Found: a warehouse loaded with baby formula showing that Hamas withheld food from Gazan babies

One might be forgiven for thinking that the summer of 2025 marked a new low in the already dismal saga of Gaza's humanitarian crises. Doctors there issued repeated, anguished warnings that infants were starving for want of baby formula. These alerts were dutifully amplified by the world's media and social platforms, complete with the usual calls for urgent global action. In time, this became one of the season's dominant tales of suffering.

The New York Times declared that 'Parents in Gaza Are Running Out of Ways to Feed Their Children," while The Guardian fretted that babies were "at risk of death from lack of formula."Most memorable, perhaps, were the photographs of emaciated children, their hollow-eyed images splashed across front pages everywhere. Desperate families pleaded for help, insisting they had "no formula, no supplements, no vitamins" with which to nourish their infants.

It later emerged that some of these children suffered from pre-existing conditions that had contributed to their plight. Yet much of the coverage pressed on with the implication that Israel was somehow starving them deliberately, by throttling the flow of aid.

Israel, for its part, insisted all along that ample supplies of infant formula were reaching Gaza. At the peak of the hysteria, its records showed over 1,400 tons of the stuff, specialist varieties included, had crossed into the Strip.

So one is left asking: where on earth had it all gone?

Into warehouses controlled by Hamas, as it turns out.

Only this week did anti-Hamas voices in Gaza reveal a facility run by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health, brimming with vast stocks of baby formula and children's nutritional supplements—stocks that never reached those headline-grabbing families.

This, remember, is the very organization Israel has been combating these past two years. It is precisely why Hamas's eviction from power in Gaza must remain non-negotiable in any serious talk of lasting peace.

Hamas's war is not merely against Israel; it is waged with a cold calculation that places its own people's lives at risk whenever it serves the broader aim of erasing the Jewish state. Diverting or blocking aid, even aid meant for children, has long been part of that grim playbook. By courting Gazan suffering and then parading it before the world, Hamassholes turned heartbreaking pictures into weapons, shifting global sentiment against Israel. It fed selective narratives to willing outlets, all while dodging accountability for the misery it helped engineer. And, regrettably, it succeeded to a disturbing degree.

Those same media voices that so eagerly broadcast accusations of Israeli-induced starvation, complete with claims of blocked formula, have now fallen eerily quiet. A story that once commanded the world's attention has all but vanished now that the facts point elsewhere. Lying in Islam is known as taqiyya, and this is exactly what we are seeing here.

Hamas played the media masterfully, and the media obliged. By amplifying terrorist talking points through headlines, emotive imagery, and curated outrage, only to neglect corrections when the narrative collapsed, leading outlets revealed their susceptibility to manipulation whenever inconvenient truths threaten a preferred script.

Hamas has been the prime mover here, heedlessly endangering Palestinian and Israeli lives alike. It is high time the press reckoned with that fact, and with its own part in wrongly pinning the starvation of Gaza's innocents on Israel. Perhaps they're merely turning a blind eye.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you.

Tweet

Senior Qatari Diplomat Warns of Gaza's Descent into Eternal Limbo: 'No War, No Peace'

One might have thought that after the horrific savagery of October 7, 2023, and the ensuing catastrophe in Gaza, the world would have learned to approach Qatari pronouncements with a healthy dose of scepticism. Qatar, after all, is not merely a bystander in this tragedy but a principal enabler of the very Hamas terror machine that ignited it, hosting its leaders in luxury while pretending to play the impartial peacemaker. Yet here we are, in the autumn of 2025, with Majed al-Ansari, adviser to Qatar's prime minister and spokesperson for the foreign ministry, issuing fresh warnings in The Guardian about the Strip's potential slide into a “no war, no peace” purgatory. As if the Qatari capital's five-star accommodations for jihadists hadn't already prolonged the agony.

"We don’t want to reach a situation of no war, no peace," al-Ansari cautioned, his words dripping with the earnestness of a diplomat whose government has bankrolled the very impasse he decries. The scenario he sketches is grimly plausible: Israeli troops lingering in Gaza, not out of imperial whim but necessity, because no sane soul, least of all the international community, with its track record of feckless interventions from Somalia to Afghanistan, would volunteer to plant a peacekeeping flag in a hellscape riddled with Hamas tunnels and booby-traps.

"There is a need for the international community to go in, assess the damage, start thinking about reconstruction, working on reconstruction, and to formally keep the peace," al-Ansari elaborated. "This is what will significantly shift the whole process from war to the day after.” Ah, yes, the "day after," that mythical horizon perpetually receding like a mirage in the Negev. 

One can almost hear the echoes of past follies: the Oslo Accords' grand promises, the Dayton Agreement's hollow vows, all crumbling under the weight of Palestinian rejectionism and Arab-state indifference. Qatar, ever the optimist (or opportunist), pins its hopes on a UN Security Council resolution to "mandate an administration and an international force in Gaza, that we would be able to stabilize the situation."

"In principle, a lot of the countries in the region and beyond have agreed to be part of this," he continued, "but in practice that needs a very concrete mandate for the force." In principle: where all the world's virtue-signaling converges, a cocktail party of platitudes. In practice: the yawning chasm where good intentions meet the rubble-strewn reality of Gaza, where "stabilization" means dodging RPGs and unearthing IEDs. It's a reminder that the UN's grand designs have a habit of evaporating when the first suicide vest goes off.

Al-Ansari didn't shy from the hostage horrors either, those Israeli families still chained to the barbarism of October 7. "There are a lot of challenges before we are able to dispense with stage one [of the deal]," he admitted. "Including the difficulty of excavating the remains of those [hostages] who were killed and ascertaining their identities, and the violations that result in the death of Palestinians every day at the hands of IDF soldiers." Here, in a single breath, the Qatari worldview crystalizes: the murderers' handiwork lamented, but swiftly pivoted to Israel's defensive operations as "violations." One searches in vain for mention of Hamas's deliberate use of civilians as human shields, or the rivers of blood from their unprovoked assault. But then, symmetry is not a virtue in Doha's diplomacy.

Lest we forget Qatar's own brushes with the conflict's sharper edges, al-Ansari revisited the IDF's audacious strike on September 9 against Hamas kingpins luxuriating on Qatari soil. "It was designed to push us out, not only out of these [Gaza] talks, but to push us out as an internationally trusted mediator," he claimed. "We were working on more than 10 mediations on the day of the attack." Trusted mediator? From the nation that has funneled billions to Hamas's coffers while lecturing the West on human rights? The irony is thicker than the fog of war itself. "This was not an attack we could brush off and continue doing the work that we were doing," al-Ansari insisted, revealing that Washington had to issue ironclad assurances against further incursions on Qatari turf before the talks could limp back to life. One wonders: if Doha's salons are so sacrosanct for "peace," why not extradite the Hamas butchers who plot from them? Or is the real "no war, no peace" the endless charade Qatar orchestrates, prolonging suffering while burnishing its image as the Middle East's indispensable broker?

In the end, al-Ansari's warnings serve less as prophecy than as a plea: spare us the consequences of the monsters we've harboured. Gaza's fate hangs not on UN resolutions or Qatari bromides, but on Israel's resolve to dismantle the terror infrastructure that birthed this nightmare. Anything less, and the Strip risks not limbo, but an eternal graveyard of squandered chances.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Hegseth fires U.S. Navy Chief of Staff

In a decisive bit of housecleaning that has the swamp creatures squirming, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday showed Jon Harrison the door as the Navy's chief of staff, just days after the Senate greenlit Hung Cao as the service's new undersecretary.

This Harrison clown's got zerp military chops before getting shoehorned into the job, where he played budget fairy and policy puppet-master for the Navy, all while neutering the undersecretary's clout like it was yesterday's news.

"Jon Harrison will no longer serve as chief of staff to the Secretary of the Navy," the Department of Defense told the New York Post in a statement. "We are grateful for his service to the department." [Yeah, sure they are.]

Harrison tag-teamed with Navy Sec. John Phelan, another civilian suit with zilch in uniform experience, to ram through a bureaucratic shake-up, swapping out the yes-men who would prop up Cao and stacking the deck so the secretary's office calls all the shots on his military aides, Politico reports.

Talk about a power grab wrapped in red tape. And get this: Harrison's pink slip drops right on the heels of Hegseth's May edict to cull a fifth of the Pentagon's four-star bloat: generals and admirals who've been more focused on pronouns than projectiles.

Hegseth has been on a tear, booting high-octane brass left and right, including the military's only two female four-stars, The Guardian whines.

Then on Tuesday, Hegseth lit into the top echelons at Quantico, VA, torching the armed forces' dive into "woke" quicksand and blasting those godawful diversity-and-inclusion fever dreams that turned warriors into workshop attendees. 

About time someone drained that rainbow swamp.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

NY Times terminates Gaza "journalist" who calls for murder of Jews

Fady Hanona

Former New York Times Gaza stringer, Fady Hanona had contributed to six of the paper’s eight articles on Operation Breaking Dawn, until HonestReporting uncovered his anti-Semitic Facebook posts. On Friday, the former newspaper cut ties with him because it doesn't look good to keep him on board.

Of the eight articles the Times produced during the recent escalation of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-back terror group, six credited Hanona as contributing from Gaza City.

Hanona is a freelancer and had also been hired by The Guardian, VICE News, and the famously anti-Semitic BBC. His reporting clearly indicated his sympathy toward the anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian terror organizations' ideology of the total destruction of the Jewish State.

During 2014’s Operation Protective Edge against Hamas in Gaza, Hanona went on social media to threaten the murder of Ghassan Alian, an Israeli Druze who commanded the IDF’s Golani Brigade at the time. That doesn't sound like objective journalism but still the Times and other outlets were okay with his reporting.

On August 18, 2014m just days before a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Hamas, this so-called reporter urged the Palestinian “resistance” to reject a truce and continue its missile attacks on Tel Aviv, which had at that point already cost the lives of five civilians.

He went so far as to invoke Adolf Hitler to support his point about the strength of Gazan fighters. “As Hitler said, give me a Palestinian soldier and a German weapon, and I will make Europe crawl on its fingertips,” Hanona’s posted, citing an unconfirmed quote attributed to Hitler, a guy responsible for the Holocaust and the murder of 6,000,000 Jews.

Hanona had shared a now-deleted propaganda video of terrorist groups in Jenin on his Facebook page. He tells his FB followers that Palestinians should return to “the culture of fighting and killing Israelis.”

Hitler really would have been proud of him. 

“I don’t accept a Jew, Israeli or Zionist, or anyone else who speaks Hebrew. I’m with killing them wherever they are: children, elderly people, and soldiers,” Hanona asserted, adding: “The Jews are sons of the dogs… I am in favor of killing them and burning them like Hitler did. I will be so happy.”

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

A spokesperson for the New York Times told media outlet The Algemeiner on Friday that, “The New York Times had worked with this freelance reporter only in recent weeks. We are no longer doing so.” But they are no friend of Israel nor the Jews.

Now all we need is for the BBC, VICE News, and The Guardian to follow The Times' lead. And may get the IDF or Mossad to find this guy and talk to him.

Tweet

CIA blasts CNN's "misguided" and "simply false" reporting about Trump and alleged spy's extraction

CNN needs to be cut down a bunch of pegs, not just two, for being the purveyors of fake news. The term fake news is one that shouldn't be used in normal conversation about journalism, but it seems as if CNN's acronym stands for Compromised Nonsense News. While we are blessed with the First Amendment in this country, there needs to be at least some oversight when the media outright lies, be it about the President of the United States, or any citizen.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) went after CNN and their report about President Trump, who the media outlet say "repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy." The CNN national security "correspondent" wrote a hole-filled piece that said this but the CIA says that claim is "misguided" and "simply false." And it is entirely possible the story was leaked by John Brennan, who is now a CNN operative.

It's very out of character for the agency to chastise a so-called journalist, but even The New York Times published a powerful piece last night that contradicted the CNN fairy tale.

According to The Times, CIA officials  "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia" -- weeks before Trump took office. Concerns about media reporting on Russian election interference drove the decision, according to the Times. Yes, it was the media that concerned the CIA over the safety of their asset.

"Former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency’s sources alone was the impetus for the extraction," The Times honestly wrote, in a change of pace for the former newspaper.

The purported spy refused the 2016 offer of Kremlin extraction, The Times reported, citing family concerns. However, the CIA "pressed again months later after more media inquiries" threatened the source, and he finally agreed.

The story deepened when NBC News exclusively reported that a possible Russia spy was currently living under U.S. protection and the idiots used his true identity and revealed that he lived in Washington, D.C., adding that his life could be in danger [no kidding].

An NBC News journalist knocked on the alleged spy's door and was soon confronted by several men presumed to be security personnel. Unfortunately, they did not punch the NBC News reporter in the face multiple times for doing what CNN claimed Trump had done.

"CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in a statement not written in invisible ink.

The lovely Ms. Bramwell continued: "Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."

Upon hearing Bramwell's statement, CNN's Jim Acosta had to excuse himself and returned soon after with swollen, reddened eyes and runny nose.

According to CNN chief national correspondent and execrable former Obama administration official Jim Scuitto, the decision to carry out the extraction "occurred soon after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office in which Trump discussed highly classified intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak. The intelligence, concerning ISIS in Syria, had been provided by Israel."

The disclosure "prompted intelligence officials to renew earlier discussions about the potential risk of exposure," CNN falsely reported.

It was not clear from the CNN piece how exactly Trump's comments in the Oval Office would have further compromised the Russian source, but when you make up negative stuff about a person your audience hates, details are less important than feelings.

Many other holes quickly surfaced in CNN's reporting. For one, commentator Aaron Mate pointed out in a Twitter thread that several major news organizations had previously cited a high-level source in the Russian government as a source -- suggesting that the intelligence community itself, not Trump, had compromised the spy.

Many media outlets who jump, before they check the water in the pool, at the chance to report on Trump's foibles and chaos, picked up the CNN fairy tale: The Hill, the Guardian and Vox never questioned CNN's report. Fox News didn't take the bait.

The developments led to speculation as to who had leaked the information to CNN -- especially in light of previous anti-Trump leaks that found their way to the organization -- and led commentators to again fault the accuracy of CNN's initial reporting. I believe that it was John Brennan, but that's only speculation.

If it was Brennan who leaked, he should be indicted.


Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.






Tweet

GOP congressional candidate hoping to unseat Ilhan Omar allegedly gets caught shoplifting

If only she could have waited to be elected as a congresswoman running against Ilhan Omar before taking what didn't belong to her, like most political hacks do. Instead, a Minnesota congressional candidate hopeful to unseat the anti-Semitic Omar now Republican Danielle Stella ["Hey, Stella!"] faces felony shoplifting charges, according to a report.

Stella, a 31-year-old light-fingered supporter of President Trump, was arrested twice already this year, in the thefts of 279 items valued over $2,300 from a Target and $40 worth of goods from a grocery store, The Guardian reported. A grocery store sounds like it's privately owned--how terrible to steal from anyone, much less an independent merchant.

“I am not guilty of these crimes. In this country I am innocent until proven guilty and that is the law,” the special-education teacher told the news outlet.

But 279 items? Even if she didn't steal all 279 items, it seems very possible she may have stolen at least one. Allegedly. And a grocery store?

“If I was guilty of crimes, I would never run for public office, putting myself in the public eye under a microscope to be attacked by all political sides,” she added. This makes no sense as politicians are notorious for using money that doesn't belong to them for things they want.

This week Stella described Minneapolis as “the crime capital of our country.” And she should know.

Stella told the cops that she “remembers arriving at Target to purchase items but nothing else” due to post-traumatic stress disorder, and that “normally she goes to Target with someone because of anxiety around people,” according to a criminal complaint cited by The Guardian. 

Great--Stella has Social Anxiety Disorder and she wants to run for PUBLIC office.

Please don't do the Republican Party any favors. There are clearly better candidates out there and it should be relatively easy to beat the crazy Jew-hater, Ilhan Omar.

But after all is said and done, this is all going to end up being Trump's fault.

Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not.

Tweet

Google 'idiot' get photos of Trump

Do you know if you Google the word "idiot" photos of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, comes up?

Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren pointed this out at the congressional hearing to the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Google displays bias among the website searches. Take a guess.

Pichai explained to Congress (a body of individuals whose combined knowledge of computers adds up to that of a twelve-year-old child) why searching for 'idiot' turns up pictures of Trump.

“If you Google the word ‘idiot’ under images, a picture of Donald Trump comes up. I just did that. How would that happen?” Lofgren asked.

Pichai answered by explaining that Google’s searches are based on multiple factors that determine the end result. [See video below for the exchange.]

“We take the keyword and match it against their pages and rank them based on over 200 signals -- things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it,” he testified. “Based on that, at any given time, we try to rank and find the best search results for that query.”

Trump’s face also appears on Google image searches for “stupid” and “racist.”

Okay, that seems to make sense, although it's very disrespectful to the office of the president and can probably be controlled in a civil way if Google really tried harder.

I googled the word 'idiot' early in the morning and some interesting results came up:

1. "Google Image Search makes Trump the World's Top Idiot, but is it fair?"--South China Morning Post

2. "Google Hearing Sees 'Idiot' Trending"--BBC.com [There is a photo of Trump and he wasn't even at the hearing.]

3. "This is why you get Trump's image when you Google 'idiot'"--Nairobi News 

Then about thirty minutes later I googled the word again--here's what came up:

4. "His worst nightmares: Trump's life under a legal microscope"--CNN

5. "Reasons to Worry? Trump Endures Turbulent Week"--The Guardian

6. "Trump's Interior Chief to Step Down as Pressure Mounts from Ethics Inquiries"--Bloomberg

I now ask, how is this not bias results? The wording of the headline's first article is clearly anti-Trump and it literally calls him an idiot.

Number two's wording speaks about trends and couples the word 'idiot' with Trump's photo taking away any doubts that the president and the word go together.

Three is just disgusting.

After thirty minutes CNN was the top site to respond about Trump's woes when you google the word 'idiot.' What the president's problems are, and what the word 'idiot' have in common is unclear, but CNN will use any opportunity to attack him and his administration.

Think of the Honduran father whose 7-year-old child died of malnutrion and dehydration after the dangerous journey to illegally cross the Mexican-U.S. border. The media is blaming Trump, when it's obvious the father should be put behind bars for not feeding or giving water to his child. But blame the U.S. Border Patrol and by extension, Trump.

Looking at 5 and 6, all you see is negative press about Trump and the administration, both having nothing to do with the word 'idiot.' But Google says that relevance is one of the main criteria for how results are displayed, and there is no obvious relevance in these articles. It's just a way to attack Trump.

The mainstream media are the real idiots and Google is their partner.

You may not like everything President Trump says or does, but it's appalling the way he is treated by those with the power to communicate and influence.

Also, it's damn scary because it works.

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

Liberal media: 'How dare Trump do what Obama did!'

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, unless the goose is Obama and the gander is Trump, says the liberal media.

The left is angry that President Trump's campaign used data mining to win the 2016 election. The left, both in media and the Democrats, were happy that Obama used data mining to win the 2012 election.

You have to hand it to conservative commentator Ben Shapiro for penning a column for The Hill on Tuesday with the headline: "What's genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump."

Shapiro uncovered a 2012 report from The Guardian saying Obama's reelection team was mining data via Facebook (FB) to target specific voters. The Guardian also happens to be the publication that reported Cambridge Analytics and its ties to Trump's 2016 campaign.

Cambridge Analytica is accused of harvesting data to build profiles on 50 million FB users, who agreed to complete a survey in an attempt to target specific voters with ads and stories.

Shapiro said that FB was fine when Obama's team used similar tactics to what Trump's team used, noting that a former Obama campaign staffer admitted FB didn't attempt to stop Obama's 2012 re-election because the company wanted him to win.

The Obama campaign built a database of every voter using the same FB developer tools that Cambridge (known as API)  used. This allowed Obama's campaign to gain information of voters to calculate "which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote," according to the Washington Post, a left-leaning tabloid.

"Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing," former Obama campaign staffer Carol Davidsen tweeted on Sunday from her verified account.

Davidsen said that FB revealed that the company allowed the Obama campaign to do things it would not have allowed a Republican candidate to get away with.

Shapiro explained, "Not so with Trump. As soon as Facebook realized that Cambridge Analytica had pursued a similar strategy, they suspended the firm. This isn't surprising. Since Trump's election, Democrats--in search of a rationale for their favored candidate's defeat--have blamed a bevy of social media outlets."

In other words, the Democrats are like children playing in the sandbox making up rules to games as they go along, and always favoring themselves.

FB has agreed to discuss matters with House Judiciary Committee staff as soon as today, Wednesday, after the fallout over Cambridge Analytica's use and exploitation of user data from about 50 million Americans.

Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been slammed for being silent on this issue, which needs to be explored for possible election tampering, in this writer's opinion.

Axios reported that Zuckerberg may finally break silence or perhaps wind.

In 2012, Time wrote a glowing article about the data mining used by Obama's team. It was headlined: "Friended: How the Obama Campaign Connected with Young Voters." It explained how social networks are changing the way modern, sophisticated politicians campaign, and even stated that by 2016, "this sort of campaign-driven sharing over social networks is almost certain to be the norm." 

But only Democratic politicians need apply.

Of course the headlines tying Trump's 2016 campaign to data mining were quite different and less glowing than Obama's.

