64.3 F
Chicago
Monday, October 12, 2026
Home Blog Page 2109

Damning Report Highlights Growing Intolerance And Violence Against Christians In Europe

0
Damning Report Highlights Growing Intolerance And Violence Against Christians In Europe

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

A new report from the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe) has sounded the alarm about escalating violence and discrimination faced by Christians across the continent.

In 2023, 2,444 anti-Christian hate crimes were documented across 35 European countries. These crimes ranged from vandalism and arson to physical violence and restrictions on religious freedoms. The findings reveal a concerning trend that has left Christian communities feeling increasingly vulnerable.

The report published on Friday highlighted France, the U.K., and Germany as areas of particular concern. France recorded nearly 1,000 hate crimes last year, making it the most affected country. The incidents included the desecration of churches and cemeteries, with at least 84 direct attacks on individuals.

Meanwhile, the U.K. experienced over 700 incidents, a 15 percent increase compared to the previous year. One high-profile case involved the conviction of an individual for silently praying outside an abortion clinic, illustrating the growing tension around public expressions of faith.

In Germany, there was a concerning 105 percent increase in anti-Christian hate crimes, climbing from 135 in 2022 to 277 in 2023. Churches were frequent targets, with vandalism and property damage often unreported in official statistics, according to the report. Estimates suggest at least 2,000 cases of property damage against religious institutions went unnoticed due to the lack of a clear political motive.

The report outlines the various forms these attacks have taken. Vandalism accounts for the majority, making up 62 percent of incidents, followed by arson, threats, and physical violence. A small percentage of cases even involved attempted or completed murders.

The growing self-censorship among Christians in Europe was also highlighted as an equally concerning issue. For the first time since records began in 1953, more Christians report feeling they must be cautious when speaking about their faith than those who feel free to express it openly. This shift marks a dramatic change from 1981 when 83 percent of Christians said they felt no barriers to discussing their beliefs. Now, only 40 percent feel the same way.

Compounding the issue are restrictions on religious freedoms imposed by some European governments. Beyond high-profile legal cases like the U.K. prayer conviction, bans on religious processions and other policies have disproportionately affected Christians.

Moves to secularize traditional Christian holidays have also become more frequent, and despite falling under the threshold of a hate crime, it is indicative of a gradual move away from Christian values.

Experts warn that the real scale of the problem is far greater than official statistics suggest. Regina Polak, OSCE’s special representative for combating racism, xenophobia, and discrimination, described anti-Christian hate crimes as a “message of exclusion” that impacts not only the victims but society as a whole.

OIDAC Managing Director Anja Hoffmann echoed this concern, emphasizing the significant number of unreported cases.

She urged governments to take more proactive measures to protect Christian communities and ensure that hate crimes are accurately documented and addressed.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/19/2024 – 02:00

Mad At The Election? Blame Obama

0
Mad At The Election? Blame Obama

Authored by Josiah Lippincott via American Greatness,

Liberals who are in the throes of capitulation and despair after Donald Trump’s crushing electoral and popular vote win can lay blame for their disastrous loss at the feet of one man: Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama built the Trump wave. His failure to live up to the promises of his populist 2008 run has cursed the Democratic Party, probably for a generation. The Washington DC establishment in just two short months is going to get “scholonged” by an angry and vengeful Trump, ready to rain executive hellfire on the bureaucrats and institutions that have spent the last nine years fighting him tooth and nail.

All of this could have been prevented. In 2008, Obama swept into power with a crushing electoral college and popular vote majority. He won Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. He even won Indiana. Democrats swept into power in Congress with a 74-seat lead in the House, nearly 59% of seats, and were gifted with a magical 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.

This was a generational victory, a sign that voters were fed up with politics as usual and the failures of the GOP and the Washington and Wall Street establishment as such. This victory wasn’t just about electing the first Black president, though that was important: The policies and platform at stake appealed deeply to voters.

It is worth remembering what exactly those policies were.

Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, end the Afghanistan war with honor, help the economy by reducing health care costs (prioritizing “Main Street” over Wall Street), and bring about a new era of racial harmony. Moreover, Obama explicitly eschewed radical leftist politics. He explicitly defended traditional marriage. In his DNC nomination speech, he condemned employers who “undercut American wages by hiring illegal workers.”

Obama ran a campaign on bringing “change” to DC. He made much of his status as a newcomer who lacked the “typical pedigree” of a candidate for the nation’s highest office.

Put another way, Obama won a decisive victory in 2008 by campaigning as a Washington outsider bent on ending foreign wars, boosting the economy by helping ordinary people, and being a moderate on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Does this message sound familiar? It should.

In broad measure, it is the same formula that brought Donald Trump to power in 2016 and has given him, like Obama, unified control over the executive and legislative branches after a crushing electoral and popular vote win.

Obama’s hubris is the reason the Democratic Party stands here today—powerless in the face of “Orange Hitler.”

Obama did not close Guantanamo Bay, he ended the Iraq War only to get sucked back in, killed Osama Bin Laden but kept troops in Afghanistan, started wars in Libya and Syria, and, most damningly, inflamed racial tensions when he had a chance to calm them.

Far from being a moderate on social issues, Obama was the president whose picks for the Supreme Court rammed gay marriage down Americans throats after it had suffered numerous state-level electoral setbacks, including in California of all places in the very election that brought Obama to power!

Obama’s pledge to reduce health care costs in 2008 did not come with an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The final bill that snaked its way through Congress and was signed into law did contain such a penalty. Instead of lowering health care costs, Americans watched as their premiums went up.

Instead of fewer foreign wars, we got more. Instead of declaring victory after the death of the mastermind behind 9/11, we got eight more years of war. On every front, Obama didn’t just fail to follow through on his mandate, he actively worked for the opposite outcome.

Obama lacked the strength of character and will to follow through on his promises and to deliver the shake-up in Washington that he promised. He was more concerned with hanging out with celebrities and being cool than facing down his own Party’s bosses to deliver on the promises he made to the American people. Nancy Pelosi, 16 years later, still remains one of the most powerful figures in the Party.

Americans sent a refined, urbane, grassroots college professor to do their bidding in DC. When he failed, they decided to send their message in a language that no one could misunderstand. They sent Trump.

Trump is everything Obama is not: loud, dominating, and brash. There is none of Obama’s snark in his demeanor. And, unlike Obama, Trump has proven durable and faithful. Unlike Obama, Trump has built on his popular vote total with each successive election.

Nothing can stop him: not the GOP leadership class (compare Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi’s careers), not the bureaucracy, not the media, not even an assassin’s bullet. Trump is the avenging angel of American populist rage. The post-1945 world order—especially after the fall of the Soviet Union—was supposed to deliver peace and prosperity on an untold scale.

Instead, we’ve gotten more war, more debt, and more of our economy shipped overseas. Americans, even those who are successful, live in a world increasingly pockmarked by obesity, homelessness, crazed radicalism, and a flood of foreigners looking for a hand-out.

This was not what we were promised! Looking back on the last two decades of war in the Middle East, what can anyone say we won in these places? Peace? Stability? The region is as broken and violent as ever. The 9/11 hijackers all came in legally. No one has ever solved that problem or even acknowledged that it existed.

Moreover, the wars never end. Trump is the only president in my lifetime not to get us engaged in any new conflicts, but even he wasn’t able to bring the troops home from Afghanistan in his first term. Biden did, but then immediately hauled the nation back into war in Europe.

We are never allowed to be neutral, never allowed to focus on ourselves, never allowed to rest. Millions of migrants invade our southern border and flood our communities with drugs that kill more than a hundred thousand Americans yearly and not one politician in DC blinks. They care infinitely more about Ukraine’s border than our own. Americans are fed up with this attitude.

Obama’s failures on race were the most striking feature of his presidency and have done the most lasting damage. Race relations have hit an all-time low. Obama could have put a lot of the turmoil to rest, using his position as the first Black president as a way to shore up confidence in our institutions. He could have brought the Civil Rights movement to an end, insisting that our work now was not to gain equality but to preserve the hard and painful work we’d already accomplished. But no. Instead we got George Floyd and the 2020 Summer of Love, in which a dozen major American cities burned because a career criminal died in police custody from an overdose.

And every year, some new cause gets added to the pantheon of aggrieved minorities demanding social justice. First, it was gay marriage; now it is transgenderism. God only knows what will come next. Furries? Polycules? Worse? With each new wave of leftist radicalism has come vicious shrieking from activists aimed at ordinary Americans. The latest cause—the post-COVID explosion of transgenderism—has touched ordinary Americans’ lives in a way that even homosexuality did not.

The LGBT wave has finally hit upon children and teens with its full force. The loss of community and the social upheaval of the COVID period has resulted in a generation of youth particularly susceptible to the promises of transgender identity.

Speaking of COVID, the American medical establishment worked for two whole years to end normal life, destroy free association, and impose draconian measures on the population.

