Month: May 2024

 

 

The FBI on Tuesday evening issued a rare statement after court documents revealed the Bureau was authorized to use deadly force when it raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022.

Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday unsealed numerous motions related to Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Trump.

One filing revealed Biden’s FBI authorized the use of deadly force during their raid on Mar-a-Lago authorized by US Attorney General Merrick Garland in August 2022.

Armed FBI agents were prepared to kill President Trump and his family, attack the Secret Service if necessary, and raid the guest rooms at the hotel!

In an appalling statement released Tuesday evening, the FBI claimed the authorization of deadly force on former President Trump is just “standard protocol.”

As Cristina Laila reported, the FBI also claimed Joe Biden had nothing to do with the use of deadly force on Trump, his family or Secret Service Agents assigned to his detail.

“The FBI, like other law enforcement agencies, requires the team leader of any search warrant or arrest warrant to complete a standardized form known as an “Operations Plan.” This form, which also must be read by the team leader to all assisting agents, is a reminder of the FBI’s deadly force policy. This is a legal requirement to be included on all Ops Plans and read to agents immediately preceding the enforcement action. The President (Biden) has nothing to do with, and has zero input on, an Ops Plan. This is an internal law enforcement document and a standardized form that FBI lawyers require before engaging in any enforcement operations,” the FBI said.

Of course, this was all a lie.

Dan Bongino was one of the first fire back at the corrupt intelligence agency.

Dan Bongino:  This is absolutely a big deal. Don’t buy the bullshit otherwise. It was not a standard op. The MAL raid was an unprecedented action with significant potential for confusion and blue on blue issues and conflict. It also involved competing equities between federal agencies (FBI & USSS) with equal statutory claims to interrupt the other’s activities. Anyone telling you otherwise is either dumb, or playing dumb. I’ve done more deconfliction with Russians in a foreign op I did for the USSS than the FBI did in their search warrant at MAL. Only a dumbass would pitch the “it’s the standard paperwork” line. Go serve a search warrant at the White House in the cocaine case while filling out your “standard paperwork” and see how that works out for you. Wake up.

This is absolutely a big deal. Don’t buy the bullshit otherwise.

It was not a standard op. The MAL raid was an unprecedented action with significant potential for confusion and blue on blue issues and conflict. It also involved competing equities between federal agencies (FBI &…

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) May 22, 2024

On Wednesday afternoon, Julie Kelly obliterated the disgusting lies by the FBI on The War Room.

Steve Bannon: You refuted that pretty well. I want to go to that point. You had a number of people on our side of the football that said, oh, this is just standard operating procedure. It’s far from it. It’s radical. And you went through and put up a tweet that listed the reasons why is this not standard? You get that was standard operating procedure. If you go bang down the door of a cartel, right? Or child trafficker, not on some documents case. You listed it through pretty thoroughly. Give me your thoughts.

Julie Kelly: First of all, why do you need 30 armed FBI agents to get papers, files, records? And of course they changed the goal. They changed the goal post there, Steve. First of all, remember, it was classified markings. Then the search warrant said national defense information. So they changed what they initially said they were looking for between June, May and June of 2022, and then when the search warrant was executed.

Why do you have to have an armed raid for a former president and his lawyers who are fully cooperating? Who wo months before the raid allowed Jay Brat, the chief of counterintelligence for DOJ, and three FBI agents, Donald Trump, let them in voluntarily to Mar a Lago. Donald Trump delayed his plans to go to Bedminster for the summer so he could meet Jay Brat and three FBI agents at Mar-a-Lago and told them, look around, let me know what you need.

Why did they have to raid Mar-a-Lago two months later? Does the US Attorney General, is it standard operating procedure for the US Attorney General to sign off on a search warrant? Is that what Mayor Garland does all day long? No, he doesn’t. That’s why he had to come out and say that he was responsible.

There’s nothing normal about this case. Correct. Also, when was the last time that a top FBI official from headquarters was involved in a raid?

How about when the counterintelligence chief is involved in an FBI raid?

How about when you have the assistant us prosecutor in that district involved in the raid?

They’re not investigators, they’re prosecutors. So why do you have these big wigs at Mar-a-Lago if this is just standard operating procedure?

Why did they refer to Donald Trump twice in the FBI operations order as FPOTUS? Is that usually how they identify suspects? By their title? Do they say, you know, Mister drug dealer or Mister embezzler? They act, but they referred to him as the former president.

