Congratulations!

 Well, the Biden administration has officially decided to support Hamas (a terrorist group) over Israel a longtime ally and the most democratic nation in the Middle East.   The Biden administration has decided to reward aggression, murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, and the refusal of Hamas to accept a
cease fire" that was already horribly lopsided in their favor.  Despite the evidence that Israel's handling of civilian casualties has been exemplary by commonly accepted standards (I posted on this earlier, check it out), despite that fact that US citizens are currently being held hostage by Hamas, despite the fact that Hamas has egregiously violated the very Geneva Conventions that everyone accuses Israel of violating.

The fact is that the US and Europe have done this sort of thing before, starting in 1948, and somehow Israel seems to manage to survive.   I guess that the Biden administration wants to send the message to all of our allies that we will unilaterally renege on our treaty obligations or ignore deliveries of things that have been paid for, in order to win the favor of terrorists and win elections.  

Update, it looks as if the Biden administration chose not to treat Israel worse than terrorists and have decided to release at least some weapons.   I suspect that most of this is Iron Dome related and had been paid for well in advance.  But anyway, it's good to see the Biden Administration decide to do the right thing.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/29/us-weapons-israel-gaza-w

Stupid Stuff

 This week trump managed to generate some controversy by endorsing or encouraging people to buy a KJV Bible with the founding documents of the US added to it.  His actions were falsely reported by the MSM, as if the Bible was something he'd put out, which doesn't seem to be the case.  But from someone who can't/couldn't quote one verse from the Bible, mislabled 2nd Corinthians, and didn't think he needed to be forgiven this shilling for this Bible seems strange.  

Don't get me wrong, more people should own, read, and study the Bible.   But coming from Trump it just hits wrong.  

So, what's my problem.  

First, the KJV and the founding documents are all public domain.  Which means that other then manufacturing costs this Bible has a high profit margin.

Second,  is pandering to the Lee Greenwood constituency really going to help Trump win?

Third, is playing into the hands of his opponents really going to help Trump win?

This has been one of my problems with Trump for years.  He somehow is unable to manage to avoid doing stupid things.  As I've said before, I agree with much of Trump's policy ideas, and I believe that he'll be at least somewhat better/less worse than Biden.   If he could only stop doing and saying stupid stuff that doesn't help him reach his goal, it would be easier to be more supportive.  

I do understand that Biden also does stupid stuff, lies, and looks lost most of the time.  Fortunately for Trump, that is an incredibly low bar to clear.  Unfortunately for Trump, he seems intent on making it harder than necessary to actually clear that low bar.  

I spent last season watching some really bad wide receiver play by the NFL team I follow.   All year long, the constant refrain was "Do better.", that's where I am with Trump.    "Do better" isn't TDS or hating his, it's a call to reach for a higher standard.   It's a hope for something better than what we have now.  Isn't better what we hope for from those we care about?  Don't we want to see friends and family do better? 

Bad

 "So, you acknowledge that SOME TIMES, God literally commanded the slaughter of women, children and babies AND YET, you also say that God does not command evil actions.

Does that mean you do NOT think that the wholesale slaughter of women, children and babies is always a evil action???"

 

This  argument has always been a go to for Dan, yet I've always thought that it boils down to his inability to understand tense.    He takes a couple of specific, singular, events in the early part of the Israeli Theocracy and extrapolates that this must mean that YHWH will continue to command these sorts of things.   The obvious answer is that while YHWH might have commanded certain actions at specific times and for specific purposes, that doesn't mean that those things are commanded beyond those circumstances.    It also seems strange to cherry pick YHWH's supposed "evil" actions against a couple of evil pagan cultures, while ignoring His actions "against" Israel.   