Once the COVID paranoia died down, the regime immediately turned to trying to put the opposition leader into prison for made-up crimes. That all-out media and legal blitz ended with two attempted assassination attempts, one that nearly blew the president’s head off on live television.

The supposedly “apolitical” military, medical, media and legal establishments have shorn themselves of any pretense of neutrality. They have thrown their lot in with the Democratic Party and its most radical wing.

None of this had to happen.

Obama had a golden chance in 2008 to lock in Democratic rule for a generation. All he had to do was follow through. He had to keep his word and he needed to stand up to his own party when they sought to drag him back into their moribund consensus. But Obama chose wealth and respectability over doing the right thing.

He chose to divide the country further instead of rallying it around a new multi-racial coalition dedicated to peace abroad and prosperity at home. Trump has inherited that mantle. Here, in his second term, Trump finally has the full, unquestionable mandate that once rested on Obama’s shoulders.

If he succeeds, the GOP can expect decades of political and cultural dominance. The Trump era will last far beyond Trump’s actual death. There is reason to hope, as well. Trump’s first term and his years in the wilderness have armed him with a better knowledge of DC and a clearer understanding of the qualities and allies he needs to advance his goals.

His slate of cabinet picks is hated by the DC chatterati. This bodes well. Clean house. Go to war. Trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

All he needs to do is deliver. He needs to give the voters what he promised them: mass deportations, increased election security, and no new wars. Do those things on Day 1 and the Republicans have 2026 sewn up. Get us out of Ukraine and deliver real economic growth and JD Vance is a lock for 2028. It really is that simple.

Trump has everything he needs. Now all that remains is to act.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 23:25

Xi’s “Four Red Lines” For China Set To Clash With Trump’s ‘America First’ Trade Measures

0
Xi’s “Four Red Lines” For China Set To Clash With Trump’s ‘America First’ Trade Measures

President-elect Trump is set to steamroll Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s ‘red lines’ communicated to President Biden this weekend, likely to be on display from day one after he enters the Oval Office for the second time on Jan. 20. This is especially given his campaign promises impose a blanket 60% tariff on Chinese goods, touted as key to a package of “America First” trade measures.

Xi conveyed that he’s willing and ready to work with the incoming Trump administration, during the meeting with Biden that took place on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima, Peru. 

Xi told Biden: “The United States has recently concluded its elections. China’s goal of a stable, healthy, and sustainable China–U.S. relationship remains unchanged.” But the optics at the Peru summit strongly suggest lame-duck Biden had long already taken a backseat in terms of assertiveness over US-China relations…

“China is ready to work with the new U.S. administration to maintain communication, expand cooperation, and manage differences, so as to strive for a steady transition of the China-US relationship for the benefit of the two peoples,” Xi additionally conveyed to Biden. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan in follow-up emphasized of the “candid” and “constructive” talks–sure to be the last held face to face of the Biden presidency, that Biden “has worked hard to responsibly manage the competition” with China over four years to prevent things from spiraling into conflict.

The some two-hour weekend meeting included what’s being described as an olive branch from Xi, but more importantly a series of ‘red lines’ if Washington wishes to avoid a “new Cold War”.

“A new Cold War should not be fought and cannot be won. Containing China is unwise, unacceptable and bound to fail,” Xi told the American president.

President Xi broadly laid out four red lines as follows:

“The Taiwan question, democracy and human rights, China’s path and system, and China’s development right are four red lines for China,” Xi was quoted as saying.

“They must not be challenged. These are the most important guardrails and safety nets for China-US relations.”

It as especially on the Taiwan question that Xi spoke with firmness, and specifics, at one point mentioning Taiwanese president Lai Ching-te by name (a rarity). He reiterated that Beijing views Taiwan as an integral part of the country and thus that Mr. Lai based on his articulated policies is a “separatist”. Xi further warned that the US “should not get involved in bilateral disputes over the relevant islands” in the South China Sea.

Xi said of his four red lines and the future of relations with the US, “Words must be trustworthy and actions must be fruitful. A person cannot stand without credibility. China always follows through on its words, but if the US side always says one thing and does another, it is very detrimental to America’s image and damages mutual trust.”

China’s President Xi Jinping, left, speaks with Peru’s President Dina Boluarte, right, amid other APEC leaders, via AP.

Again, these are the four red lines, which the Chinese leader urged Washington to avoid crossing, no matter the administration: 

1) Supporting Taiwan independence.

2) Interfering in China’s democracy and human rights

3) Stifling China’s development path, e.g. by sanctions and trade restrictions.