So none of this is standard. I don’t care what people like Bill Shipley or these FBI agents have to say. There is no convincing us that this is normal, that it should be acceptable even if you did. Are we now just supposed to say, oh, it’s okay that the FBI brings 30 armed agents into someone’s home for 9 hours, ransacks the place?

Here is Julie and Steve Bannon discussing the lies by the FBI today.

The post Dirty FBI Defends Authorized Use of Deadly Force at Mar-a-Lago Raid, Including: Triage Plans, 30 Armed Agents, and Map to a Trauma Center – Julie Kelly Shreds Their Lies to Pieces appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The majority of likely 2024 voters prefer deporting illegal aliens over granting them amnesty, according to a new poll released this week.

A survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that a 54 percent majority of likely voters support a policy to mass deport all illegal aliens, including 36 percent of voters who “strongly” support it.

There are an estimated 11 to 22 million illegal aliens in the United States.

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if given a choice between two candidates, one of whom favored granting amnesty to illegal aliens and one of whom favored deporting all illegal aliens, 52% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the candidate who favored deportation,” the pollsters found. “Thirty-six percent (36%) would vote for the candidate who favored amnesty, while 12% are undecided.”

Breitbart News reports:

Working and lower-middle class Americans, those most likely to compete for jobs against illegal aliens, remain highly supportive of deportations. Nearly 60 percent of those likely voters who are not college-educated said they support deporting illegal aliens.

At the same time, those Americans most likely to hire illegal aliens for below-market wages are the most opposed to such a deportation policy. A wide majority, 63 percent, of those earning $200,000 or more a year said they do not support deporting illegal aliens.

Fewer than 4-in-10 likely voters said they oppose mass deportations of illegal aliens.

The report noted that there is also a wide gap in support along economic lines.  It states, “likely voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year said by a 55-percent majority that they oppose amnesty, as are 51 percent of those earning $50,000 to $100,000. Conversely, almost 6-in-10 likely voters earning $200,000 or more support amnesty for illegal aliens.”

Rasmussen polled 1,072 U.S. likely voters from May 12-14, 2024. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The post Majority of Likely 2024 Voters Prefer Deporting Illegal Aliens Over Granting Amnesty appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace appeared to freak out over Nikki Haley’s endorsement of Donald Trump, suggesting that only “cult experts” would be able to explain her decision.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Hudson Insitute on Thursday, Haley confirmed she would be voting for Trump, despite having previously refused to endorse him after pulling out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

BREAKING: Nikki Haley: “I will be voting for Trump”

pic.twitter.com/axdCCDPjMm

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 22, 2024

Wallace, who worked as White House Communications Director under George W. Bush, was predictably appalled by the endorsement.

Here is a transcript of the exchange.

NBC REPORTER VAUGHN HILLYARD: Nikki Haley, in 2015, said, ‘Donald Trump is everything I taught my children not to do in kindergarten. I told my little ones, you don’t lie and make things up.’ She ended up serving in his administration.

WALLACE: Who are these people?!

HILLYARD: On, January 6, she called it “an ugly day.” She then went and said – a couple months later that she wouldn’t run against him for president. She ended up running for president. And then we saw Nikki Haley – while her husband was deployed to Africa with U.S. armed services – mocked by Donald Trump for being away. And it was the words of Nikki Haley that were very explicit about Donald Trump. [She] said in part that, ‘They were disgusting, awful and unhinged,” and said that “somebody that makes comments like that doesn’t deserve to be commander-in-chief.” Her own husband got on social media and fired back and said, ‘The difference between humans and animals – animals would never allow the dumbest ones to lead the pack.”

His allies pushed extramarital fair rumors about her. This is somebody who suggested that she may not even be eligible to run for president because her parents are immigrants. And today, her announcing she’s going to vote for Donald Trump is just, I think, another chapter in something that we’ve already lived out with the likes of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio eight years ago. She did raise her hand in that Republican debate and said that she would vote for a convicted felon if Donald Trump was found guilty. And today, as evidence that she’s sticking to her word.

WALLACE: We need shrinks and cult experts to explain this because what you’re reporting doesn’t make a lick of sense to me, and it’s so recent. I mean, J.D. Vance, in 2015, said something similar. But for her and her husband to both have been feuding publicly with him just days and weeks before endorsing him is inexplicable to me at a human level.

HILLYARD: I think it’s power. And I think in American politics, access to power and a party that you identify with is a future. And I think that we have a great share of individuals that have proved this time and again, that staying closely associated to Donald Trump is a guarantee that you are relevant within politics if you choose to remain in politics.

WALLACE: It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable.