Some of this attitude we can see in relation to what's happening in Gaza and Haiti today.  In both cases we have territory that has been taken over by people who obviously merit being called evil.  The terrorists of Hamas and the Gangs in Haiti are the very embodiment of evil and of inflicting massive harm on innocent human beings.  There should be no question of the sheer, unadulterated, evil that we are seeing.  Many people, perhaps most, would argue that the removal of this evil requires extreme measures.   Much like removing a leg to prevent death.  Yet the same folx who object to YHWH protecting His "chosen people" by removing the evil cultures around them also object to the eradication of Hamas and the Haitian gangs.   Wouldn't it be reasonable to describe a society that worshiped a god that required human sacrifice (babies even) as evil?  If you had people you valued incredibly highly wouldn't you take extreme actions to protect them from evil?   If you were YHWH and had set Israel apart to be Your representatives on earth, wouldn't you go to extremes to protect than from being influenced by evil?  

It's easy to take things out of context, and to use those out of context things to make a social, political, moral, or theological point.   It's harder to avoid that temptation, to understand the concept of tense, and not to use exceptions to prove a rule. 

But, to deal with the original question.    Is it really worse than the women sacrificing their firstborn infants to be burned alive?  If these women, children, and babies were all going to die a drawn out, painful, and horrible death wouldn't "slaughtering" them be considered merciful?    Is it not always evil to slaughter children who's existence is inconvenient to their parents?  Is it evil to "slaughter" these people if it prevents a greater evil?   

I'm obviously taking a page from Dan's book of tricks here, by pointing out some possible exceptions to his rule. 

Stupid Lies

 One complaint about Trump us the he tells stupid lies.   

Strangely enough, Biden just told an incredibly stupid lie and I bet the folx who complain about Trump will make excuses for Biden.  Or they’ll ignore Biden's repertoire of stupid lies, that have been fact checked, and ignore this one as well.  

Sewage

 "EITHER PROVE that God is limited to opinions that affirm older texts with rules specific to an earlier people - PROVE IT OBJECTIVELY - or admit that this is just your personal opinion, not something you can objectively prove."

 

While I'm not welcome to comment at the cesspool, and I wouldn't bother trying, I do occasionally stop in there to see what is being spewed.    From what I gather, it appears that Art is arguing that the Holy Spirit isn't going to teach anything that contradicts existing scripture.   While the above appears to be Dan's devastation counter.   The fact that it's in bold and has ALL CAPS makes it especially devastating. 

Based on this, I see one obvious question that I haven't seen Dan answer.   

"Will the Holy Spirit teach anything that directly contradicts the existing scriptures?"    

For example, if the Holy Spirit teaches me that "Thou shalt murder." is the new official teaching, should I accept that and start murdering people?

 

This obviously raises other questions.  

How does one prove that some "new" teaching is "from the Holy Spirit"?

What do we do when we have one person claiming that the Holy Spirit brought them a "new teaching", which contradicts a "new teaching" that the Holy Spirit brought someone else?   

Would the Holy Spirit give two contradictory teachings to different people?  

Since we're told that the Holy Spirit will lead up into "Truth", then how could two "Truths" contraction each other?  

It seems as though the Holy Spirit could bring "new teachings" on certain things as things have changed since the 1st century BC.   But it seems like those "new teachings" would be more along the lines of clarification, than something completely different.

For example, it could be argued that Jesus' teaching about lusting after women being rape could be clarified to mean that watching porn is equal to lusting after women and therefore is rape.     I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would provide a "new teaching" telling us that porn is now perfectly OK and is not rape.  

That seems to be the crux of the matter, which I haven't seen a good answer from the peanut gallery.   If these "new teachings" are simply updates of existing teachings, then that doesn't seem problematic.  If they contradict earlier teachings, that does seem problematic.   In all of the demands to "PROVE IT", the matter of proof of the contentions of the peanut gallery seems to be lacking.   I haven't dug deep, but it seems like a bunch of repetition of "Of course the Holy Spirit teaches new things", with very little in terms of proof or examples.  

In conclusion, like so much, this seems to be essentially an argument from subjective experiences, and nothing else.   "X must be a new teaching of the Holy Spirit, because it seems like it should to me."    Ot something of that nature.  I guess, it'd be nice to see proof produced, not just demanded. 

Trump, sort of, Wins Again

 An appeals court has lowered the bond that Trump is required to secure in order to file his appeal in the NY "fraud" case.  I'm not surprised that the further away this gets from the trial court, the likelihood that the rulings will become more fair increases.  This combined with Trump's Truth Social windfall certainly changes the outlook.   I know that the DA was eagerly awaiting the fire sale of Trump's assets, no matter how badly that hurt NYC.  But it looks like that will be on hold for a while.  I think that we all realize that this judgement will be significantly modified on appeal, and that the glee of the TDS folx will be muted when that happens.  I've noticed that the TDS folx faith in the judicial system is directly proportionate to how much they like the verdict.    They seem unconcerned with a DA and prosecutor who are sleeping together and lied under oath about it, some things don't change, but lose their minds when Trump's bond gets lowered from outrageous to merely excessive.  We see this from the left when it comes to all sorts of court rulings.  Rulings that they agree with are automatically good, rulings that they disagree with are automatically bad.  With little interest in things like law, precedent, or anything else.  

The entire strategy of the left was to get Trump convicted of something before the election and It's looking less likely that they will get this done.  

If Trump wins, while I think this sets a horrible precedent (although no worse that the party/candidate in power using the legal system against a rival), I would not be surprised if he chooses to "pardon himself" to put all of this behind him for good.   I know it looks bad, but the reality is that pardon power is pretty much unlimited, and the left hasn't been able to get anything done so far.  I can see Trump spending the rest of his life fighting off BS charges and suits if he wins and serves the next term.   I really don't have much problem with is protecting himself against that.   

As I've watched the response to this, I've noticed that the APL has very little idea of how the legal system works.  So for, most of Trump's legal problems have been civil, not criminal.  Losing a civil case is not disqualifying for elected office.   Further, all of the criminal cases have either ended up in some sort of prosecutorial misconduct, or are on indefinite hold.   

Finally, I keep hearing people complain that Trump is getting some sort of special treatment in the legal system.  If this is the case, which I doubt, it is more about his ability to (theoretically) hire good lawyers to represent him.  Remember OJ?   He very likely got off because he had the money to hire good lawyers.    That might be considered some sort of "privilege", but I don't see it.  People have the freedom to spend their money however they want, and if rich people want to hire the best lawyers available, then why shouldn't they?   

Unintended Consequences, Election edition.

 

"NEW: Frank Luntz Warns CNN Seizing Donald Trump's Properties Will Backfire: "You Are Going to Elect Donald Trump" "He’s going to go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him." "If the New York Attorney General starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets, it's all going to be on camera, pundits are going to sit there and scream about this, and you're going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024." "You are going to elect Donald Trump." "Why is Donald Trump beating Joe Biden when he's got 85 indictments? Felonies? Trump is leading, and in the seven swing states, Trump is up by the margin of error in five out of seven; why is that happening?" Luntz, who isn't a Trump supporter, realizes that the American people do not want to see their country turn into a banana republic. Americans do not want to see the party in power imprisoning political adversaries and confiscating their assets, not for clear crimes like murder or bribery, but rather based on novel and dubious interpretations of the law. If the legal system can be weaponized against a former president, what hope does an ordinary American citizen have. "

 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1771218797921464804

 

 Luntz is anything but a Trump supporter, I think he was a pollster for the Clintons back in the day. I think he might be on to something. It would be absolutely hilarious if all of this DFL effort to get Trump ended up being the very thing that pushed him over the edge and ensured his winning. 

