Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

“The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg is under fire after accusing the owner of an iconic Staten Island bakery of refusing to serve her cupcakes because of her far-left views.

Goldberg complained during the daytime liberal women’s talk show Wednesday that Holtermann’s Bakery wouldn’t sell her the popular Charlotte Russe desserts she wanted for her 69th birthday because of her “politics.”

She told the audience that the push-pop style confections were a favorite of her mother’s when she was growing up.

“Now, I should tell you, Charlotte Russe has no political leanings, and the place that made these refused to make them for me,” Goldberg said, prompting horrified gasps from the audience and co-hosts.

“They said that their ovens had gone down, all kinds of stuff, but folks went and got them anyway,” Whoopie continued, adding without evidence, “they did not like my politics.”

While Whoopie did not name the shop, it was later identified by Entertainment Weekly as Holtermann’s Bakery on Staten Island, a longstanding family-owned establishment loved by locals.

Jill Holtermann, who owns the bakery, told Entertainment Weekly that “it was not because of political” reasons, but because “we were having trouble with our boilers.”

“I said to Whoopi, ‘I can’t do it right now,’” she told the outlet.

“‘We have so many things going on with my boiler,’ because the building is from 1930, so, when she called me, I had no idea [if we could] be baking everything.”

Holtermann acknowledged that she ultimately was able to make 50 of the treats, and that they were picked up early Wednesday morning for “The View’s” taping. Whoopie had planned to give them out to the audience as part of her birthday celebration.

She reiterated that her reluctance to confirm the order had nothing to do with Goldberg’s political beliefs, saying: “I didn’t want to make a commitment that I can’t carry through,” given the technical issues.

On Thursday, loyal customers in the community reportedly flooded the bakery to show support.

“A steady stream of shoppers came and went from Holtermann’s on Thursday, toting bags full of cupcakes, pies, cakes and pastries from the bakery, which customers said has never shown or expressed a preference for any political candidate,” the New York Post reported.

The brouhaha had still had not died down by Friday, with Holtermann holding a press conference flanked by local elected officials to refute Goldberg’s claims.

Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella defended the business and explained what happened.

“It’s been here 145 years. They had a boiler that was 60 or 70 years old. And the first week in November, guess what? It went on the fritz,” Fossella said.

“They had it replaced. And the reputation of Holtermann’s is impeccable, so rather than commit to something they couldn’t guarantee, they said, ‘we can’t do it.’ And the person who besmirched, defamed them, took that as an insult to her. Well, get over it. This family will be here for, God willing, another 145 years.”

“We’re here to have Holtermann’s Bakery’s back,” said Councilman David Carr.

“Because the Holtermann family generationally has had the backs of this community.”

Carr said he was happy to see so many supporters there “to send a message to the person who decided that she was too important for a boiler breakdown.”

Holtermann thanked the community for its support and tearfully described how she had been bombarded with calls since Whoopie had made the comments.

“I’m so overwhelmed by the support. Between finding out yesterday, this even happened, getting phone calls and then people coming in and people from all over just supporting us in every way,” she said. “The support has been so overwhelming and I know how hard my family has worked to keep this business alive.”

Some have said that the fact that Goldberg did not name Holtermann’s Bakery means she cannot be sued; but Jonathan Turley says, that is wrong.

There are two reasons cited for why Goldberg cannot be sued.

Her refusal to name the bakery (which she portrayed as a way of denying them favorable publicity since they eventually got the cakes) and that she used the word “perhaps” in her accusation.

The Name Game

The failure to name a party in an otherwise defamatory context is not a defense to defamation.

The strongest and easiest cases to make on defamation are those fitting into a per se category of defamation like calling someone falsely a criminal or the carrier of an infectious disease. Damages in such cases are often presumed.

Other cases are called per quod cases where the harm and damages are not immediately evident or presumed. Rather than be libelous on their face, per quod cases must often be proven through use of extrinsic facts or evidence. In such cases, you need to prove special damages.