Unlike Wallace, Nikki Haley may be starting to realize that the Republican Party of George Bush and John McCain is dead and never coming back.

 

The post MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace Triggered By Nikki Haley’s Trump Endorsement, Says Only ‘Cult Experts’ Can Explain (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

During a campaign rally today in San Pedro Garza, Mexico, near Monterrey, a stage collapsed during a local mayoral campaign event.  The roof, equipped with light fixtures, speakers and scaffolding, crashed down while several candidates were up cheering on presidential candidate Jorge Alavarez Maynez.  Maynez was also on the stage but managed to escape.  Four people, however, are reportedly dead and another 15 injured.

The event included concert to celebrate the closing of Lorenia Canavati’s campaign for mayor of San Pedro Garza, a city of about 132,000 people.  The election is to be held June 2nd.  Both Canavati and Maynez are members of the Citizen’s Movement party.  Maynez is considered a long shot.

Maynez posted a statement on X:

After the accident in San Pedro Garza, where a gust of wind collapsed the stage where we were, I moved to the San José hospital.

I am fine and in communication with state authorities to follow up on what happened. The only important thing right now is to care for the victims of the accident.

 

BREAKING: At least 4 dead and several injured after stage collapsed at a political rally in Mexico. Mexican presidential candidate escaped the collapse pic.twitter.com/JGH2f7G1H2

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) May 23, 2024

“San Pedro Garza García”:
Porque se desplomó el escenario donde se llevaba a cabo el evento de campaña de Lorenia Canavati, candidata a la alcaldía de San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León, donde se encontraba Jorge Álvarez Máynez. pic.twitter.com/czzAP0ZmdV

— ¿Por qué es Tendencia? (@porktendencia) May 23, 2024

 

¡Ya estamos listos para recibir a nuestros amigos de Grupo Bronco y a @alvarezmaynez!

Los espero a partir de las 6 pm aquí en el Campo de Béisbol El Obispo para celebrar juntos que pronto San pedro estará mejor.
(https://t.co/54EHJ4Kg1i) pic.twitter.com/JJFjMY7Y3Z

— Lorenia Canavati (@loreniacanavati) May 22, 2024

The post VIDEO: Stage Collapses at Political Rally in Mexico – Presidential Candidate Narrowly Escapes – at Least 4 Dead appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As the world eagerly awaits the results of the latest presidential election, a new study has emerged revealing a shocking connection between political turmoil and an increase in heart attacks. According to the research, individuals are more likely to suffer from heart attacks during presidential elections and other highly stressful events. This unexpected correlation sheds light on the impact of stress on our physical health.

The study, conducted by a team of researchers, analyzed data from over a decade of presidential elections and found a significant spike in heart attacks during these tense periods. This pattern was also observed during other stressful events such as natural disasters, economic crises, and even major sports events. The findings suggest that the uncertainty and heightened emotions surrounding these events can have a serious impact on our hearts.

Heart attacks more likely during presidential elections and other stressful times, study shows: People with high genetic stress sensitivity, as well as anxiety or depression, are at a much higher risk of heart attack during times of socio-political… https://t.co/cDZccYaP3n pic.twitter.com/E5ZTd5W6ex

— JPNWMN (@JPNWMN) May 20, 2024

Experts believe that the constant barrage of news updates, heated debates, and social media discussions during these times can take a toll on our mental and physical well-being. The intense pressure and anxiety of a highly contentious election, in particular, can trigger a variety of physiological responses in the body, including an increase in blood pressure and heart rate. This prolonged stress can ultimately lead to a heart attack in individuals who are already at risk.

While it may seem alarming, this study serves as a reminder of the importance of managing stress in our daily lives. In today’s fast-paced world, we are constantly bombarded with stressful events and it can be easy to overlook the toll it takes on our bodies. As we eagerly follow the developments of the election, it is crucial to prioritize our mental and physical health.

Just a little reminder that the 2020 election was rigged. pic.twitter.com/xLb0xkSTjd

— Pizza Pepe (@RealPizzaPepe) May 20, 2024

Fortunately, there are simple steps we can take to reduce our stress levels and protect our hearts. Engaging in relaxation techniques, such as meditation or deep breathing, can help calm the mind and lower blood pressure. Regular exercise and a healthy diet also play a crucial role in maintaining a strong and healthy heart, even in the face of stressful events.

Moreover, this study highlights the importance of being aware of our own personal risk factors for heart disease. By understanding our individual vulnerabilities, we can take the necessary steps to prevent a heart attack during times of heightened stress. Seeking support from loved ones and medical professionals can also provide a much-needed outlet for managing stress and maintaining overall health.