 

 

 https://nypost.com/2024/03/17/opinion/an-irish-society-an-unpaid-loan-and-the-hypocrisy-of-letitia-james/

 

Meanwhile, this bit of seeming hypocrisy doesn't look good for Leticia James.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Train, Train

 https://kstp.com/5-investigates/new-problem-uncovered-on-notorious-pinch-point-for-southwest-light-rail/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KSTP-TV&fbclid=IwAR3bBj-2NRoL6Ce501GVOspUbULjSCDRk7jCM4Svh6g1c6H03QZfJYsEKcQ

 

Almost 3 billion dollars, 197 million per mile, and they built the tracks closer together than their approved plans show.   What a bunch of morons.  Who could possibly have thought that building a passenger line through an area that is constricted was a good idea?  Who would have though that they hadn't found out that they needed a tunnel when they approved this?  Who would have thought that finishing the end  before the middle was an excellent idea.   

This light rail expansion is never going to make sense from an ROI perspective.  It theoretically could bring urban workers out to suburban jobs, except it really isn't withing reasonable walking distance of concentrated job options.   It'll be good for the "wealthy" who want to go to Twins, Vikings, or Wolves games and drink too much to drive.  Because subsidizing the wealthy to spend big money going to see a sports team is a good use of tax dollars.   Now, the fact that they pretty much guaranteed that Uber and Lyft won't be able to operate in MPLS, that might push a few people toward the train, but not enough to matter.   At least they've simply given up trying to collect the fares from most of the people that ride, because why bother, right?   

All in all a ridiculous boondoggle, inflicted on taxpayers by an unelected, unaccountable, entity who's primary responsibility is to build over priced train lines that don't get used.    Excellent job Met Council. what's another billion down the drain.

Meanwhile, we have numerous homeless camps throughout the city. 

More Israel Facts, From an Expert

 Prof John Spencer is an Urban War expert at the USMA.

Civilian casualty stats being reported are fake Hamas propaganda. More food is also delivered now than pre-conflict. The calls for "cease-fire" are simply calls for Israel to surrender, and let Oct 7th happen repeatedly. If the U.S. was in such situation, it would respond more aggressively. Instabilities in the Middle-East are due to failed appeasement of the world's #1 terror state, Iran. Hamas exceeds ISIS in its desire to slaughter civilians on both sides. They're unique in wanting even many of their own people to die. Despite this, the fighter civilian casualty ratio is 1:1 in Gaza vs a 1:9 global average - the lowest rate by far, for similar urban conflicts. Israel is an extraordinary decolonization project. Jews have been indigenous to Judea for 4000+ years. Arabs colonized and control 99.7% of the Middle-East. The IDF is successfully achieving its goal of neutralizing Hamas, in a uniquely difficult, urban environment, with an enemy determined to increase civilian tragedies.

 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1769935147477196926 contains a video of him being interviewed. 

 

 Facts are facts. Israel has taken more steps to prevent civilian harm in urban warfare than any other military in history (see article) & they have been effective despite the challenges to include Hamas’s goal to get as many civilians killed as possible.

 

 https://www.newsweek.com/israel-implemented-more-measures-prevent-civilian-casualties-any-other-nation-history-opinion-1865613

 

 

" I am 33. There has not been one bloody year in my life when I didn't hear about how Palestinians should be spoiled, and offered more money, whilst they reject every peace proposal and respond with terrorism. This time, they also took babies hostage and likely killed them in Gaza. That is the only difference from the many previous times: Palestinians are getting far more bloodthirsty and the world is accepting that as the norm. President Sadat said it publicly. They refused to engage in negotiations following the Yom Kippur war. They then danced when he was killed. President Mubarak said it publicly, they were the problem and refused to engage in negotiations. President Bill Clinton said it too. It is all on record! So, for the love of Gd, give me a break. The Uyghurs are being ethnically cleansed. What did Arabs do? Sent a love letter to China. How many years of our lives is enough for Palestinians? How many lives and opportunities do you want to throw down the toilet while we entertain a death cult? Traffic through the Suez Canal is 50% down. Egypt's economy devastated. Houthis literally holding international maritime hostage. All because of the Palestinians. How many years, and how much money, do you want to spend on the delusion of a two-state solution? For me, it's dead. All of my efforts, time and money will be invested in making sure terrorists and their supporters never see a Palestinian state."

 

Khaled Hassan 

 

Not Unreasonable.

" Before we talk about Palestinian rights, let's talk about "Palestinians" responsibilities. Up to this point in history the pro-establishment of “Palestine” has not shown the world or even their children, accountability, responsibility, or seriousness in their attempt to build a nation. As of now, all they have proved is a selfish, untrustworthy, corrupt leadership. Asking for political status, power, and wealth. What is the point of a state without a nation? It is pathetic to continue begging for a political entity without serious work toward building a nation while dependent on international aid, stealing public resources in a desperate fight for global status. Instead of attachment to the golden seat, allow new blood to contribute towards building an independent economy, lay down the foundations of a nation, and finally get out of their way... Responsibilities come first, rights will naturally follow… 1- Decide on a legitimate, central leadership through democratic and transparent elections. (Gangs can’t build nations) 2-End the violent revolution and all forms of armed resistance. (Building nations requires peace and stability) 3-Vote on an independent, contemporary, civil constitution that guarantees: -The right to vote -Women rights -Free press and freedom of speech -Freedom of religion -Equal rights of the religious minorities 4-Separate Mosque and State 5-Recognize Israel’s right to exist 6-Criminalize all acts of violence: -Child abuse and child indoctrination -Honor killing (killing women for shame) -Violence against Jews and religious minorities -Discrimination against black people (Stop treating them like “Abeed” or slaves) -Killing opposition by the name of treason -Racism 7-Criminalize loyalty to any foreign entity 8-The rule of law: “No one is above the law” 9-Free the People from "Palestine". (Enslaving the people to political concepts is not progressive) The constitution is the foundation, concepts, and names secondary not primary. Without manifesting such principles, or failing to realize their essence, “Palestinians” will not qualify to have the status of a nation. Political gangs, terrorists, religious fanatics, and revolutionary rebels must be prohibited from ruling. Statehood is a responsibility, it is not ownership or privilege. True statesmen are born to serve not to be served. Armed resistance and political violence, intimidation, blackmailing, kidnapping, and assassinations don’t lead to nationhood. First, qualify as a nation, then ask for statehood. Global gangsters may not qualify even for the very basic human rights."

 

Mosab Hassan Yousef 

If banning X saves one life...

 Awet Hagos.  On the terror watch list, in the country illegally opened fire on LEO at a business in NC.   There is no way that Biden doesn't own this, along with the Hexbollah member who came here illegally and planned on bombing something, Lakin Riley's killer, and the rest.  Biden chose to let them in, Biden changed EO's that would have/might have prevented them from entering.   The Trump EO's might have kept them out, the Biden executive actions guaranteed that they'd get in.  

Jose Barrera Stabbed two people in O'Fallon MO on Sunday.  Jose killed people with a machete in Honduras before he graced the US with his illegal presence. 

180

 SCOTUS just ruled that Texas can enforce SB4 which allows police to arrest immigrants who enter Texas illegally.  The ruling was 7-2. 

Whoops

 https://winteryknight.com/2024/03/19/new-study-trans-womens-self-ending-rate-doubles-after-sex-surgery/

 https://winteryknight.com/2024/03/20/new-study-significant-parallels-found-between-anorexia-and-gender-dysphoria/

 

What in the world do we do, when the data doesn't support the Narrative.   Those pesky Europeans keep  finding data that persuades them that irreversible medical procedures on children are a bad idea.  We can hope that the US trans medical complex will follow the data rather than follow the money. 

That's Messed Up!

 "BREAKING: NYC homeowner is arrested for changing the locks of her home to kick out squatters who broke in. In New York, people illegally living in your property automatically become the legal tenants after 30 days. NYPD police arrested Adele Andaloro for unlawful eviction of a tenant."