It is worth noting that the implied accusation against the bakery could fit into a per se category of impugning business or professional integrity. Goldberg’s statement was clearly meant to impugn the reputation and professional standing of the bakery. It can be argued as defamatory per se by implication.

The fact that Goldberg identified the bakery only as a local bakery associated with these cakes is not a defense. The identity of the bakery was quickly deduced and published widely.

“Perhaps” Defamation

Goldberg could also claim that using the word “perhaps” reduced the statement to a mere opinion. This is a common misunderstanding. Often people will say “in my opinion” and then follow with a defamatory statement. It is not treated as an opinion if it is stated as a fact.

Clearly, a statement of opinion alone is not actionable when “the facts on which they are based are fully and accurately set forth and  it is clear . . . that the accusation is merely a personal surmise built upon those facts.” Gross v. New York Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163, 1169 (N.Y. 1993).

New York courts look to whether a reasonable person would consider the statement to be conveying a fact. Davis v. Boeheim, 22 N.E.3d 999, 1005 (N.Y. 2014) Moreover,  “[r]ather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact, the court should look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made,” including the forum, to determine how a reasonable reader would view them.” Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126, 1130 (N.Y. 1995).

Moreover, “an opinion that implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it… is a mixed opinion” and is actionable. Bacon v Nygard, 189 A.D.3d 530, 530 (1st Dept 2020).

Goldberg was clearly trying to convey that the bakery imposes a political litmus test or engages in political discriminatory practices against Democrats, Trump critics, or liberals. That can have an obviously harmful impact on business for the family-owned bakery.

Even if the bakery had to show malice (of a knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth), it would have a cognizable basis for such a claim against Goldberg and ABC.

It would not be the first time that they had to make such a correction and the audience of the The View does not appear to care about such false or unsupported claims.

In one such incident, Turning Point USA issued a cease and desist letter to ABC after the hosts suggested that it allowed neo-Nazis to join an event. In discussing Turning Point USA’s summit in Florida, host Joy Behar said “Neo-Nazis were out there in the front of the conference with antisemitic slurs and … the Nazi swastika and a picture of a so-called Jewish person with exaggerated features, just like Goebbels did during the Third Reich. It’s the same thing, right out of the same playbook.”

Whoopi Goldberg, then added, in reference to Turning Point USA, “you let them in and you knew what they were, so you are complicit.”

ABC then had the hosts issue an on-air apology. However, they had host Sara Haines do it: “We want to make clear that these demonstrators were outside the event and that they were not invited or endorsed by Turning Point USA.” She added “the hosts apologize for “anything we said that may have been unclear on these points.”

Obviously, it would be up to a jury to balance the earlier standards and the evidence in this case. However, a case could be made for defamation and a court could find that the matter should be left to the fact finder at trial. Goldberg and ABC would be wise to apologize on the air to the bakery on Monday.

By Mark Glennon of Wirepoints

It would be comically hypocritical if weren’t so tragically destructive. Illinois governor JB Pritzker last week appointed himself co-chair of a new group to save democracy.

It’s called Governors Safeguarding Democracy, formed to counter the incoming Trump Administration and Republican Congress. “What we’re doing is pushing back against increasing threats of autocracy and fortifying the institutions of democracy that our country and our states depend upon,” Pritzker said of the effort. “I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: No attempts to restrict the freedoms and opportunities of Illinoisans will be tolerated.”

No governor in memory in any state has thumbed his nose at democratic norms and constitutional rights more consistently and flagrantly than has Pritzker. Examples of how Pritzker earned his reputation as a “hard-left culture warrior who is happy to silence political opponents,” as the Wall Street Journal put it, are too numerous to fully list here, but consider a few:

• Through 43 consecutive, monthly emergency orders, he suspended ordinary government function and ruled by executive fiat, trampling on a list of constitutional rights, justified through censorship and suppression of opposing scientific views. Similarly, he issued 38 consecutive emergency orders enforcing his personal decisions about assistance and protection for illegal immigrants.
• He says he wants there to be a legal cause of action against anybody who says something false, which would be a flagrant violation of established First Amendment law.
• He has signed off on multiple policies and bills that violate constitutional rights to free speech, such as Illinois’ new law banning discussion of political or religious matters at company meetings, now being challenged in federal court. Another example is a Pritzker-signed law attempting to muzzle pro-lifers that was ridiculed by a federal court as “stupid” as well as unconstitutional, prompting Attorney General Kwame Raoul to give up trying to defend the law.
• He stood aside while his party’s operatives filed lawsuits to keep Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. off the ballot for the presidential election.
• He meddled in a Republican primary by contributing $24 million that was used, successfully, to achieve the nomination of who Pritzker thought would be a weak opponent, Darren Bailey, in his race for governor.
• Even the Democratically slanted Illinois courts couldn’t accept a law Pritzker signed earlier this year attempting to knock only Republican candidates off the ballot through a retroactive change in slating procedures. The Illinois Supreme Court in August upheld a lower court ruling that the law flatly violated the constitutional right to vote.
• Most importantly, nearly every major element of the policy agenda successfully implemented by Pritzker and his supermajority of allies in the General Assembly has no popular support. Thanks to the most gerrymandered election maps in the nation (which Pritzker signed off on in violation of campaign promises), Pritzker’s millions spent on elections and general mastery of the election process, we have an overwhelmingly undemocratic result.

Think about that last one. Poll after poll says Illinoisans want things like school choice, smaller budgets, lower taxes, biological men out of women’s sports, political indoctrination removed from classrooms and a balanced energy policy that includes fossil fuels and rejects the goal of 100% renewable energy.  They want violent criminals prosecuted. They opposed the SAFE-T Act and don’t like gender transformation for minors. But Pritzker and his allies have delivered the opposite of all that. Illinois is a moderate state where corrupted democracy has somehow delivered radicalism.

Most relevant to Pritzker’s new effort, the public overwhelmingly opposes sanctuary and welcoming policies for illegal immigrants, which Pritzker intends to use as a centerpiece in “safeguarding democracy.” Even in Chicago, most voters want sanctuary policies ended and the border enforced. Yet Pritzker said, in response to the Republican election sweep, that if “they come for my people they come through me.”

Pritzker’s new campaign may lift his standing with the far left, but what will it mean for Illinois?

Billions of dollars in annual federal assistance and grants will now be at risk. Donald Trump is nothing if not vindictive and Republicans, who will control both houses of Congress, will be in no mood to help a governor who has called them fascists, among countless other things.

Less tangible but equally sad is the other effect of Pritzker’s campaign, which will be more hostility and division. Most of us long for a return to a normal level of collegiality and cooperation among lawmakers, but that’s obviously not in Pritzker’s agenda.

So far, Pritzker does not appear to be having much luck enlisting other progressive governors. Only Pritzker’s co-chair, Jared Polis of Colorado, appears to be a member. That surely says something.

Progressive governors who so far have expressly declined to join are Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, Arizona’s Katie Hobbs and Massachusetts’ Maura Healey, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan and Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro. California’s Governor Gavin Newsom has not yet indicated he will join the group. Maybe even they they know that a truly democratic process would not produce what Pritzker wants.

In a couple months, we will hear Pritzker’s plan to deal with projected budget deficits totaling $22 billion over the next five years. Chicago already faces a budget deficit of a billion dollars. Same for the school district for another billion. Transit authorities there face deficits totaling over $700 million. Expect no help from Washington.

India has announced what it is describing as its first successful test of a long-range hypersonic missile, which occurred Saturday night.

India’s defense ministry said it was launched from Abdul Kalam Island off the coast of the eastern state of Odisha. “The flight data obtained from down range ship stations confirmed the successful terminal maneuvers and impact with high degree of accuracy,” a statement said.

“India has achieved a major milestone by successfully conducting flight trial of long range hypersonic missile,” Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh said, hailing it as historic.

For decades, India has feared a multi-front war with China and Pakistan. By modernizing its military, along with investments in nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles, New Delhi could be on a pathway to deter or manage conflict with either one of its nuclear-armed neighbors. 

What is clear is that with this long-range, hypersonic test, India joins a small group of nations who possess and are capable of successfully deploying such advanced missiles. 

Singh boasted of this in his statement, saying India is now among “select nations having capabilities of such critical and advanced military technologies.” The United States, Russia, and China also possess them.

One Indian defense analyst, Ranjit Kumar, has told a regional publication:

“(The) hypersonic missile will add more teeth to the Indian missile firepower. (The) Indian Armed Forces already possess over 300 km range (supersonic) Brahmos cruise missile and over 5,000 km range Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile, but the latest, over 1,500 km range hypersonic missile will … give more confidence to the Indian military to be able to hit the target with sure success.”

“At a time when India is surrounded with adversaries possessing long-range ballistic missiles, the latest hypersonic missile will deter them from launching a preemptive strike on Indian locations,” the Indian military expert continued.

FINALLY! 🔥🔥

India chooses the dead of night to test its first hypersonic missile — a 1,500+ km range weapon capable of speeds of up to 9x speed of sound. pic.twitter.com/d85ntQk8PW

— Shiv Aroor (@ShivAroor) November 17, 2024

All nuclear armed powers in the region routinely flex their military might. For example, this week China hosted a huge airshow which showcased the significant capabilities of its J-35A stealth fighter jet, alongside various attack drones.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

3D Chess or 52-Card Pickup?

3D Chess always makes me think of Star Trek and wonder who the heck thinks that we need a game more complex than chess? 52-Card Pickup is a game most frequently played by siblings, and even then, only once or twice. Typically, the older sibling asks the younger one if they want to play 52-card pickup. Without knowing the game, but excited that their older sibling wants to do anything with them, the younger one instantly agrees. At which point the older sibling throws a deck of cards across the room and yells – there you go, 52-card pickup!

Depending on who you listen to, talk to, or follow, in its first full week, the Trump team is either playing an incredible game of 3D Chess, or is playing the equivalent of 52-Card Pickup with the nation.

It is far too early to say which side is right, and the final answer will likely fall somewhere in the middle. Having said that, there are a few things that have come up consistently in meetings, calls, and interactions with clients.

• There are various processes in place to effectively protect the system. Could they be bypassed by using Recess Appointments? I have to admit that Congress getting recess, like schoolchildren, has always amused me, but recess appointments would be a very aggressive tactic. They allow Trump to bypass the confirmation process (for up to a year) for some positions, presumably the most difficult/contentious ones. For some reason, this is also “part of the system and process,” so someone must have thought that there was a need for this. To me, this, like many things (including the 2+ month timeframe between the election and the inauguration) is likely a function of how difficult it was to travel across the country back in the day. It will be interesting to see how the appointments go, to say the least.

• If you are going to try to radically change D.C., often described as “draining the swamp,” it does make sense that non-traditional candidates would be selected. Yes, there are people with more experience than some of the nominees, but are they too close to the system to try and change it?

• D.O.G.E (the Department of Government Efficiency) has generated a lot of buzz. It seems to be the one thing that everyone is curious about and wants to see how it all plays out (even with a tinge of optimism that some spending can be cut without reducing or hurting services). It is also quite clear that Musk, one of the richest people on the planet, will play a major role in this administration, as a key advisor to President-Elect Trump.

Thinking about this dovetails well with last weekend’s Learning to Speak Trump Again. For better or worse, we should expect D.C. headlines to continue to create volatility for the markets.

