded by the U.S. taxpayer. But enough about Ilhan Omar.

Next the lies. They’ve got a million of ‘em.

Immigrants use less welfare than the native population! (Only by calling Social Security “welfare,” at one end, and, at the other, counting illegal alien families with an anchor baby as “Americans.”) Immigrants create all kinds of businesses! (Yes, like Somalian fake daycare facilities, birth tourism and “crash-for-cash” schemes—plus some small, single-person LLCs.) They’re just like the Irish and Italian immigrants before them! (Except instead of W.B. Yeats and Michelangelo, their forbears were Aztec baby sacrificers and voodoo priests.)

The most enraging lie about immigrants is the claim that they actually commit LESS crime than the native population! The preposterousness of the “studies,” the stupidity of the argument, and the gullibility of journalists to any happy talk about immigrants, requires its own column.

Until then, a quiz!
Q: How many immigrants should be criminals?
A: Zero.

These aren’t people we’re stuck with. We can take anyone we want. Why would we ever admit any criminals? What’s on the “plus” side of the ledger to balance out “criminal”?

This is our last chance to save the country. Soon, we won’t even be the same people, just lines on a map, populated by escapees from the third world. As we bid them goodbye, we should wish the decent, hardworking ones, the grace of God they deserve.

But we also need to remember that even the illegal immigrants who aren’t raping little girls, trafficking drugs, or stealing from government programs, are still overwhelmingly poor, unskilled, non-English-speaking, backwards and in need of great heaping gobs of government assistance.

We’ve got our own poor people. Many of them are post-1965 legal immigrants, who thought they were fleeing the third world to come to America, but if we don’t start enforcing our immigration laws, they will have merely fled one third world country to come to another.

Just as World War II was a live-or-die moment for Europe, this is a live-or-die moment for us.

Obviously, it’s awful that Alex Pretti had to die. But let’s consider his harassment of ICE agents in a different context, arguably no less vital to the survival of the United States of America.

Suppose that after all the preparation for D-Day—American industry producing landing craft vehicles and bombers in record time, 13,000 men leaping from aircraft, and 73,000 running ashore—the men wading through freezing water looked up and saw Alex Pretti running around Omaha Beach, screaming, shouting expletives, swinging and kicking at them to block the mission. He would have been the first man in history killed by 1,000 bullets.

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER