The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Conclusion

I've been told that the nasty rhetoric mostly comes from the right.  I do not buy that at all.  Biden was a nasty President.  And, while Obama spoke more nicely, his words were often anything but.  However, I am certainly not going to assert that there is zero nasty rhetoric coming from the right.  I have often cringed at some of the things Trump has said.  But which side is more violent?

After George Floyd was killed, there were nationwide riots, with looting and burning.  There was an estimated $2 billion in property damage.  Some estimate the number of deaths as between one and two dozen.  Since Charlie Kirk was killed?  Anyone see conservatives rioting, burning and looting.  How about Occupy Wall Street?  Fights with police.  Claims of sexual assault and other crimes.  Usually left their protest areas a filthy mess.  The Tea Party?  Peaceful, neat and orderly. 

In a poll from the Network Contagion Research Institute, based at Rutgers University, they found that 55% of self-identified left of center respondents said it was at least somewhat justified to murder President Trump, vs 20.3% on the right.  15% said it was completely justified.  48% felt it was somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk, vs 14.3% on the right.  And 59% said it was somewhat acceptable to destroy a Tesla dealership, vs 23.6% on the right.  In a YouGov poll, 14% of Democrats said it was sometimes justified to use violence to achieve political goals, compared with 6% of Republicans.  We have a serious problem in this country. 

However, the biggest problem may be generational.  According to a survey by the Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression, each generation was asked if political violence is never acceptable.  93% of Baby Boomers agreed never acceptable.  But that number decreased in each generation.  86% of Gen X agreed political violence was never acceptable.  That decreased further with millenials at 71%.  And Gen Z?  Only 58% agreed that political violence was never acceptable.  (The alleged shooter of Kirk is 22 years old, part of Gen Z.)  Clearly, these younger people have not been taught about Free Speech.  About the First Amendment forming the basis of our democracy.  They have been taught that they are entitled to "safe spaces" in order to avoid speech they find objectionable.  College age kids!  The age of many of our soldiers. 

This hatred from the Left towards those who hold opposing viewpoints, certainly reminded me of my own experience.  During Trump's first campaign, a friend of 25 years yelled in my face about the election; and when I refused to promise that I would not vote for Trump, he loudly yelled "I'm done with you" as he walked away.  A colleague got in my face in Court, and I thought he was going to start beating on me.  A friend of 45 years decided he could no longer talk to me.  And one of my first bosses, a man who my wife and I were quite fond of, decided I was not good enough to speak with or be around.  Basically, all these people were no different from those who called Kirk a "piece of shit."  And they believe they have the moral high ground.  

Then there are the extended family members who have not been willing to speak with me, or attend any family events with me in attendance, since the November, 2024 election.  I have had people on the right disagree with me quite a bit.  But none stopped being friends with me.  Rather, they have tried to persuade me as to why they believed I was wrong.  Now, you can argue my experience is anecdotal only.  But clearly something is going on here.  

I've said it many times before.  Many Democrats, who think of themselves as liberal, have actually become leftists.  Leftists do not value free speech.  They do not believe in the First Amendment.  Rather, they are willing to ban what they deem to be "offensive" speech.  A quote usually attributed to Voltaire says:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  And, in my post on Classical Liberalism, from July 17, 2016, I quote John Stuart Mill on speech.  "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."  But those views of Voltaire and Mill were the views of classical liberals.  Few and far between in today's Democratic Party; but those are views commonly held by Republicans.

Of all of our political leaders who have commented on Charlie Kirk's assassination, believe it or not Bernie Sanders said it best.  "Freedom and democracy is not about political violence.  It is not about assassinating public officials.  It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue.  Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice.  It means that you cannot convince people  of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force.  We must welcome and respect dissenting points of view.  That's what our Constitution is about, that's what our Bill of Rights is about.  That, in fact, is what freedom is about."  And that is what Charlie Kirk was all about - a free and open exchange of ideas.    

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Part II

Speaking of Ilhan Omar, here is what she said about Kirk.  "There are a lot of people who are talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate.  These people are full of shit and it's important for us to call them out while we feel anger and sadness."  She goes on to say Kirk downplayed the death of George Floyd.  I would say that's backwards - much of the world overplayed the death of George Floyd.  That does not mean I wished Floyd dead or thought he should die.  It means that somehow a common criminal was turned into a saint.  

Omar also accused Kirk of hateful rhetoric postings on social media.  As an aside, that is rather ironic coming from Omar, who a few years ago made one hateful antisemitic comment after the next.  But Omar's comment is a perfect example of the thinking of the Left - any comment that goes against their beliefs is deemed to be "hateful."  Once given that designation, the Left follows it up with calling the person a Nazi or fascist or Hitler.  Once that happens, they no longer view the person as a human being, and any action taken against that person can be justified.  

Once I started looking into Charlie Kirk, I came across an online site called "Bluesky."  Here are some of the comments I saw.  "Do Ben Shapiro next."  "Nice, can we do Ben Shapiro next?"  "I hope they shoot Ben Shapiro next."  "Can someone shoot Ben Shapiro next?'  And, "J.K. Rowling next."  Ben Shapiro is another young (albeit 10 years older than Kirk) conservative political commentator.  Whereas Kirk was a religious Christian, Shapiro is a religious Jew.  But many people on the Left have no respect for those who are religious.  And, Shapiro, like Kirk, also likes to speak on college campuses.   

Bluesky also had quite a few calls for the assassination of President Trump.  There was an interesting article in the New York Post, quoting teachers from around the country.  One teacher posed in front of a screen announcing Kirk's assassination and sang "G-d bless America."  In Naples, New York, a teacher referred to Kirk as an "aspiring Goebbels," and added "good riddance to bad garbage."  From Greenville, South Carolina:  "America became better today.  There I said it."  From Iowa:  "1 Nazi down."  

A teacher with the DOD said this:  "He was a garbage human.  I won't mourn for him one second."  And:  "Fuck the high road,"  "Fuck that guy."  From Baytown, Texas:  "Could Kirk have baited just ONE too many people?  Could this have been the consequences of his actions catching up with him."  And from Cleveland, Ohio:  the writer expressed the hope that Kirk "never finds rest and always suffer(s) in eternity."  These are teachers.  The people who are supposed to educate our children.  Imagine what message they are passing along to their students - if someone says something that you find objectionable, they should be dead.

And this from a restaurant owner in Cincinnati, Ohio:  "Good Riddance.  What a piece of shit."  After getting some backlash, the restaurant owner replied with this:  "If you think threats of social media attacks on me or my business will in any way keep me silent about what I believe, you are sorely mistaken.  I know exactly who I am and on what side of history I stand."  I think that pretty well epitomizes the feeling of moral superiority felt by those on the Left.  He will not remain silent, but it's fine that Charlie Kirk was permanently silenced.  I am sure that none of these people see the irony in what they are saying.  They call Kirk a Nazi, a fascist, a piece of garbage, or a piece of shit - based on what?

Based on the fact that they don't like what he says.  Who exactly justifies murder based on one's speech?  Fascists and Nazis.  Could there be any better examples of the Left's loathing of free speech and the First Amendment and our Constitution?  Then we have the antisemites, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting that since Kirk was murdered there have been over 10,000 posts on X blaming Israel.  Just ridiculous given Kirk's strong support of Israel.  Here is what Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu said of Kirk:  he was a "lion-hearted friend of Israel."   

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Part I

This was a difficult week for America.  On Wednesday, Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking to an audience at Utah Valley University.  Then Thursday was the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 terror atacks on America.  When I heard that Kirk had been murdered, I felt both sadness and anger - two emotions that have haunted me all too frequently.  Sad because Kirk was a young man, a husband and a father of two little girls.  Angry over the silencing of a prominent conservative voice.

I can't say that I listened to Kirk all that much over the years.  From what I heard, I know I did not always agree with him.  Reading more about him, I would not have said some of the things he said the way that he did.  Kirk passed on college.  At age 19 he became a co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), which has become the most influential political organization reaching out to young people.  He loved going to college campuses, knowing he would be challenged by leftwing students.  He would engage them with his "Prove me wrong" debates.  

And that was his approach.  A non-violent free exchange of ideas.  Exactly what our Founders intended with the First Amendment, forming the underlying basis of our democracy.  The Independent, a left leaning paper out of the UK, described Kirk this way.  He was a Christian.  Yes, he was a religious Christian.  He was anti-abortion.  Many people are.  I am not opposed to all abortions.  He opposed mask mandates.  Some say that most masks were ineffectual.  He was a believer in the Second Amendment, while acknowledging that some would die from guns.  People die from many things that are legal.  And he said that Democrats "stand for everything G-d hates."  (A response to that would take up several posts.)

The Independent continued, saying that Kirk called the Russian-Ukrainian war a "border dispute."  Readers know that I strongly disagree with that.  Russia, led by Putin, invaded Ukraine; because Putin wants to regain the old Soviet Union.  While he opposed the US bombing Iran, which I favored, he was a strong supporter of Israel.  Knowing that he was a religious Christian, I was quite surprised when I first heard him say at the conclusion of his Friday show:  Shabbat Shalom.  The Jewish Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown.  It turns out that Kirk was friends with a Rabbi Pesach Wolicki.  Rabbi Wolicki would help Kirk with advice on how to defend Israel.  Kirk was concerned that many members of Gen Z did not support Israel.  

Said the Rabbi:  "Charlie stood alone to a great extent in that whole Gen Z conservative world as far as being pro-Israel...there were prominent people...actively working to (get him to) drop his support for Israel on a daily basis.  And he resisted."  The Independent ssaid Kirk opposed "gender affirming care."  When I hear about doctors doing any such thing to minors I am greatly disturbed by it.  The paper said he was against the LGBTQ Agenda.  What specifically?  They said he opposed same sex marriage.  There are various Biblical references that suggest gay marriage would not be acceptable.  And the paper said he supported Leviticus 20:13, describing it as "G-d's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."

After claiming that Kirk advocated for stoning gays to death, Stephen King apologized, saying "what he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages."  David Rubin, an openly gay conserative commentator, said he was a good friend of Kirk's.  Ric Grenell, the highest ranking openly gay member of the first Trump Administration, also called Kirk a good friend.  He said Kirk had asked him to join the Board of TPUSA.  And, there is a Tik Tok video by a group called Gay Bear Patriot with one pesumably gay person after the next saying "I am Charlie Kirk."  

According to The Guardian, another leftwing paper out of the UK, Kirk said:  "America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank:  large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America."  And:  "...Islam is not compatible with Western civilization."  Is anyone seriously going to argue that Muslim run countries have the kind of freedoms that we associate with Western countries?  Free elections?  Often not.  Freedom of speech?  Often not, especially with regards to criticizing the government or Islam.  Women's rights, gay rights?  You get the picture.  The misnamed "honor" killings?  Sadly too often.  

As for large Islamic areas being a threat to America, if they adopt Islamic values, if they adopt local sharia law, then, yes, clearly a threat.  I will once again fully acknowledge that there are Muslim Americans who desire nothing other than to live the American dream.  To raise a family, have a home, get an education, start a business or make a good living.  But, when I look at the elected Muslim office holders, such as Rashida Tlaib (see the prior post) and Ilhan Omar, I am very concerned.  When I see Zohran Mamdani possibly becoming the next Mayor of America's largest city, I am very concerned.  

     

It Never Stops

(Note.  There are many topics to cover since my last post over 3 weeks ago.  But these attacks on America, Israel and the Jewish people continue non-stop.  If I was just commenting on the daily acts of antisemitism and Jew hatred, I could do multiple posts a day just on that.  And, as a reminder, those who hate Israel, also hate America.  See below.)

The weekend before last there was a "People's Conference for Palestine" held in Detroit.  I'm not sure how many cities in Michigan (or the entire state?) may already be lost to radical islamists.  (For those who need me to to say it yet again, I am not talking about all Muslims, but the radical islamists and their supporters.)  Of course, the main speaker was the America hating, Israel hating, and Jew hating Rashida Tlaib (Dem. Rep. from Michigan).  Tlaib claimed that America was built on "slavery, genocide, rape and oppression."  Isn't it nice to know that a representative in the United States Congress hates America.  And we know she is not the only one.  

Here were some more choice words from Tlaib:  "I wanna say to every genocide enabler, look at this room, motherfuckers, we ain't going anywhere."  Again, this is a US Representative.  And she said to "keep AIPAC out of US politics."  AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is an American organization.  How does she propose to keep Americans out of politics?  What I believe she means is "keep all Israel supporters out of US politics."  And, I'd bet she would be happy to keep all Jews out of US politics, because even most left-wing Jews support Israel.

Here was a lovely sentiment from a Dr. Nidal Jboor, who also spoke.  He stated that the "perpetrators" in DC, Tel Aviv and Europe must "be taken out, neutralized."  Did he suggest assassinating President Trump?  Is the Secret Service investigating?  Weren't 2 attempts to kill President Trump enough!  

Here is more from Tlaib:  "They thought they would kill us, rape us, imprison us, violently uproot us from our olive tree farms, starve our children to death, and we would disappear.  Well, guess what?  Now we're in Congress, and we're in every corner of the United States."  That should frighten everyone.  Just imagine that there are radical islamists in Congress and everywhere around the United States.  In every corner of the country.  That tells me where the next Civil War is likely to come from.  

Today, there was yet another terrorist attack in Israel.  This time in Jerusalem.  The attack occurred at a bus stop, where it was reported that two terrorists entered a bus and just started shooting.  Six people were killed, including three Rabbis.  Two others were seriously wounded and four more were moderately wounded.  Over two dozen were treated for shock.  Whatever Tlaib, and her ilk, may or may not say about this attack, I would bet that she supports it.  I'd like to know if she privately celebrated over the death of these six civilians.  The two terrorists, ages 20 and 21, were killed at the site, by a soldier, and a civilian who aided in protecting his fellow Jews. 

It would not surprise me at all if these two young terrorists were trained at an early age that it is good to kill Jews.  That it is good to be a martyr.  Because that is what they teach young kids in Palestinian schools.  Because for far too many Muslims, Islam is a death cult.  Where being a "martyr," dying for the cause, is the greatest good.  Not getting an education in order to be a productive member of society.  Not starting a business.  Not getting married and having children.  It is a celebration of death.  When Jews offer a toast, it is with the words "L'chaim."  Which means "to life!"  Quite a contrast. 

I wonder if Tlaib knows that 55 years ago, King Hussein of Jordan fought a war against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  It was Black September, when the PLO hijacked 4 planes, or tried to.  They were not successful in getting the El-Al Israeli plane, as one of the terrorists was killed and one was captured.  And I wonder if Tlaib knows that after Israel won the Six Day War in 1967, capturing the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai...Egypt wanted the Sinai back, which they got after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.  Syria wanted the Golan Heights back - never happened nor will it.  But Jordan did not want the West Bank back.  Essentially, they said to Israel - you keep it, we don't want those Palestinians.      

The New York Times Is A Disgusting Paper

We know that the NY Times is no friend of Israel or of the Jewish people.  Not just in their editorials, but also in the Op-Eds they happily print.  And while I thought I was done talking about Mahmoud Khalil (see my posts of 3/15/25 and 4/2/25 about him), this past Sunday's edition of the Times (August 10) had an Op-Ed that I felt both compelled and impelled a response.  The falsehoods contained in that Op-Ed simply demanded a rebuttal.  Because people need to know that the Democratic - Mainstream Media Complex is not trustworthy.  At all!

Ezra Klein (yes, I'm sad to say that he is Jewish) is an Op-Ed writer for the Times, who also has his own podcast.  Klein is obviously far left.  That's bad enough.  But to give voice to an Israel hater, an obvious Jew hater, is inexcusable. The Op-Ed in last Sunday's paper contained excerpts from the interview - a softball interview - that Klein conducted of Khalil on his podcast.    

Klein opens his piece by asserting that Khalil's "sole offense had been to speak out against Israel in a way this administration did not like."  There's the first big lie.  Khalil was one of the leaders of the student protests at Columbia University in NYC.  You know, taking over buildings, blocking access to buildings, intimidating and assaulting Jewish students.  Just speech?  That is the way Klein set up the interview.  So, ignore all the rest.  Not to mention Khalil's involvement with CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest), which advocates for the overthrow of the U.S. government, and an end to western civilization.  What government would want foreigners coming in seeking to overthrow their government?   

Here's a really big whopper by Klein:  "...I found inflammatory things said by people near you at different times.  Or by an Instagram account that's part of a group you're a apart of.  That kind of thing.  But I couldn't find that much from you."  Klein has a podcast, so I assume he knows how to do a Google search.  The reality is, this Op-Ed was a puff piece.  Puffing up Israel hater and Jew hater Mahmoud Khalil.  Why?  There can be no other reason than the NY Times and Klein side with Khalil and against Israel and the Jews who support Israel.  And let's not forget this point.  President Trump supports Israel and the Jewish people.  And anything that Trump supports the Left must oppose.  

Let me help Mr. Klein with a few of Khalil's inflammatory comments that Klein said he was unable to find.  Referring to October 7, Khalil said "unfortunately, we couldn't avoid such a moment."  We?  That would be Khalil identifying with Hamas.  Khalil:  "It was clear that the Saudi-Israel deal is very imminent, and Palestinians wouldn't have any path to statehood and self-determination.  So they had to that, according to their calculations - which, it's obvious were not right."  You see that sleight of hand by Khalil?  After identifying himself with Hamas, he remembers to say it was "their" calculation, and was not right.  If he believed it was not right, he would openly condemn Hamas - which he has refused to do on multiple occasions.  Therefore, we must assume that Khalil was fine with the rape, torture, murder and kidnapping of Jews that happened on October 7.  And Klein has no questions about that.    

Khalil then further justified the atrocities of October 7 by saying it was "a desperate attempt to tell the world that the Palestinians are here, that Palestinians are part of the equation."  Let's do a short recap.  Peace between Israel and the Saudis would be no good - why?  Why isn't a peaceful Middle East better for everyone?  Peace is no good because Hamas is a death cult.  They do not value human life.  The Palestinians could have had their own state since 1948, just like Israel.  Instead, Khalil has said:  "The Palestinian people have been living under occupation, ethnic cleansing, and all sorts of crimes since 1948 and we prevailed."  

Ocuupation by whom?  Egypt controlled Gaza from 1948 to 1967.  Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967.  No Palestinian state was created during that time.  Why not?  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005.  At this point I have to ask two important questions that I'm sure I have said previously in the blog.  First, the Palestinians claim that they are refugees since Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949.  If so, why didn't they move on, like virtually every other refugee group in history.  We know the Jewish people displaced from Europe and the Arab countries moved on.  Wherever they ended up, they had families.  They established businesses.  The same for the Christians who have been displaced from Arab countries.  There seems to be one group more intent on killing than building.

Which brings me to my second question.  Hamas has received billions of dollars in foreign aid since taking control of Gaza in 2007.  Gaza is on the Mediterranean.  Why didn't they use those billions of dollars to create a seaside resort?  A tourist destination.  Why didn't they build hotels and office buildings.  The UAE, on the Gulf, did exactly that, and they attracted both business and tourism.  Instead, Hamas used all that money to make weapons, buy weapons and build underground tunnels into Israel.  To what end?  To kill all the Jews.  And while Khalil repeats all the Hamas propaganda about Israel, Klein is only too happy to accomodate him, and the Times is pleased to print it.   

I said that this Op-Ed was a puff piece.  Because Klein not only set up the interview to make Khalil look like a victim of the Trump Administration, but he failed to challenge Khalil on any of his anti-Israel comments.  Recall that the Trump Administration had Khalil picked up to be deported, but the Courts have blocked it.  Klein even failed to challenge Khalil on these lies:  "What I stand for, what I'm advocating, is the end of genocide, the end of the occupation, the end of the apartheid regime, and the end of complicity of Columbia University in this regime."  Genocide?  Apartheid?  Regime?  Klein challenged none of it.  

As for the antisemitism demonstrated by Khalil's group at Columbia, Khalil called it "manufactured hysteria."  And Klein?  Here was Klein:  "nobody there ended up as unsafe as you did."  Never mind the fear of the Jewish students.  Never mind the actual assaults on Jewish students.  This Op-Ed piece of trash was printed in the premier mainstream media paper in the country.  Which is why I say the Times is disgusting.  And I would say the same as to Klein; who, as a Jew, should be particularly ashamed of himself.       

Wasn't It Obvious And Predictable?

(Corrections.  There was an obvious error in my Part II post of "The West Has Lost Its Way."  In paragraph three, it should have said "demilitarized" and not "militarized".  There was also a spelling error of "gubernatorial;" and I made a change to more clearly reflect my point about our troops, and those of the IDF, defending freedom and liberty.  As I still work, my first draft of each post is also my last draft.  Nevertheless, my apologies to my readers, and the corrections have been made.)

In the above referenced post, I called the leaders of France, the U.K. and Canada "delusional" for thinking that giving recognition to a Palestinian state would bring peace.  Now that I've read the comments by Ghazi Hamad, a leader of Hamas, the most accurate description of those leaders is "evil."  Evil because it is inexcusable not to expect Hamas to react to their statements exactly as I predicted.  I believe they had to know - but did not care.  Hence, evil.

Hamad:  "The powerful blow that was delivered to Israel on October 7 has yielded three very important historic achievements.  First of all, it brought the Palestinian cause back.  Why are all these countries recognizing Palestine now?"  Why indeed!  Hamad:  "The overall outcome of October 7, forced the world to open its eyes to the Palestinian cause, and to act forcefully in this respect."  Let's not forget that Trump might have been on the verge of getting Saudi Arabia to join the other Arab nations who signed on the Abraham Accords.  But October 7 brought an end to that possibility.  

Take your pick of these two options:  1.  The combined military might of France, the U.K. and Canada is not as great as the military prowess of the terrorist organization known as Hamas.  Therefore those three countries had no option but to capitulate.  To essentially surrender in a war that they are not even fighting.  2.  The West has not only lost its way, but they are cowards.  Afraid of Hamas.  Afraid of their own Muslim populations.  But they know that criticizing, even weakening, Israel, will bring no repurcussions.  At least not for the time being.

As for the demand that a state of Palestine be "demilitarized," here is what Hamad thinks of that:  "The weapons constitute the Palestinian cause...Surrendering our weapons means the end of the resistance and the end of the Palestinian cause."  Recall that after, and referring to, October 7, Hamad said that "we will do this again and again."

Hamad:  "We are the victims.  Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do.  On October 7, on October 10, on October one-millionth, everything we do is justified."  Sure, rape, murder, mutilation and torture, killing babies and civilians...it's all "justified."  That is who Macron, Starmer and Carney want to reward with a state.  

So there you have it.  The three Western leaders have simply encouraged Hamas to prolong the war, to prolong the suffering of the civilian population of Gaza, and to make life difficult for the population of Israel, both economically and in terms of lives lost.  Right about now, I wish that I used some choice four letter words in the blog.  Just string together as many as you think of - and then multiply that by 100, and you'll begin to get some sense of what I think of the evil MORONS Macron, Starmer and Carney.  (Moron is not a four letter word.)

 

The West Has Lost Its Way, Part II

So, let's summarize.  Two of the three major powers in Europe, France and the U.K., joined by Canada, say they will give diplomatic recognition to "Palestine," which has never existed as a country.  Did I miss it?  Did I miss where Macron, Starmer and/or Carney insisted that the Jewish people have a right to have Israel accepted by Hamas and the PA as a Jewish state?  147 countries already have recognized a Palestinian state.  Did that bring peace?  

Does anyone really believe that these three leaders giving recognition to "Palestine" will now bring peace?  Maybe these three leaders just feel good about doing this.  Maybe they are virtue signaling.  But if they truly believe that recognition of a state of Palestine at this time will bring peace, then the nicest thing I can say about them is that they are delusional.  Neville Chamberlain apparently believed that ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler's Germany would bring "peace for our time."  Except, Hitler did not see it that way, as shortly thereafter Germany invaded Poland.  

These leaders have lost all sense of right and wrong.  Here is the message that these delusional leaders actually sent to Hamas and the PA/Abbas:  "We demand that Hamas release the hostages.  We demand that Hamas lay down it's arms.  We demand that Hamas leave Gaza and have no further involvement in governing Gaza.  And we demand that the PA/Abbas reform itself, and hold elections next year, and that the new state of Palestine be demilitarized.  We really mean it.  And to prove that we mean it, if you in Hamas and the PA do not do what we ask...we will give recognition to a "Palestinian" state anyway!"

If anyone doubts that that is the message sent by these leaders, and that that is the message heard by Hamas, here is what Hamas had to say.  It will not stop its "armed resistance" until there is an "independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."  By armed resistance, Hamas means what they already said - they will continue to carry out October 7 style attacks against Israel "over and over and over again."  By fully sovereign, Hamas means the right to have a military force, not to be demilitarized.  And when they say Jerusalem as the capital, they mean all of Jerusalem.  Notice they do not even pretend to mean what the Western liberals often refer to, which is "East" Jerusalem.   

So, that's the plan of the West.  Continue to reward Hamas and expect them to fall in line.  Why would they?  They believe they are winning.  In fact, they are winning in the West, where they see nothing but capitulation.  They see that they have succeeded in separating much of the Western world from the one democracy in the Middle East.  Not to mention that they are winning the hearts and minds of young people in the West, who know nothing of the history of the Middle East.  You think young people, and no doubt many leftwing adults, have any idea that the Arabs have refused to have their own state on at least six occasions?  When they talk about "occupied" territory, they are talking about all of Israel.  When they say "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," they clearly state there will be no more Israel.  And when they say "globalize the intifada," they mean kill Jews everywhere on earth that they live.

So, that is who Macron, Starmer and Carney are rewarding.  But what about the U.S.A.?  Here is what the State Department, under Secretary Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump, had to say:  "This week, the UN will serve as a host to an unproductive and ill-timed conference on the two-state solution in New York City.  This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.  Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction and undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace."

The statement continued:  "As Secretary Rubio has made clear, this effort is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th and a reward for terrorism.  It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels.  The United States will not participate in this insult...Our focus remains on serious diplomacy: not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance."   To which I say - G-d bless President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio.  

But, for those of us who support President Trump, and who support America and Israel against the terrorists, this fight is far from over.  Just last week, the leading self-hating Jew in Congress, Bernie Sanders, proposed two anti-Israel resolutions in the Senate.  The first bill was a proposal to block $675 million in arms sales to Israel.  This at a time when Israel is fighting a multi-front war.  Yet, 24 Senators (all Democrats, as Sanders caucuses with the Democrats) voted in favor of blocking the aid.  That is one-half of the Democratic caucus!  Not surprisingly, not a single Republican Senator voted in favor of the measure.  Sanders other proposed measure was to stop the sale of rifles to Israel.  That measure got 27 votes - all Democrats.  

There is much talk of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez possibly being the Democratic candidate for President in 2028.  She is not a fan of America or Israel.  That usually goes hand in hand.  Thinking of that possiblility, and seeing the failure of the West to take a moral stance in support of a democracy over an authoritarian terrorist organization, I am reminded of two presidents.  Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural gubernatorial speech, reminded everyone that "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.  It is not ours by inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.  Those who have known freedom and lost it have never known it again."  

And, of course, President Kennedy in his inaugural address:  "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."  G-d bless our troops, and the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces, for they are on the front lines defending freedom and liberty everywhere.