Having said that:

• The 10-year Treasury is back to 4.44%, basically where it closed on November 7th. We’ve had some pretty big swings on a daily and even intraday basis, but wound up unchanged. I remain firmly in the camp that the deficit fears (and concerns about inflation from tariffs) are more than priced in right now.

• The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 are both below where they closed on November 7th (for all the “growth” hype, that certainly grabs your attention). Maybe even more surprising, given the attention, is that the Russell 2000 is back to below its November 7th close, having dropped over 5% since it hit a high on Monday (maybe a good reminder that equity markets should shut down along with the bond market on Veterans Day).

• Gold was strong into the election, but has faded hard since then. Copper, which should benefit from growth if the “Dr. Copper” people are correct, is down over 12% since the start of the month. Oil has struggled, but energy stocks have done well, with XLE holding onto its gains. This makes some sense (see “Drill Baby Drill” from Fox Business this summer) as energy production should increase, helping to keep energy prices at bay, but creating some potentially strong profit growth.

• Bitcoin. Bitcoin has been incredibly strong. Yes, some volatility, but it has clung to the idea that a Trump administration will be very positive for crypto in general and Bitcoin (and Dogecoin) in particular. Given how many of the people in Trump’s inner circle are very positive on Bitcoin, it makes sense. On the other hand, Trump doesn’t control Bitcoin at all, and he does seem to like to control things, which may tarnish his current love affair over time. Also, for all the chatter about the U.S. government building up a “Bitcoin reserve” (it is hard to miss it, if you spend any time at all on X), I have not heard from anyone that this is really feasible. Most, which includes me, think that there will be an immense amount of resistance to government adoption (yes on clearer and helpful rules and regulations, but no on adoption by the government). You cannot fight this rally right now and maybe it is 3D Chess being played out, but it has the smell of 52-Card Pickup to me.

• Many of the Commercial Real Estate ETFs have done poorly. In some cases, they are much closer to their annual lows than highs, even as stocks in general perform well. I think that this is actually a very interesting opportunity as yield fears are overdone, and Work From Home is really going to struggle next year. More and more companies are limiting work from home as they push for a return to the office. That momentum feeds on itself. Many who were afraid to push for work from office will be emboldened. I cannot see a world where the Department of Government Efficiency (I’m not sure it is an actual department, but that doesn’t really matter given the attention that it’s getting) won’t be looking at getting more government workers back into the office. Everyone has focused on the potential for layoffs dragging down D.C.-focused real estate valuations, but I think that net/net over time, it will turn out to be good for D.C. commercial real estate. I see CRE as where I have the biggest difference of opinion with consensus views right now.

One Chart That I Cannot Stop Thinking About

We included this chart in our NFP reaction, but I feel a sense of urgency to highlight it again. Maybe this is our attempt to play 3D Chess, or maybe we are getting ourselves overly wound up about a non-event. Since we often discuss how dubious the Jobs Available calculation is for the JOLTS report, it may seem weird that the QUIT rate, from that same report, has grabbed our attention. My take on the QUIT rate is that it is “crowd sourced” data. Every individual has a pretty good idea about their own job prospects and that gets reflected in the QUIT rate.

During the financial crisis, the QUIT rate didn’t get this low until May 2008. If I remember correctly, we technically were not in a recession at the time, and only later did the powers that be declare that we actually were in a recession. That fits with my view that this rate is important and may have a predictive element to it.

I certainly think that when anyone and everyone felt like they could quit and get a better job, it was extremely difficult for management to take away work from home. I suspect that plans to offer severance packages to reduce the workforce voluntarily (one idea floated around by DOGE) won’t be that effective when workers don’t see outside opportunities readily available (that is my interpretation of the QUIT rate).

If we see a lot of progress made on the “Make America Great” front, this could change abruptly. There might be plenty of new jobs created. There might be jobs that were being done by undocumented workers becoming available. A lot could happen, but so far, I think the outlook on jobs is following the same path as stocks – initial jubilation has turned into a wariness about what might actually be achievable, let alone accomplished.