 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1770117016482947458

 

 https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man-devoted-to-eliminating-squatters-taking-over-southern-california-homes/

 

 https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/02/from-squatter-to-legal-homeowner-in-california-its-possible/

 

 https://www.foxnews.com/us/squatters-torment-homeowners-across-u-s-with-no-resolution-sight-problem

 

A few years ago, during the height of COVID, I approached am older woman who was in foreclosure about the possibility of selling her house and avoiding foreclosure.   She agreed that selling and getting some money out of the house was better than losing it in foreclosure and we got it on the market. The issue was that she had her son and 3-4 of his friends who were"renting" rooms. At first they were very accommodating and said that they'd be no trouble when the house sold. Long story short, the house sold and they were no accommodating at all. Fortunately the government had given them the perfect excuse with the eviction moratorium. Ultimately we got them out and the seller walked away with a nice quarter million dollar check instead of 0. 

Recently I've seen a spate of news stories about squatters moving in to people homes and refusing to leave. In one case the homeowner was arrested for changing the locks when the squatters were no there. There's a guy in CA who has a business of getting squatters out of houses. This is absolutely insane. The notion that someone can move in uninvited and magically be protected by the state while essentially committing theft is crazy. What the hell good is the concept of private property if it's this easy to steal one's property? Why do squatters have more rights than homeowners? How can a homeowner be arrested for making changes to the property they own?  So far at lot of this seems to be coming from states with left wing state governments and a bizarre affinity for those who steal on a grand scale. Maybe it's not, but I guess we'll see. 

I want to be clear, though. We are literally talking about theft here. Were talking about the state sanctioning someone coming in and depriving you use and access of your legal, private, property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you want to legally rent the property, sorry, the squatters and the state won't let you. Want to sell, same thing. What a F@#$%d up world we live in when the government sanctions and protects on this scale. What's next, teaching illegal aliens this trick so they get free housing?  

1st Amendment Hamstringing

 Ketangi Brown Jackson, SCOTUS justice seems to be suggesting that the first amendment might be impeding government action.   

https://twitter.com/i/status/1769753959315427812

Lord knows we wouldn't want the Constitution being able to "hamstring" the government. 

Straw Men?

 I occasionally hear people refer to those who hold a high view of scripture as "worshiping a book".    I hear this, yet I do not know anyone who actually worships a book.  I'm not saying that there aren't some fringe people out there who do worship a book.  It could be argued that Muslims worship a book.   Strangely I never hear the "worship a book" refer to anyone but certain Christians, not Jews, not Muslims, not anyone else.  

I think I can say that most of those accused of this straw man would saw that they worship YHWH, the God who spoke and creation happened.   The God who is beyond our understanding and comprehension, yet  who peaks to us through scripture and the Holy Spirit.  

I guess straw men are easier to battle than real men. 

Since I Can Only Explore This Here

Dan answered a question today, in itself something to be applauded, and his answer is interesting.   It'll be worth keeping around for reference.  

 

 

" It's quite easy: I'm NOT the one who should decide for everyone else on matters of subjective opinion. I've never said otherwise."

So are you claiming that all scriptural interpretation is "subjective opinion"?   If so, then why bother to assert that anyone  else's "subjective opinion" is incorrect?   Or that yours is "correct"?

"On the other hand, when we're talking about objective facts, then I'm STILL not the one who decides. Objective facts are just objective facts."

So, are you claiming that "objective fact" is not testable?  How do YOU determine when something is "objective fact"?   Why should anyone accept anything you say about something being an "objective fact" or "reality"?

"As a point of demonstrable, objective fact, the Bible has Jesus recorded as saying he'd come to preach good news to the poor. Period. That's observable, demonstrable. It's a fact."

What is the fact that you are claiming is "observable, demonstrable"?   That there are words in the Bible that tell us that Jesus said that?  

"Now, does that MEAN that there was factually a literal Jesus? That this Jesus was literally saying he'd come to preach good news to the literal poor? No, those are matters of interpretations."