4) Restricting China’s rights to advancement and development.

Below are more translated details of Xi’s words, with some commentary by regional watcher and analyst Arnaud Bertrand.

* * *

According to the Chinese readout (https://guancha.cn/internation/2024_11_17_755645.shtml…) here’s what he told Biden were the 7 “lessons of the past 4 years that need to be remembered”:

1) “There must be correct strategic understanding. The ‘Thucydides Trap’ is not historical destiny, a ‘new Cold War’ cannot and should not be fought, containment of China is unwise, undesirable, and will not succeed.”

2) “Words must be trustworthy and actions must be fruitful. A person cannot stand without credibility. China always follows through on its words, but if the U.S. side always says one thing and does another, it is very detrimental to America’s image and damages mutual trust.”

3) “Treat each other as equals. In exchanges between two major countries like China and the United States, neither side can reshape the other according to their own wishes, nor can they suppress the other based on so-called ‘position of strength,’ let alone deprive the other of legitimate development rights to maintain their own leading position.”

4) “Red lines and bottom lines cannot be challenged. As two major countries, China and the United States inevitably have some contradictions and differences, but they cannot harm each other’s core interests, let alone engage in conflict and confrontation. The One China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués are the political foundation of bilateral relations and must be strictly observed. Taiwan issue, democracy and human rights, development path, and development rights are China’s four red lines, which cannot be challenged. [Note: Bold text in the original] These are the most important guardrails and safety nets for China-US relations.”

5) “There should be more dialogue and cooperation. Under current circumstances, the common interests between China and the United States have not decreased but increased. Whether in areas of economy and trade, agriculture, drug control, law enforcement, public health, or in facing global challenges such as climate change and artificial intelligence, as well as international hotspot issues, China-US cooperation is needed. Both sides should extend the list of cooperation, make the cooperation cake bigger, and achieve win-win cooperation.”

6) “Respond to people’s expectations. The development of China-US relations should always focus on the wellbeing of both peoples and gather the strength of both peoples. Both sides should build bridges for personnel exchanges and cultural communication, and also remove interference and obstacles, not artificially create a ‘chilling effect.'”

7) “Demonstrate great power responsibility. China and the United States should always consider the future and destiny of humanity, take responsibility for world peace, provide public goods for the world, and play a positive role in world unity, including engaging in positive interaction, avoiding mutual consumption, and not coercing other countries to take sides.”

Funnily, all this is summarized in the official US readout (https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/readout-of-president-joe-bidens-meeting-with-president-xi-jinping-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-3/…) with this short sentence: “The two leaders reviewed the bilateral relationship over the past four years”. Talk about an understatement  The language compared to the readout of the last Xi-Biden meeting in San Francisco one year ago is noticeably more forthright, especially on the U.S.’s lack of trustworthiness (“if the U.S. side always says one thing and does another…”). Looks like he’s getting very frustrated with U.S. duplicity.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 23:00

China Fumes As US, Philippines Sign New Intelligence-Sharing & Defense Deal

0
China Fumes As US, Philippines Sign New Intelligence-Sharing & Defense Deal

The Pentagon has made deeper, permanent inroads into southeast Asia, on Monday announcing a major new deal inked by the US and Philippine defense chiefs to share classified military information and technology.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Philippine counterpart Gilberto Teodoro kicked off Austin’s visit to Manila this week with the signing of the General Security of Military Information Agreement. Monday’s events also included a closed-door meeting between the Pentagon chief and President Ferdinand Marcos.

The deal has been described as allowing the Philippines access to “higher capabilities and big-ticket items” from the US and “open opportunities to pursue similar agreements with like-minded nations,” according to Philippine Assistant Defense Secretary Arsenio Andolong.

Via AFP

Beijing is sure to also take note of the newly opened combined command and coordination center inside the Philippine military’s headquarters in the capital. Teodoro and Austin formally inaugurated it on Monday.

“This center will enable real-time information sharing for a common operating picture. It will help boost interoperability for many, many years to come,” Austin said at the ceremony. “It will be a place where our forces can work side by side to respond to regional challenges,” he added.

Philippine military chief General Romeo Brawner hailed the establishment of the joint command center, saying it will “enhance our ability to collaborate during crises, fostering an environment where our strengths combine to safeguard peace and security in our region.”

As expected, China blasted the development, with its foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian responding by warning any military agreement or security arrangement must not target “any third party or harm a third party’s interests – let alone undermine regional peace, exacerbate regional tensions.”