In conclusion, the surprising link between presidential elections and heart attacks serves as a wake-up call to prioritize our well-being during stressful times. As we navigate the uncertain future of our nation, let us not forget the impact it can have on our hearts.

By actively managing stress and taking care of our physical and mental health, we can better withstand the challenges of unpredictable events and emerge stronger than ever before.

What are YOUR thoughts?

We want to hear from you! Please comment below to join the discussion.

The post Unpredictable Heart Attacks: The Surprising Link Between Presidential Elections and Stressful Times appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In recent weeks, CNN has shifted their Trump obsession to the sham Trump trial in New York. They even had hosts do an embarrassing ‘dramatic reading’ of trial transcripts that got panned on social media.

The bad news for the far left network is that it is not doing anything to help their already sagging ratings. In fact, their primetime viewership is going down.

Most Americans are far more concerned about the economy, inflation and the invasion of the southern border, but CNN doesn’t care. They need their Trump-hating fix every single day.

FOX News reports:

CNN’s primetime lineup hits dismal viewership low despite New York v. Trump trial

CNN’s long-struggling primetime lineup hit a significant viewership low in a critical category last week despite the landmark New York v. Trump trial dominating the news cycle.

CNN’s primetime lineup of “Anderson Cooper 360,” “The Source with Kaitlan Collins,” and “CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip” managed only 83,000 nightly viewers in the advertiser-coveted demographic of adults age 25-54 from May 13-19. The dismal total tied the network’s 2023 Thanksgiving week for its smallest audience in the critical category since 1991.

By comparison, Fox News programs “Jesse Watters Primetime,” “Hannity,” and “Gutfeld!” averaged 186,000 demo viewers to crush CNN’s audience by over 100,000 people between the ages 25-54.

CNN’s primetime lineup had a smaller audience among the demo than 23 different basic cable options, including FXX, MTV, Hallmark Channel, Discovery, A&E, Adult Swim, Comedy Central, TLC, HGTV, Food Network. ESPN2, and Bravo, in addition to Fox News and MSNBC.

CNN’s primetime lineup wasn’t particularly successful among total viewers, either, averaging only 484,000 total viewers compared to two million for Fox News.

How could CNN possibly be losing viewers with compelling news coverage like this?

CNN’s dramatic transcript reading has the vibes of a local parish on Good Friday- when random readers flatly drone text they don’t fully understand. “Didn’t I see you with the Galilean?” pic.twitter.com/zEzXONZL6R

— Raymond Arroyo (@RaymondArroyo) May 14, 2024

It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic and sad.

The post WHAT A SHAME: CNN’s Primetime Ratings Are Going DOWN as They Cover the Trump Trial 24/7 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It isn’t easy being a European leader these days. The continent is technologically advanced, economically prosperous, and socially sophisticated. Its rich friend across “the Pond” continues to guarantee its defense, no matter how little it does for itself.

Threatening to ruin this pleasant life, however, is the specter of President Donald Trump. In February, London’s Sunday Times headlined one article: “Would Trump really leave Nato? Europe is trying not to panic.” The continent is clearly failing in its attempt.

What Trump would actually do is unclear. He criticized European free-riding long before being elected president the first time, and continued his hostile rhetorical fusillades while in office. Yet his administration increased funding and troop levels for the continent.

What now? The former National Security Adviser John Bolton predicts that, if elected, Trump will withdraw from NATO. Others disagree. Indeed, a couple months ago, the former president said that he “100 percent” would stay in the transatlantic alliance as long as NATO treats “the U.S. fairly.” Trump apparently plans to call on alliance members to increase military spending as a share of GDP from two to three percent, reinforcing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s insistence that they “must go further” than two percent. Of course, Trump might again change his mind if elected.

European governments are spending more on the military. Stoltenberg cited “real progress”: “In 2024, NATO Allies in Europe will invest a combined total of 380 billion U.S. dollars in defense. For the first time, this amounts to two percent of their combined GDP.” 

There is still much more to do. Several small nations are putting in greater effort, but that inevitably yields little practical strength. Some of the bigger spenders, such as Germany, also have produced minimal combat force for their money. Today, the United Kingdom is shrinking its army even as it increases its outlays. Moreover, charges British historian and journalist Max Hastings: “Though successive British prime ministers have professed to embrace Ukraine, which is essentially our proxy in facing down Russian aggression, they have done almost nothing to sustain the supply of munitions, once the army’s cupboard was emptied.” And some states capable of contributing much more, such as Italy and Spain, continue to lag. Nevertheless, more Europeans appear to be more serious about their militaries. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine helped concentrate minds across the continent.