Bottom Line

Expect more volatility. We are going to get headlines and announcements that are difficult to interpret. What do they really mean? How likely is it to get accomplished? We know this administration is looking for CHANGE, but exactly what type of change they want is still a bit unclear in many areas. What they can achieve is even more unclear.

There is a clear sense of “urgency” as I cannot recollect any other election winner coming out so quickly with so many announcements!

I think we want to “fade” growth. We can buy dips in Treasuries and sell rips in stocks.

Maybe we will get a clearer picture, but I suspect in the coming days and weeks, the market will have more questions than answers. The fact that the original reaction to the election was so strong (with so many shorts being taken out, and so many newly minted bulls emerging) leaves us with potentially treacherous positioning. While legend has it that Wall Street likes to Climb a Wall of Worry, I don’t think it likes the current level of uncertainty. Maybe it is all 3D Chess, and we are just too naïve to see the master plan, or maybe we are all seeing enough things to question how effective this master plan will be?

While I like being overweight duration and underweight equities, I would not be a very aggressive overweight or underweight. It is more of an attempt to trade the volatility that is likely to continue.

On Bitcoin, if I hear one more $1 million price target, my head might explode, but for now, I can’t think of what will slow this down given the team around Trump, but then again, Trump himself might say something showing that he has had a change of heart (which is what I suspect will happen, but it seems too early for that to occur).

I did not focus on inflation, jobs, or other economic data (except to highlight the QUIT rate). I think that the data of the past few months will likely be irrelevant early next year as policies become clear and we can focus on what those policies will do to the economic data, and not worry about economic data that probably reflects a set of policies that will no longer be relevant.

We do get the most important earnings report for the AI story this week. Everything seems rosy in the space, but it is increasingly difficult to guess what has already been priced in.

Good luck and don’t stray too far from the desk, because you never know what headline might come out next! If you missed our Around the World Podcast from earlier in the week, it is a good listen.

By Ryan Morgan and Emel Akan of The Epoch Times

President Joe Biden met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Saturday for their final in-person meeting of Biden’s presidency. During their discussion, which lasted one hour and 40 minutes, Xi expressed China’s readiness to work with the incoming U.S. administration.

The meeting took place on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima, Peru, at the hotel where Xi was staying.

During his opening remarks, 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.”

“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–U.S. relationship for the benefit of the two peoples.”

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters after the meeting that Biden and Xi covered a wide range of issues, describing their discussion as “candid” and “constructive.”

Biden told Xi that “he has worked hard to responsibly manage the competition” with China for the past four years to prevent it from spiraling into conflict, Sullivan said.

Both leaders are committed to responsibly managing this relationship during the critical transition period, he added.

WATCH: Biden takes a back seat to other world leaders during an international trip, relegated to a corner spot in the traditional family photo of the world’s most powerful figures, while China’s president takes the prominent front-and-center position. pic.twitter.com/dyOkaPwqNW

— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 17, 2024

The two leaders also spoke about “areas of friction,” Sullivan said, citing China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base, military activity around Taiwan, unfair trade policies, and increasing aggression in the South China Sea.

Biden and Xi also touched on China’s relationship with North Korea, particularly as U.S. and Western intelligence assessments indicate North Korea has deployed troops to assist Russian forces in their ongoing war with Ukraine.

During the meeting, Biden expressed “grave concern” about North Korea’s involvement, Sullivan said.

The White House earlier indicated that the United States and its allies—South Korea and Japan—believed “China has a role to play” in dissuading the growing Russia-North Korea partnership.

Trump’s Return

President-elect Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House also loomed large over the Biden–Xi meeting.

Trump has repeatedly signaled he will employ tariffs of up to 60 percent on made-in-China products arriving in the United States.