Of course, the US and the Philippines are already defense treaty partners, which has long injected extra tensions as rival patrols in regional waters come up against each other:

China has brushed aside an international ruling that its claims in the South China Sea have no legal basis, and has deployed navy and coast guard vessels that Manila says harass its vessels and stop them accessing some reefs and islands in the waters.

This has led to violent confrontations that have resulted in injuries to Filipino personnel and damage to their vessels in the past 18 months.

That has sparked concern the United States could be drawn into an armed conflict due to its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines.

This new military intelligence and defense tech sharing agreement, along with the inaugurated command center, further solidifies Washington’s presence in the region.

Dramatic scenes like the below have been on the increase of late:

On the other side of the globe, China seems bent on teaching the US a lesson, in expanding its own intelligence and military presence in places like Cuba, not far off America’s coast. Beijing without doubt sees its inroads into Latin America as a necessary response to America’s expanding Pacific presence. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 22:10

Kremlin Says Biden “Adding Fuel To The Fire” By Approving Missile Strikes In Russia

0
Kremlin Says Biden “Adding Fuel To The Fire” By Approving Missile Strikes In Russia

By Chris Summers of Epoch Times

The Kremlin has accused President Joe Biden of, “adding fuel to the fire” after it was reported he had given his approval to Ukraine using U.S.-made missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov is reported by the BBC to have said on Monday that the Biden administration was “continuing to stoke tension around this conflict.”

According to anonymous U.S. officials who spoke to media outlets, Biden has authorized Ukraine to use long-range missiles provided by the Pentagon to strike targets in the Russian region of Kursk.

Peskov told the Tass news agency, “If such a decision has indeed been formulated and communicated to the Kyiv regime, then, of course, this is a qualitatively new round of escalation of tensions, and a qualitatively new situation in terms of the involvement of the United States in this conflict.”

The Tass news agency, on its Telegram channel, said Peskov had described the idea of missile strikes inside Russia as “dangerous and provocative.”

Peskov referred journalists to a statement made by Putin in September, in which he said allowing Ukraine to target Russia would change “the very nature of the conflict dramatically.”

But Peskov said Putin was “open to any communication” but had not yet spoken to French President Emmanuel Macron, who was reported to be planning to call the Russian leader.

The UK and France have both supplied Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, which could be used to hit targets in Russia, but so far, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Macron have not given permission.

Starmer said they “need to double down” on support for Ukraine and insisted that the issue was “top” of his agenda at this week’s G20 summit in Brazil.

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and recently deployed thousands of North Korean troops to the frontline, fighting alongside Russian forces.

Ukrainian forces launched a significant cross-border operation into Russia’s region of Kursk earlier this year. Intense fighting is ongoing as Russian forces attempt to reclaim lost territory. Ukraine seized several settlements and is still holding strategic positions.

In response, Russia has allowed 11,000 North Korean troops, volunteered by Pyongyang, to deploy on the frontline in the Kursk region to aid its fight.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been pressuring the United States and NATO to allow his forces to use army tactical missile systems they have been supplied with to hit targets deep inside Russia, arguing Moscow has already escalated the conflict with the North Korean deployment.

On Monday, Zelenskyy said “long-range capabilities” were a vital part of his “victory plan,” which he fleshed out in the Ukrainian Parliament last month.

“Missiles Will Speak for Themselves”

“There’s been much said in the media today that we have received approval to take relative actions. But strikes are not carried out with words. These things are not announced. The missiles will speak for themselves,” Zelenskyy said on Monday.

Tass also reported that Viktor Bondarev, a senior Russian senator and former Russian air force commander-in-chief, said, “Russia has sufficient advanced capabilities to counter attacks by any weapons, including long-range weapons.”

Earlier this month, 34 Ukrainian drones attacked targets in Moscow, but the Russian defense ministry claimed the attack had been “thwarted.”

The defense ministry said the Ukrainians targeted the Kursk, Bryansk, Tula, Oryol, and Kaluga regions.

The Kremlin’s own Telegram channel has so far not commented on the reports about Biden approving missile strikes.

On Monday, it published photographs of Putin holding a “working meeting” with the governor of the Zaporozhye (Zaporizhzhia) region in occupied Ukraine, Yevgeny Balitsky.