The New York Times wrote: "How Trump consultants' exploited the Facebook Data of millions."

Did you catch the subtle difference?

Obama = genius. Trump = exploiter and a travesty of democracy.

Ironically, Shapiro doesn't believe the "supposedly nefarious workings" of data mining by Trump's campaign made any difference in the outcome of the election.

"It didn't win Trump the election, by the way. Trump won the election because Hillary was an unbelievably crappy candidate and Trump campaigned in the right places," Shapiro said. "It's just nonsense."

It's also something to think about regarding whether or not to stay on Facebook. Maybe it's time to say "Chuck it."


Tweet

Libertarian candidate wants to arm the homeless with shotguns

Brian Ellison, a Libertarian candidate in Michigan, believes that arming homeless people with shotguns will reduce crime. 

I suspect it will reduce the population of homeless people in Michigan.

Seriously, Ellison thinks that putting shotguns into the hands of the homeless, a group known for its array of interesting hallucinations and delusions, is a good idea. And he has an excellent chance of becoming the party's Libertarian candidate in the upcoming midterms.

Yes, it's true that the homeless are frequently at risk of violent crime. But is arming them really the way to go?

He'll be challenging Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow for the U.S. Senate seat in November if he wins his party's nomination.

Ellison told the Guardian that he thinks handguns for the homeless would be ideal, due to tough gun laws, [and the fact that few would pass a background check due to lack of mental health, etc.] shotguns are the only alternative for them.

"Frankly, I think the ideal weapon would be the pistol," he said, "but due to the licensing requirements in the state we're going to have a hard enough time getting homeless people shotguns as it is."

"Getting them pistols is probably next to impossible. The pistols need to be registered, people have to have addresses."

"Open-carrying a long gun is completely legal," the lunatic said, while carrying a concealed handgun is illegal without a permit. "So we thought that pump-action shotguns were a suitable alternative to a pistol."

This guy is going to lose if he wins the nomination. He's going to lose bigly, mainly because of this idea. 

I am totally in favor of the Second Amendment. I support the idea of owning any semi-automatic weapon you can name. I am even against the newly proposed aged requirement for long rifles, but arming the homeless is not a good idea.

Ellison asked: "Well, are you worried about the police being armed with military weapons? I am. The world we live in is a scary world, where the police who used to dress in short-sleeved shirts and carry a revolver now have long rifles with scopes and bulletproof vests and armored vehicles.

"And quite frankly that scares me much more than a homeless person trying to defend themselves with a shotgun."

So Ellison calls long rifles 'military weapons' as if that means the police are planning a coup. 

All weapons, at one time in the past, were military weapons. As weapons became modernized, the police had to follow suit, rather than using revolvers and being outgunned by the bad guys. And what's wrong with bulletproof vests? Cops want to go home to their families too.

Ellison's premise and fears are just plain stupid, and this is why we have a Second Amendment. This is also why we have elections, but sometimes the stupid candidate wins (see, for example, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden).

But arming the homeless, people who cannot be properly vetted, is just plain crazy.



Tweet

Obama: "Cool it with the patriotism"

Protecting one's testicles is patriotic

Barack Hussein Hope and Change Obama is in the country he apparently loves the most where he is talking trash about President Trump and more trash about the greatest country on earth.

Yes, Obama is in Indonesia for the Fourth of July celebration along with his lovely "wife" and kids.

In a series of events, the former failed president predictably attacked love of country and policies of Trump. 

The Guardian reported: 

The former US president said some countries had adopted "an aggressive kind of nationalism" and "increased resentment of minority groups," in a speech in Indonesia on Saturday that could be seen as a commentary on the US as well as Indonesia.

"It's been clear for a while that the world is at a crossroads. As an inflection point," Obama said, telling a Jakarta crowd stories of how much the capital had improved since he lived there as a child. 

But he said that increased prosperity had been accompanied by new global problems, adding that as the world confronts issues ranging from inequality to terrorism, some countries--both developed and less developed--had adopted a more aggressive and isolationist stance. 

"If we don't stand up for tolerance and moderation and respect for others, if we begin to doubt ourselves and all that we have accomplished, then much of the progress that we have made will not continue," the socialist former failed president said.

It turns out that liberals, of late, have been the least tolerant of all other opinions and have labeled everything they don't want to hear as either 'hate speech,' 'racism,' or 'fascist.' But that's just an aside--everything Obama says is pure bs.