Trump is also set to staff his incoming administration with several China hawks. He has already named Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.)—two staunch China critics—as his picks for secretary of state and national security adviser, respectively.

Beijing sanctioned Rubio twice in 2020 and banned him from entering China.

Sullivan declined to comment about Beijing’s reaction to Trump’s tariff plan.

“Look, I’m not going to comment on a future administration’s policies that have neither been formulated nor articulated,” he told reporters. “What I will say is that we have laid out in clear terms our concerns about non-market economic practices that the PRC has undertaken.”

Sullivan defended U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, stating that many countries have taken measures to address China’s overcapacity problem in critical sectors.

Continue reading at Epoch Times

Florida-based cruise line Villa Vie Residences unveiled a new four-year cruise package called “Skip Forward,” offered to anyone suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. 

The Skip Forward package is part of the Tour La Vie program, starting at $40,000 per year, and is a “continuous global adventure for up to 4 years,” the company stated in a press release. In other words, the multi-year excursion spans Trump’s upcoming second term. 

In an interview, Villa Vie Residences CEO Mikael Petterson told AP News the cruise liner is offering voters who were not pleased with the election results four exclusive deals:

• 1-Year Escape from Reality

• 2-Year Mid-Term Selection

• 3-Year Everywhere but Home

• 4-Year Skip Forward

Petterson said the excursion to 425 ports across 140 countries allows voters to escape chaotic American politics.

He noted, “It just happened that Trump won. And more Democrats are unhappy with their current living situations in the US than Republicans.” 

A Florida cruise company is offering a 4-year escape to Americans upset by the results of the Nov. 5 presidential election pic.twitter.com/FUy5OTqDhA

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 17, 2024

Petterson is right about the TDS explosion after the election. 

I fixed it for you pic.twitter.com/Dmoxdj02DI

— stephen hilton (@stephenhilton23) November 7, 2024

I still think about this video every now and then.

Can’t wait what TikTok brings starting Jan. 20th. pic.twitter.com/qNO2a5eBXx

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) November 17, 2024

Google searches for “Move to Canada” surged immediately after Trump won. Far-left liberals melted down across all social media.

We can only imagine a Villa Vie Residences cruise ship packed with a thousand yelling liberal women and Harry Sisson.  At least their screams on the high seas won’t be heard.

Meanwhile, Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt plotted his migration to the US following the Trump victory. 

What happens when Republicans win again in 2028? Extend the cruise trip? 

Via The Cradle

The head of Hezbollah’s Media Relations Department, Mohammad Afif, was assassinated in a violent Israeli airstrike on a building in the heart of Beirut on Sunday. 

“Fate willed that Hajj Muhammad Afif was inside the building at the time of the attack [in the Ras al-Nabaa neighborhood],” said the Secretary-General of the Arab Socialist Baath Party, Ali Hijazi. He said Afif was holding a meeting in the Baath party headquarters at the time of the Israeli strike. “Afif did not fight with weapons and did not lead a military unit in Hezbollah. Rather, he led a media unit,” Hijazi added. 

A Lebanese security source also confirmed to Al Jazeera that Afif was assassinated in the Israeli attack on central Beirut’s Ras al-Nabaa. At least five were killed and seven injured. There was massive destruction at the site, and the toll is expected to rise.

Hezbollah MP Hussein al-Jishi said to Al Mayadeen that “the enemy’s targeting of a media spokesman who always carries his phone in his hand is further evidence of its inability, and this is neither courage nor heroism.”

Hezbollah itself has yet to release a statement. Israel also heavily targeted Beirut’s southern suburb and other areas of the country on Sunday.

Israel had tried to assassinate Afif on October 3, when it targeted the building of Hezbollah’s Media Relations office in the southern suburb of Beirut. On October 22, it targeted the site where Afif was giving a speech in the Ghobeiry area of the suburb.

Afif gave a speech for Martyrs Day last week, during which he affirmed to Israel that Hezbollah is prepared for a long war. 