Continue reading at Epoch Times

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 21:45

AOC Says Dems Hurt By Yielding To AIPAC’s ‘Wildly Unpopular’ Pro-Israel Agenda

0
AOC Says Dems Hurt By Yielding To AIPAC’s ‘Wildly Unpopular’ Pro-Israel Agenda

Progressive New York Rep. Alexandrio Ocasio-Cortez kicked a hornet’s nest on Sunday afternoon when she pointed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as one of the powerful special interest groups that push a “wildly unpopular agenda” on Democratic politicians to the party’s detriment.   

AOC’s comment came in a response to a social media post by Jeremy Slevin. “Weird to have a whole discourse about ‘special interest groups’ that completely leaves out corporate and industry lobbies—by far the most influential ‘groups’ in the Democratic Party,” wrote the senior advisor to progressive Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Implying that Slevin was himself omitting an important special interest group, AOC characterized AIPAC as “a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda that pushes voters away from Democrats,” and said Democrats were “overly influenced” by the big-spending organization.  

Having long been an enormously influential lobbying group, AIPAC began pursuing a new avenue of influence in 2022, and started spending money directly on political campaigns, and rapidly became one of the most prolific outside spenders in US politics, targeting members of Congress who dared to push back on unconditional military and financial aid to Israel. 

The 2024 election saw Democrats lose the White House and the Senate while failing to take over the House of Representatives. While there’s no indication that the issue was decisive, the Biden-Harris administration’s eager provision of weapons and billions of dollars to Israel for the pursuit of its astoundingly destructive war on Gaza doubtlessly dampened Democrats’ enthusiasm and turnout. 

A September Pew Research poll found that half of Democrats felt Israel’s military operation was “going too far”, while an Economist poll found that just 14% of Democrats held more sympathy for Israelis than Palestinians. With full knowledge of these dynamics, party standard-bearer Harris nonetheless pressed on with full-throated support of Israel, failing to stake out any policy difference with Biden on the Gaza War. 

AIPAC quickly fired back at AOC’s social media post, sharing screen shots that spotlighted the group’s ousting of progressive Democratic representatives Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman. Both were guilty of criticizing Israeli government policies and voicing sympathy for Palestinians — and both were removed by Democratic primary challengers backed by AIPAC to the tune of a combined $14 million. AIPAC’s spending on the Bowman race helped make it the most expensive House primary contest ever.

To describe AIPAC’s retort as misleading would be a huge understatement. As it did frequently through the 2024 cycle, the group implied that support of Israel was the key to the success of the candidates it backed. However, that claim is defied by an odd and unsettling aspect of the Israel lobby’s participation in these races: Advertising that pro-Israel groups injected into 2024 campaigns almost never mentioned Israel. Instead, the ads focused on unrelated domestic issues. AIPAC’s dedication to concealing its hand in political campaigns extends to the name of its super PAC, which it vaguely calls the “United Democracy Project.”

It’s a well-established fact of Western politics that one can talk with relatively impunity about the power wielded by any number of special interest groups — but not the pro-Israel lobby. Predictably, AOC’s post about AIPAC triggered a deluge of responses accusing her of bigotry: 

Backers and beneficiaries of AIPAC face no such condemnation for noting the group’s power in US politics. In the wake of this month’s election, the Jerusalem Post lauded AIPAC for “strengthening pro-Israel presence in Congress,” saying the group “aided 318 Zionist candidates to win.”  Wesley Bell, who took out Cori Bush in the primary, thanked AIPAC, saying he was “not getting across the finish line without you.” Watch for him to be a reliable “yes” vote on every pro-Israel piece of legislation that hits the House floor in the upcoming 119th Congress. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 21:20

Threats Of Violence Against Trump Voters Surge

0
Threats Of Violence Against Trump Voters Surge

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

We’ve talked before about the mental health effects suffered by some Harris supporters after mainstream media convinced them that there was no way Trump could win. Now, as the truth settles in that he, in fact, will be the 47th president, threats of violence against Trump voters have absolutely surged.

It’s getting to the point where I find it difficult to imagine that this violence will carry over into the real world.

Reddit is a hotbed of extremism.

I’ve had an anonymous Reddit account for years because it’s nice to chat and see the opinions of others about all manner of things. I have honestly learned a lot from the site. But as it became more and more radical, I stopped posting completely.

For example, Gateway Pundit reports that a radical man who claims to be employed by the United States Secret Service – yeah, the one who is tasked with the responsibility of Trump’s safety – has been posting disturbing, venomous commentary from his “insider view.”

Counter-extremism researchers with the Justice Report say they have discovered that a lifelong anarchist, left-wing extremist, and devout follower of Anfifa is working as a Secret Service agent. Moreover, the individual reportedly has made a series of disgusting comments regarding Trump.