Interesting.  Are you suggesting that there is nothing in the Bible that can be identified as "objective fact" with a high degree of accuracy?    Or, are you suggesting that we have no possible way to identify "objective fact" when it's recorded in the Bible?   That literally everything in the Bible becomes a matter of "subjective opinion" because we can't trust those who wrote the Bible?    To what other ancient literature do you apply this standard?  Are you claiming that the existence of Julius Caesar is "subjective opinion"?   That Hannibal, didn't really exist?   Pray tell, expound on this. 

"From there, we can consider, OK, but which interpretations are most reasonable?"

OK, but isn't "reasonable" in itself a subjective measure?  Is it reasonable to take a text, and conclude that the text means something completely opposite from what the plain meaning of the words tell us?

 "Marshal, apart from any real evidence, says that Jesus did not mean the literally material poor in that passage."

When you say "real evidence" do you not mean "evidence that you personally accept as subjectively reasonable"? "

'I note the plethora of passages from Jesus that, on the face of them, appear to be referencing the literal poor - this passage included - and note that we have no textual reason of significance that Jesus didn't mean literal poor. But I can't prove objectively what the author (Luke, in this case) meant or what Jesus - as recorded by Luke - objectively meant."

So, despite your repeated assertions that Jesus primary "gospel" was specifically aimed at "the poor", specifically the materially "poor", are you now saying that this is just your "subjective opinion"?    Are you suggesting that we categorize the topics that Jesus is recorded as speaking of, and interpret those only in light of Jesus' teaching on topic X?   Or isn't it reasonable to look at the whole breadth of Jesus teaching, and draw conclusions from that? 

"I've been pretty clear on all this."

 I'm sure you think you have, but I personally think that clarity is not one of your strong suits.  

Especially when you insist that your "subjective opinion" be treated as "objective fact", or that you are simply pointing out "reality".  

Not Wrong.

 "In order to preserve democracy, we must: 1) engage in sham impeachments 2) suppress relevant information (Hunter's laptop highlighting orgiastic Biden corruption) 3) seek to stack the Supreme Court 4) change the Electoral College rules 5) allow ILLEGAL immigrants to vote 6) refuse voter IDs because these are racist 7) create a fake January 6 insurrection narrative where people have been imprisoned as though they were Genghis Khan 8) engage in astoundingly corrupt lawfare in order to ensure that the GOP candidate is mired in endless legal proceedings 9) have state officials seek to remove the GOP candidate from the ballot box 10) engage in very dubious electoral procedures that permit for orgiastic cheating (many countries only allow same-day in-person voting)"

Gad Saad

" Yes spot on. In general: The people saying they are saving democracy are the ones actively eroding it. The people saying they are fighting misinformation and creating it. The people saying they are fighting racism are the ones being racist. The people saying we should trust the science are not actually being scientific."

 Melissa Chen

 

I have to say that in general, they're not wrong. 

Hospitals, and Food.

 The IDF eliminated  Faiq Mabhouh the head of operations for the Hamas terrorist group while he was in a compound at the Shifa hospital.  This compound was where he was actively directing the operations of Hamas terrorists.  Per the Geneva Conventions, a hospital loses it's protected status when combatants use it for operational purposes or to hide behind the human shields of hospital patients.    I find it hard to believe that UNRWA, WHO, ICRC, and the hospital administration were completely ignorant of the fact that Hamas was using the hospital as a terrorist command post.  If they did know, then anything that happens to any of the patients of staff of Shifa hospital is completely on their heads.   If they didn't know, then they are idiots and shouldn't be running a hospital in a place where terrorists have a history of using hospitals for operational purposes, and patients for human shields.  

On 3/16 or 17, 8 million pounds of food entered Gaza, which works out to about 4 pounds of food per capita.  This doesn't count the food being airdropped, and will likely increase once that US Military opens the "port" Biden wants.  This doesn't really sound like starvation.   Not to mention the videos of well dressed Gazans bitching about the MRE's they've been given or about the fact that the food is being air dropped, not hand delivered.   We're also seeing video of this donated food being sold in markets.