In his speech on 22 October, Afif publicly announced Hezbollah’s responsibility for the drone attack which exploded in the bedroom window of Benjamin Netanyahu’s home in Caesarea.

“To the Israeli enemy, we say: you have only seen a little, and what happened in Haifa, Acre, and Safad is just the start … To the leaders of the occupation: Iron for iron, blood for blood, and fire for fire,” Afif said last month. 

On Saturday a synagogue in Haifa was destroyed when Hezbollah rockets rained down on the area…

Hezbollah rocket attack damages synagogue in Haifa, injures civilians pic.twitter.com/VBpE8o2dOp

— RT (@RT_com) November 17, 2024

Israeli media reports major damage to a synagogue in Haifa following missile launches from Hezbollah. pic.twitter.com/FHvvNPmIuf

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) November 16, 2024

Hezbollah continues to fiercely confront Israeli ground troops in southern Lebanon, while stepping up its rocket, drone, and missile attacks against Israel. 

Several Hezbollah rocket impacts resulted in heavy damage in the Haifa Bay area on November 16th. 

Donald Trump’s transition team is making a list of senior military officers who oversaw the disastrous 2021 withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and considering the possibility of court-martialing them for their failings, according to two sources cited by NBC News.  

“They’re taking it very seriously,” said a source who claims to have knowledge of the initiative. The most notorious incident of the chaotic withdrawal was the Aug. 26, 2021 suicide bombing at Abbey Gate, just outside Hamid Karzai International Airport in the Afghan capital, Kabul. Thirteen US service members and more than 170 Afghan civilians were killed. In the following days, a US airstrike intended to kill the leader of the Islamic State instead killed 10 innocents. The rapid collapse of the US-sponsored Afghanistan government allowed enormous quantities of US weapons to fall into the hands of the Taliban. 

Trump repeatedly pointed to the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle during his 2024 presidential campaign, calling the day of the suicide bombing “the most embarrassing day in the history of our country.” Now, his transition team is exploring the creation of a commission to probe the decision-making that accompanied the withdrawal and to assess whether leaders could be charged and court-martialed. The team is even said to be considering whether officers who’ve left the military might be recalled to active duty to face military justice.

Potential charges include treason, a notion that seems far more rooted in casual use of the term than any reasoned legal analysis. Perhaps one might try to make the case that the forfeiture of a vast arsenal to the Taliban gave “aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States, but it seems highly doubtful such an argument would prevail in a court-martial. Alternatively, charges could theoretically be brought under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice covering dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer, or negligent homicide.  

Three years ago today, American service members enduring some of the most unimaginable conditions of the entire GWOT during our chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, were attacked at Kabul Airport’s Abbey Gate. pic.twitter.com/BSeB8YG1Dh

— Black Rifle Coffee (@blckriflecoffee) August 26, 2024

Pete Segseth, the Fox news host whom Trump wants to appoint as Secretary of Defense, has leveled his own withering criticism at senior miltary officers. In his book “The War on Warriors,” he wrote: 

“These generals lied. They mismanaged. They violated their oath. They failed. They disgraced our troops, and our nation. They got people killed, unnecessarily…And, to this moment, they keep their jobs. Worse, they continue to actively erode our military and its values — by capitulating to civilians with radical agendas. They are an embarrassment, with stars still on their shoulders.” 

According to NBC’s sources, the transition team’s Afghanistan accountability initiative is being led by Matt Flynn, who’d previously served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for counternarcotics and global threats. A North Carolina Army National Guard member, he has also held roles at the Department of the Interior, the White House, Department of State and Congress.

News of the potential prosecution of senior officers comes after earlier reports that the Trump transition team would establish a “warrior board” of retired senior military personnel which would be granted the power to review three- and four-star officers and recommend any removals of those deemed unfit for leadership. Such a board would likely target generals and admirals who’ve embraced woke ideology and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.