The Gateway Pundit will NOT be naming the alleged Secret Service agent until we confirm the person’s identity.

The supposed agent has a series of ugly posts under the since-deleted account /u/endon40 on the leftist social media forum Reddit where he calls the American electorate “chodes” and Nazis who voted for a man with “Nazi-a** policies.”

“These chodes are cowards and won’t win, no matter how long it takes to pry them from power if they manage to cheat their way back to it,” the Anifa sympathizer wrote. “The survival rate of fascist dictatorships trends towards zero.”

“They voted for a dude who has Nazi-a**policies and who surrounds himself with people who do, including actual neo-Nazis,” he added, “When you’re willing to (vote Trump) and support a guy who has policies mirroring the Third Reich and again, had actual neo nazis around him, you’re a Nazi.

But that is far from the worst of it.

The X account Reddit_Lies has collected tons of horrifying comments from Reddit that suggest outright violence against Trump supporters. Here’s a collage of concerning posts. (Warning – some of these posts contain threats of graphic violence and foul language.)

I don’t foresee this calming down.

The rhetoric is outright insane, as discussed before.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop since the election. I was surprised that there was very little civil unrest after Trump was announced the winner.

But I don’t think we should get too comfortable.

People like the ones above feel completely justified in assassinating the president, physically harming anyone they assume voted for him, and cutting off loved ones who voted for Trump.

If you don’t have it already, check out our paperback anthology, How to Survive During Dangerous Times.

Your situational awareness is invaluable right now. When people are afraid, sometimes they launch an attack offensively. I think it’s only a matter of time before bad things start happening in the real world. What do you think?

Do you expect an uptick in unwarranted violence? Have you seen or heard of anything happening yet? Do you think that plans are being made?

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 20:55

Saudi Arabia “Leading A Push Back” On Commitments To Leave Fossil Fuels At COP29

0
Saudi Arabia “Leading A Push Back” On Commitments To Leave Fossil Fuels At COP29

Saudi Arabia is reportedly “leading a push back” on restating climate commitments to transition away from fossil fuels put into place last year, according to Yahoo Finance.

The Yahoo Finance article says that both European and U.S. negotiators aim to reinforce last year’s commitments to boost energy efficiency and renewable energy, viewing them as crucial to maintaining progress in the global climate fight.

But Saudi Arabia is reportedly using “a mix of delaying tactics and outright blocking maneuvers” to resist these efforts, the report says. 

Last year, COP28 marked the first inclusion of a fossil fuel phase-out in its final agreement, with the UAE securing support from Saudi Arabia and other oil producers. Developed and climate-vulnerable nations see any weakening of that language as a significant setback.

This year’s COP29 negotiations are focused on scaling up climate finance to over $1 trillion annually, pressuring nations like Saudi Arabia to contribute more, while also solidifying commitments made last year to phase down fossil fuels and accelerate renewable energy.

Disagreements persist over whether countries should act on all the commitments or select priorities, with Saudi Arabia advocating the latter approach. As talks enter a critical phase, ministers must resolve key disputes, reduce dense negotiation texts, and finalize trade-offs behind closed doors.

And there were signs this might be the case…recall, just days ago we wrote that climate summits were “no longer fit for purpose”. 

Leading climate experts, including Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström, are calling for significant changes to UN climate summits, according to a new report from The Guardian.

They argue future conferences should only be hosted by nations demonstrating strong climate action and advocate for stricter controls on fossil fuel lobbyists. Over 1,700 industry lobbyists attended Cop29, raising concerns about undue influence.  

The group has urged the UN to streamline the annual summits, amplify the voices of developing countries, and increase meeting frequency to better address the climate crisis.

“It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 20:30

ZH Debate: Blumenthal & Beattie Clash Over Trump Cabinet Appointments

0
ZH Debate: Blumenthal & Beattie Clash Over Trump Cabinet Appointments

 Full debate:

***UPDATE: Big Thanks to Adam Taggart for filling in last-minute. We strongly encourage you to subscribe to his YouTube channel for top-teir economic interviews unlike anyone else. ***

Join us on today at 7pm ET for a live debate with Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal and Revolver News founder Darren Beattie, moderated by the Judge Andrew Napolitano. Resolution: The second Trump administration will be America First.

Premium/Pro users submit questions for the debaters below.

Regarding Trump’s cabinet, Blumenthal – veteran journalist and infamous DC dissident – is concerned about mounting Israeli influence, which has manifested in hawkish foreign policy picks like Pete Hegseth for SecDef, Marco Rubio for State, and fanatically Zionist ambassadors Stenafik/Huckabee.