But NATO’s European members are not spending more to prepare to take over responsibility for their own defense. Rather, they are spending more to keep the U.S. involved. 

“A strong NATO is good for Europe, but a strong NATO is also good for the United States,” claimed Stoltenberg. “It is in the interest of the United States to keep NATO, and therefore I believe they will remain a staunch and loyal ally.” Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argued, “America should be assured that more European countries are stepping up. Our friends and neighbors are listening to our argument that we can’t expect America to pay any price and bear any burden if we on this side of the Atlantic aren’t prepared to invest in our own security.” 

POLITICO Europe reported that Sunak’s fellow ministers “hope the U.K. can lead a coalition of Germany, France and Poland to show the U.S. that Europe can and will pull its weight.”

Similarly, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda observed, “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine clearly demonstrated that the United States is and should remain the security leader. But other allies must take more responsibility for the security of the alliance as a whole.” 

Speaking of Poland’s upcoming stint as president of the European Union, Duda announced that “our overarching priority will be: more of the United States in Europe. That means a more active U.S. presence across the military, economic and political domains. Just as there is no strong NATO without Europe, there is no strong Europe without the United States and NATO.”

Many European leaders understand that Americans have tired of being taken for granted as the continent’s sugar daddy. By making more of an effort, Washington’s nervous friends are trying to defuse popular sentiments well-represented by Trump. The Europeans hope their American critics will become happy guardians. Moreover, the allies will be better prepared for a difficult future if their efforts fail and Trump or another American president decides to withdraw from the transatlantic alliance.

Nevertheless, NATO advocates also are fighting back by insisting that the European members remain incapable of defending themselves. Ongoing efforts are insufficient, argued Hastings: “Europe requires a decade of enhanced spending to make itself remotely capable of self-defense, in the absence of the US.” The Economist, a reliable advocate of preserving Washington’s job as continental defender, devoted an entire section to answer the question, “Can Europe defend itself without America?” Unsurprisingly, its answer was no: 

Anyway, more money is not enough. Almost all European armies are struggling to meet their recruitment targets, as is America’s. Moreover the rise in spending after 2014 delivered alarmingly little growth in combat capability. A recent paper by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), a think-tank in London, found that the number of combat battalions had barely increased since 2015 (France and Germany each added just one) or had even fallen, in Britain by five battalions. At a conference last year, an American general lamented that most European countries could field just one full-strength brigade (a formation of a few thousand troops), if that. Germany’s bold decision to deploy a full brigade to Lithuania, for instance, is likely to stretch its army severely.

Even advocates of a more independent Europe warn of the continent’s extraordinary military weakness. For instance, Max Bergmann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote that “a stronger, less dependent Europe would meet the United States as a genuine partner, giving Washington new reason to commit to the relationship. NATO, after all, will be more valuable as an alliance between two military powers than it is as a team led by just one.” He warned that 

many American and European leaders have mistakenly concluded that all it will take to replace the United States’ contribution is to spend a lot more on security. In fact, even if all European NATO members were to meet the alliance’s goal of contributing two percent of GDP toward defense, their efforts would not significantly reduce Europe’s military dependence on Washington.

Thus, it is essential that critics of a NATO forever dominated by America expand their focus. Ultimately, Europe is capable of taking over its own defense. With continental outlays rising, the next step is to begin decreasing the U.S. commitment of both money and troops. Although France’s President Emmanuel Macron appears to be dedicated to creating a separate European defense force, most of the continent’s leaders prefer to continue receiving American security subsidies. Only necessity, caused by withdrawal of the U.S. military and the end of America’s Article 5 guarantee, is likely to better motivate European governments. 

There is no need for Washington to indulge in histrionics and insults. Although Trump’s rhetorical flourishes made the issue good theater, they hindered the creation of a positive working relationship necessary to transform the transatlantic alliance effectively. Rather, Trump articulated the basic point: “We have an ocean in between,” and the alliance “is more important” to the Europeans. Given their wealth and population, they should take over their defense, instead of expecting Americans to forever pick up the bill. 

Along the way Washington should do everything possible to smooth the move to a true multilateral alliance in place of unipolar hegemony. A drawdown should be steady and certain, not rapid and chaotic. The U.S. should help allies increase their capabilities along with their outlays. 

American administrations also should help reduce threats against Europe. It obviously will be easier for the Europeans to defend themselves if they face fewer and less serious dangers. Although fears of Russia following up victory over Ukraine with a march across Europe to the Atlantic reflect neither threats nor actions of the Putin government, nothing is certain. Allied policy should focus on ending the Russo–Ukrainian war with a negotiated settlement that enhances continental as well as bilateral security. Addressing Russian concerns is necessary to avoid any repetition of the “special military operation.” Reaching a satisfactory modus vivendi, though undoubtedly difficult, would benefit both sides economically as well.

Finally, America and Europe should cooperate on other issues. They share many interests and values, as well as a long, complicated history. Areas where they should work together include trade, terrorism, international governance, democracy promotion, and climate change. They also could better cooperate regarding Africa, China, and the Middle East.  

Europe’s increased military spending is a major step forward. Although the continent’s willingness to cheap-ride on the U.S. is irritating, the Europeans are responding to Washington officials’ attempts to preserve their dominance. European governments took advantage of Americans just as Washington intended, only at too low a price in the latter’s official eyes. 

This status quo is no longer acceptable. Americans are burdened both financially at home and militarily abroad. Today, Washington needs to shift, not share, the burden of Europe’s defense. That should be a major objective for the next administration, whoever is elected in November.

The post Europeans Finally Spend More on the Military—To Keep U.S. Entangled appeared first on The American Conservative.

Last Sunday, a helicopter carrying Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, and six others crashed in the mountains of Iran’s East Azerbaijan province. 

As of this writing, it appears this was an accident rather than a state-sponsored assassination. Initially, some assumed that the worst-case scenario was also the most likely—that Israel was behind it. But Tel Aviv was quick to issue a denial, which Iran seems to have accepted at face value. As Negar Mortazavi, Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for International Policy points out, “It is notable that the Iranians, who are usually very quick to blame Israel for anything and everything, [are] not blaming Israel right now, I think it also forestalls the possibility that this becomes a major kind of regional escalation point in the near future.”

Raisi, a regime hard-liner, was assumed to be among the top candidates to replace Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who, at age 85, is said to be in declining health. Raisi had a long, sordid history, including, notably, as a member of the “Death Committee for Tehran” which, true to its name, condemned between 4,000 and 5,000 political prisoners to death in 1988.  

Asked about this upon assuming the presidency in 2021, Raisi responded, “If a judge, a prosecutor has defended the security of the people, he should be praised.” 

His record as president was unexceptional. Inflation continues to hover around 50 percent, corruption remains endemic, little has been achieved in terms of sanctions relief, and his term in office was marred by his government’s brutal response to the widespread 2022 protests, which led to the deaths of over 500 people. Old habits, it appears, die hard.

“Aside from his hardline supporters who make up about 10 to 15 percent of the population,” writes Professor Muhammad Sahim of the University of Southern California, “hardly anyone will shed any tears for him.” 

In the meantime, a placeholder president has been installed and elections are scheduled for June 28.

Raisi’s record on foreign policy was more mixed. Of course, in Iran, the president is not the “decider” that he is here—that role falls to Khamenei. Nevertheless, Iran’s measured response to recent Israeli provocations demonstrated a kind of maturity in judgment often lacking elsewhere in the region (as well as, it hardly needs pointing out, in Washington).

Appearing on CNN shortly after the crash, Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, noted that “Raisi never really was a driving force behind any major policy.” The consensus seems to track with the opinion of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s prediction that we will probably not “see any broader regional security impacts at this point in time.”

The real questions are with regard to the “who” and “when” of succession—and in this context is it worth noting that on Tuesday, it was reported that Iran’s Assembly of Experts, which ultimately chooses the country’s supreme leader, elected the 93-year-old Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani as its head.

And so, despite the hardliner Raisi’s sudden passing, relations between the U.S. and Iran, which have been on a steady downward trajectory since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nearly a decade ago, will likely remain unchanged. 

Indeed, in the years since the signing of the JCPOA, both sides have reverted to form—with the U.S., under Trump, abandoning the landmark nuclear agreement and Iran, in turn, pursuing a program of uranium enrichment, inching ever closer to nuclear weapons capability, as claimed by the president of the Iranian Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Kamal Kharrazi, earlier this month. How changes at the top—in both Tehran and Washington—might affect a change for the better is anyone’s guess. 

Writing earlier this month in Responsible Statecraft, John Limbert, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who spent 14 months as a hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran during the final year of the Carter administration, expressed the assuredly sensible notion that “sooner or later, if the U.S. and the Islamic Republic are going to avoid such a lose-lose conflict, the two sides will need to stop shouting and start talking. Forty-five years of exchanging empty slogans, accusations, threats, and denunciations have accomplished little beyond furthering a few political careers and feeding a sense of self-righteousness.”