"What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy [such as the Antifa movement], we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we'll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions [inspired by Obama's administration], and religion divisions [such as anti-Christian and anti-Israel, aka anti-Semitic divisions inspired by Obama's presidency], and more violence [which is coming almost exclusively from the left]," Obama predicts. 

He also predicted Hillary Clinton winning the presidency.

In spite of the fact that former presidents have class and rarely criticize their successors even at home, never abroad, Obama is fortunate not to possess any class and did so in the home of his early madrassa education.

He criticized Trump over the Paris climate accord--a gutsy, good decision.

Trump said in June that he'd withdraw from the accord and try to negotiate a better deal. Europe criticized him because they want our money for the make-believe agreement that we were already taking steps to comply with, while the biggest polluters were doing nothing to reduce their carbon footprints.

It was a terrible deal, but then again, Obama was a terrible president.

"In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change," the verbally savant former president said Saturday in a speech at the opening of the Fourth Congress of the Indonesian Diaspora in Jakarta.

The Paris accord was nothing more than a weak 'gentleman's agreement' that had nothing to enforce it and parameters that made it nothing more than ridiculous to take seriously, much like intelligent people feel about Obama.

Meow, Mr. President

While Obama's attacks on Trump and a free economy were being made, President Trump spoke at an event that included wounded warriors at Walter Reed Medical Center. 

"America is a land rich with heroes," Trump said as he personally saluted World War II veteran Harry Miller for his lifelong service and Luis Avila, a wounded warrior.

"We all bleed the same red blood," he told the crowd. "Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence 241 years ago, America always affirmed that liberty comes from our Creator. Our rights are given to us by God, and no unearthly force can ever take those rights away. That is why my administration is transferring power out of Washington and returning that power back where it belongs--to the people," Trump said, which had to anger a failed former president who believes in a nanny state and ever bigger government.

And this is, in large part, why Donald J. Trump is president and Hillary Clinton is lost in the woods.


Tweet

Russian jet not the first, not the last

On October 31st, a Russian passenger jet carrying 220 passengers, 25 of whom were children, and 7 crew members crashed in central Sinai. We now know the Kolavia Flight 7K9268, an Airbus A321, most likely suffered an interior explosion 23 minutes after leaving Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport heading for St. Petersburg, Russia.

What we now have learned is this wasn't the first time a jet flying over the same area had been the target of terrorism.

About two months ago, a British passenger jet with 189 aboard had to take evasive action to avoid a missile. Britain confirmed this incident chalking it up to "routing exercises" being run by the Egyptian military.

Sure, that's the ticket.

According to The Guardian, the missile came within 1,000 feet from the aircraft August 23rd. The plane had taken off from London and headed to the Red Sea resort. The paper said that passengers were not told about the incident.

A UK government spokesman confirmed The Guardian report but didn't get specific about the incident. "We investigated the reported incident at the time and concluded that it was not a targeted attack and was likely connected to routing exercise being conducted by the Egyptian military in the area at the time," the statement read.

So now we need to worry about an incompetent Egyptian military firing off missiles where commercial airlines fly over.

As for me, I don't believe a word of that nonsense--this was no accident, not when the missile came so close. I think the airline industry is covering up to keep business up.

What do you think?



Tweet

Guardian Doesn't Name Them, CNN Calls it a Mosque

In what can only be called a "gruber," CNN superimposed their coverage of the terror attack in an Israeli synagogue with the headline: "Deadly attack on Jerusalem mosque." And they wonder why they have lost most of their audience. 

Why does it seem that leftist media only make leftist-serving gaffes? Coincidence, I guess, but what do I know--I'm just a typical American voter.

Even more telling is how the Guardian (which guards nothing but their leftist reputation and appeaser mentality) referred to the so-called Palestinians not as such, but as "perps of synagogue jihad murders." I suspect they were counting on the ignorance of the public as to what the real meaning of the word "jihad" is. 

Snowden is Missing and So is Transparency

Edward Snowden was fired today from Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH, humbug) and is likely in hiding. This young man is a hero to himself, his girlfriend pole-dancer, and some others who believe that what he did was justified because it is unconstitutional when the government decides to collect information on its citizens without just cause. Others believe that national security trumps the privacy of our phone numbers. Of course, there is that little thing called email that changes the story quite a bit--email contains actual words, messages, private thoughts, that the government can acquire. That sounds over the top, to me.