​While Beattie – known for his dogged reporting into federal involvement on Jan 6 – adovocated for Trump’s appointees to be confirmed by “any means necessary” because they represent a dramatic realignment of Washington’s status quo. And after all, Trump is pissing off the right people…

Despite this, Blumenthal is not optimistic that a second Trump admin will be truly sovereign but captured the donor class and foreign interests. More troubling indications are on the horizon with future rumored personnel, such as Sebastian “gay whale” Gorka (as Alex Jones calls him):

As the fight to influence the big man intensifies, hear from both sides: Trump’s former speech writer and one of America’s sharpest foreign policy blob critics.

Our panelists will cover all major cabinet appointees. Including those deemed by warmonger John “we know where your kids live” Bolton to be the “worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history.”:

We look forward to hearing criticisms from people who haven’t destroyed entire countries.

Join us today at 7 PM eastern on the ZeroHedge homepage and X account.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 20:15

Lebanon, Hezbollah Agree To US-Proposed Ceasefire With Israel After Especially Bloody 24 Hours

0
Lebanon, Hezbollah Agree To US-Proposed Ceasefire With Israel After Especially Bloody 24 Hours

It appears Netanyahu’s reported “gift” of a Lebanon ceasefire in the wake of Trump’s election victory is coming to fruition. Reuters and other international outlets are reporting that agreement on a US-proposed ceasefire has been reached.

“Lebanon and Hezbollah have agreed to a U.S. proposal for a ceasefire with Israel with some comments on the content, a top Lebanese official told Reuters on Monday, describing the effort as the most serious yet to end to the fighting.”

Hezbollah militants, via AFP

A Lebanese source, Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, has said “Lebanon had delivered its written response to the U.S. ambassador in Lebanon on Monday, and White House envoy Amos Hochstein was travelling to Beirut to continue talks,” Reuters writes late in the day Monday.

Israel has yet to issue official comment, and much remains to be seen on whether it will actually take effect or hold:

“Lebanon presented its comments on the paper in a positive atmosphere,” Khalil said, declining to give further details. “All the comments that we presented affirm the precise adherence to (U.N.) Resolution 1701 with all its provisions,” he said.

It comes as a bit of a surprise, given how violent the past 24 hours have been on both sides of the border. 

At least five Lebanese were killed Monday due to an Israeli strike on the Zuqaq al-Blat area, with casualty figures expected to increase amid an emergency response. Over 30 were injured in the attack, others remain missing.

On the Israeli side of the war-ravaged border area, Israeli sources are saying a number of Hezbollah missiles scored direct hits on civilian areas:

A woman was killed and at least 17 people were wounded in several rocket barrages fired by Hezbollah on Monday, as the terror group launched more than 100 rockets at northern Israel and one missile at the country’s center throughout the day.

The woman, identified as Safaa Awad, 41, was killed and dozens of others wounded in the evening by a rocket that hit a three-story building in the northern town of Shfar’am after Hezbollah fired five projectiles at the Galilee.

Among the wounded victims were a woman aged 41 and a 4-year-old boy in serious condition, Rambam Hospital in Haifa said.

The medical center said a total of 56 victims were brought for treatment, mostly for acute anxiety. Among the victims were 18 children, the hospital adds.

There was also a major Hezbollah missile strike on Tel Aviv Monday:

Israeli media has also picked up on the breaking report of the ceasefire deal, also emphasizing there’s been no initial comment from the Israeli government:

Its terms require Hezbollah to have no armed presence in the area between the Lebanese-Israeli border and the Litani River, which runs some 30 kilometers (20 miles) north of the frontier — clauses the terror group violated from the get-go.

Khalil claims the success of the initiative now depended on Israel, saying if Israel did not want a solution, “it could make 100 problems.

Lebanese officials are now saying the ball is in Israel’s court. Currently an Israeli ground offensive is still active, and Beirut has been heavily pummeled by Israel’s aerial offensive, which has also reached into central and northeastern Lebanon of late, especially the Bekaa Valley.

Like with Ukraine, President-elect Trump is pledging to quickly bring to an end wars which have Washington involvement; however, in a phone call last month he told PM Netanyahu to “do what you have to do” against Hezbollah and Hamas.

One career US diplomat in the Middle East region was cited in WaPo as saying “Netanyahu has no loyalty to Biden and will be focused entirely on currying favor with Trump.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/18/2024 – 18:00