Indeed, U.S. officials might usefully consider both the costs and benefits of our limited engagement with Iran. After all, as Parsi points out in his riveting behind-the-scenes account of the JCPOA negotiation, Losing an Enemy, such severely restricted relations also restrict insight.

“Even strong U.S. allies like Germany felt that the United States’ understanding of Iran was limited, and that this lack of comprehension impacted its policies,” wrote Parsi. A German diplomat remarked to him, “Just relying on intelligence, as the U.S. is forced to do, can distort things. It becomes all about drama, doom and gloom and never about normal things. Till this day, the U.S. still has an unnatural relationship with Iran.” 

While such a relationship serves the purposes of America’s very own hardline clerics, it does little to advance the true national security interests of the American people.

The post After Raisi, the Unendurable Endures appeared first on The American Conservative.

Rishi Sunak wandered out of 10 Downing Street on Wednesday to announce that the next United Kingdom general election will take place on July 4. In normal times, a prime minister might hope to announce an election in glorious sunshine. Inevitably, it was pouring rain.

The problem with conducting an autopsy of the Conservative Party’s time in power in the United Kingdom is remaining calm. Imagine a pathologist conducting an autopsy on the body of a man who had defrauded the pathologist’s elderly mother out of her life savings. The temptation to go ape with the scalpel would be tremendous.

As an expat, I perhaps have a little more emotional distance than most. Still, I can feel my blood pressure rising as I contemplate more than a decade of missed opportunities, avoidable mistakes, and pure corruption. 

On one level, the Conservatives have been remarkably effective. They have won four elections! That is no small accomplishment. The last time the Democrats or Republicans achieved such a feat was in the 1940s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt won his fourth. Yes, their competition has been dubious, with the sheer unlikability of Gordon Brown, the awkwardness of Ed Miliband, and the hard leftism of Jeremy Corbyn making for less than intimidating obstacles. But, to some extent, the unlikability, awkwardness, and hard leftism were brought out by the Conservatives’ skilled, if vastly cynical, electioneering.

Yet politics is not just about winning elections. It’s about what you do between them. Here, the Conservatives have monumentally failed. There is almost no aspect of British life that has improved under Tory government—and, indeed, most aspects have degraded. 

To some extent, the ability to win elections and the inability to govern have been related. The Conservative dominance among older voters has made MPs grimly reliant on the support of aging homeowners who treat the idea of local building developments with outraged alarm. This has not just exacerbated Britain’s housing woes, but has even hamstrung the development of essential infrastructure such as reservoirs.

Attempting to balance good policies and good polling is difficult. The former should still come first, of course—because what is the point of good polling with bad policies?—but people who aren’t going to face a vote on whether their career will continue should at least have a sprinkle of empathy. What is more infuriating is how the Conservatives have embraced policies which are both unwise and unpopular.

Time and again, the Tories have pledged to reduce immigration. David Cameron and Theresa May both promised to take net migration back to the tens of thousands, only to see it rise through the hundreds of thousands. Brexit, to a large extent, was a vote on immigration. Boris Johnson’s government inexplicably responded with a vast hike in non-EU arrivals, taking numbers to historically unprecedented heights. 

There is some extent to which this has been motivated by purblind short-termism: the desire to prop up GDP figures at the expense of true growth, the desire to staff the health and social care systems without higher expenses on training and salaries, and the desire to keep underperforming universities afloat. But the Conservatives also tend to be glib cosmopolitans—“anywheres,” to borrow the phrasing of David Goodhart—who occasionally play-act as national conservatives for publicity reasons. This draws them to the worst of both worlds, as they do a performance of tough-minded restrictionism. Their signaling looks harsh, such as with Theresa May’s crass “Go Home” immigration vans, while their policies are radically liberal. (Ten years on from those stupid vans, an asylum-seeker from safe and tourist-friendly Morocco, who had been allowed to hang about in the UK for years for no reasons, stabbed an elderly Englishman to death because he felt angry about Israel.)

The Conservatives have been very good at gaining power in an electoral sense. They have been less interested in gaining power in a broad political sense. Tony Blair—who was far more talented than any of the Tories, even if he chose to use his powers for evil—made sweeping legislative and institutional changes throughout his decade in power. The Conservatives have simply accepted them. The “Blob” of useless quangos and radical chic charities maintains tremendous power, while the more extreme obstructionist and egalitarian implications of acts like the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 have been tolerated if not extended. The Conservatives wanted the power to pose as governors more than they wanted to actually govern.

Outside of extreme cases, politicians should be judged by their public acts more than their private lives. Still, ten Conservative MPs being effectively expelled over sexual misconduct allegations since 2019 is a bleak reflection on the moral shallowness in which our politicians wallow. Some cases of passing sleaze have been downright farcical, such as in the case of the prominent MP who sent compromising images to a malicious user of a gay dating app, who then blackmailed him into giving up the contact details of other MPs, some of whom sent compromising images as well. Call me a liberal, but the stupidity is the most offensive thing.

One might sympathetically imagine that the Conservatives’ lack of moral and political vision has been balanced by a detail-oriented technocratic competence. Actually, the Conservatives’ lack of moral and political vision has been packaged with miserable incompetence. State failure is evident across British society. The National Health Service is ranked lower than ever in patient surveys and academic studies. Prisoners are being released for lack of space in prisons. Army recruitment goals have not been met since 2010. Energy planning is a terrifying farce that could plunge Britain into blackouts in the near future. Would that Britain had been fortunate enough to have been governed by soulless but effective technocrats.

Right-wing commentators disassociating themselves from the Conservatives might face the understandable charge of opportunism. Certainly, we bear some responsibility as well. The government’s excessive emphasis on top-down public health measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, was fueled by many—if by no means all—of us in the right-wing media. We have spent far too much time jeering at marginal leftists that could have been used focusing on our actual authorities. Too much discourse has been spilled on fanciful abstractions without a sense of how they can be translated into policy.

Yet the Conservatives have also failed to listen time and again—doubling and tripling down on their mistakes. Now, even their electioneering looks hapless, with 14 years of failure ensures that any accusation they fling at Keir Starmer’s Labour Party looks enormously hypocritical. Starmer is unlikeable and untrustworthy—being to Tony Blair what a depressed Elvis impersonator is to the King of Rock and Roll in his prime—yet he would have to promise to ban ice cream and raise taxes by 1,000 percent to lose the next election. 

What can I say? The Conservatives deserve it. Politicians of the future should take note. Winning elections is admirable—indeed, essential—but it will not determine your legacy. No one is going to look back with admiration on the length of the Conservatives’ time in power. They are going to look back with outrage and incredulity on the scale of the damage that has been done within those years.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer could well be worse, but I could not in good conscience recommend that anybody vote Conservative. Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me. Fool me five times? “Shame” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

The post The Politically and Morally Bankrupt Tories Deserve to Lose appeared first on The American Conservative.

As the Gateway Pundit has previously reported, the ‘Greater Idaho’ movement is an effort by people in the state of Oregon to secede and become part of Idaho.

The whole thing is being driven by people in Oregon who are tired of living under policies driven by the far left in cities like Portland.

Support for the idea has grown over the last two years and another county in Oregon has just approved the measure.

The New York Post reports:

13th conservative Oregon county approves measure to secede and join ‘Greater Idaho’

Another right-leaning county in eastern Oregon has voted to secede from the Democrat-run state and join neighboring Idaho, according to reports.

Crook County residents passed the measure by a 53% majority Tuesday, making it the 13th county in the state to sign onto the movement known as “Greater Idaho,” NewsNation reported.

“The voters of eastern Oregon have spoken loudly and clearly about their desire to see border talks move forward,” said the Greater Idaho movement’s executive director Matt McCaw.

“With this latest result in Crook County, there’s no excuse left for the Legislature and Governor to continue to ignore the people’s wishes.”

Greater Idaho would see more than half of Oregon’s territory leave the Beaver State and join Republican-run Idaho to the east…

Greater Idaho began in earnest in 2020 and quickly began picking up traction, with eleven of the state’s 36 counties voting to endorse the idea by 2022.

Maybe some other states should try this.

When does Indiana conquer southern Illinois to create Greater Indiana? https://t.co/FmUFC7riJX

— Aleks Djuricic (@AleksDjuricic) May 23, 2024

Minnesota next please https://t.co/aM23sYVO2o

— Tyler Zed (@realTylerZed) May 23, 2024

Get it done. Will set a necessary tidal wave in motion. https://t.co/1RckyJVZ19

— Owoodfr77 (@owood77) May 23, 2024

If this sounds far-fetched, just remember that something similar just succeeded in Louisiana.

People are tired of being ruled by the far left.

The post Another County in Oregon Has Just Approved the Measure to Secede From the State and Join ‘Greater Idaho’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.