Month: April 2026

How Will the Iran War End?

Posted on by patriotsheart
Foreign Affairs

How Will the Iran War End?

The U.S. is unlikely to win on maximalist terms.

TOPSHOT-INDIA-KASHMIR-WAR-IRAN-US-ISRAEL
(Photo by Tauseef MUSTAFA / AFP via Getty Images)

“Tell me how this ends,” a young General David Petraeus asked early in the Iraq War, after Saddam Hussein’s army had largely been defeated. The United States is extraordinarily good at the first half of wars and far less capable in the second. So how does this one with Iran end?

The Gulf War was fought on mostly contrived grounds. Saddam thrived in power in Iraq in part due to U.S. support; he certainly survived the 1980s Iran–Iraq War due to behind-the-scenes U.S. involvement. But by 1990 Saddam had morphed into a bad guy invading Kuwait, and the U.S. went to war against him supposedly to free Kuwait. Later we added on something about supporting the Iraqi people, but the real reason the U.S. went to war was to recapture and protect the oilfields, especially those of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. was fully dependent on that oil, but our government could not say so, and so whitewashed all that happened with public justifications that obscured more material interests. We “won” that war by only fighting the part that really mattered to U.S. foreign policy—the first half, the oil part—and declaring victory.

It is still contested why the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan following the events of 9/11. The stated goals shifted from counterterrorism to fake weapons of mass destruction to nation-building, while broader ambitions of regional dominance remained in the shadows. Nation-building proved a palatable sell to the American public. But the underlying reason for the war was hegemony, remaking the regional balance of power and surrounding Iran under what some came to call the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Ironically, Iran did offer some sort of rapprochement in 2004, when it looked to them that America was going to be successful in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire U.S. military stood panting on Iran’s east and west borders. But that rapprochement did not happen, thanks to American hubris.

And now there is Gulf War III, the Iran War. As before, the reasons on paper for this current war are unclear. Originally it was to free the Iranian people (sound familiar?), then it was about nukes (remember that as a casus belli against Saddam?) but no one can really be sure. We picked up some ancillary reasons that did not exist a few months ago, specifically holding open the Strait of Hormuz and stopping Iranian harassment attacks against Israel and our Gulf allies. We also ended up with the job of assuring that places we cooperate with economically, like China, Japan, and India, don’t run out of oil.

You can walk this whole history back to the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which stated the U.S. would use force to protect American interests in the Middle East. Or 1979, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, when the U.S. lost the country as a military partner and oil supplier. Or even back to 1956, the Suez Crisis, which marked the handover of de facto power in the area from the decayed British and French empires to the United States. Or perhaps 1945, when President Franklin D Roosevelt assured the safety of Saudi Arabia to secure access to its oil. Or maybe even Sykes-Picot in 1916.

But no matter what starting date you settle on, America’s strategy has been based on the idea that the Middle East is to be controlled by American power. In various countries, Washington selected, then often abandoned, dictators, supported nascent moves toward democracy only as long as they did not aim at overturning the broader status quo, fought wars large and small every 10 to 20 years as America’s domestic whims allowed, sanctioned regimes, drew and discarded red lines, let the Russians in, then kicked them out, etc. Yet the underlying assumption endured that, with few exceptions, nothing truly important happened without Washington’s say-so. Oil was once a powerful subtheme to all this, but it is now down to pure power.

So, the question hanging over the present war is whether we are witnessing the reassertion of American dominance or the continuation of its gradual displacement. The United States is still the meanest dog on the block. No nation can match our ability to destroy things, literally to erase a whole society off the face of the earth if we really wanted to. Even without our archipelago of bases worldwide, the U.S. can launch untouchable B-2s and other bombers from Missouri, bomb Tehran, and return them home safely. That is not the same as shaping what comes after—that is, primacy. The way the Iran War plays out says in part whether the U.S. is indispensable in reacting to nascent nuclear states or directing events on the very largest scales possible, as was envisioned in the postwar world. Hats off to those insightful men who saw the end of the Second World War as a chance to reshape the world as boldly as was done in 1776, but we have not been led by such men for many years.

So how does this end?

History says we’re still on the wrong path. We failed to fundamentally alter Iran’s behavior since 1979, despite sanctions and more sanctions, CIA hijinks as yet untold, aiming Iraq at them in the 1980s, and more. The Gulf War ended in a return to the status quo despite all the effort. The 2003 invasion shattered the Iraqi state, empowering Iran further. Afghanistan ended in a tail-between-the-legs evacuation. Libya demonstrated that a) having friendly relations with America means little; b) having a nuke is the only sure way to protect yourself in a world of hegemons; and c) if the U.S. can’t win outright, it can turn you into a failed state if it wishes to.

If “winning” today means regime change, the elimination of Iran’s regional influence, and an end to its nuclear ambitions, it is unlikely the U.S. can win. History has proven that airpower and grave threats—basically 19th century gunboat diplomacy—cannot alone accomplish those goals. Decades of sanctions have not crippled the regime. Whatever internal dissent exists in Iran, it is unlikely to reach the point of regime change. Limited strikes (“mowing the lawn”) invite endless proxy retaliation and destabilizing acts. Iran has spent decades successfully resisting such pressure.

An alternative is a vicious military punishment, destruction on a scale that drives Iran away from regional power status. Even then the level of destruction would have to be fully crushing, something outside the bounds of American morality if directed against civilian targets, less so if the destruction is of Kharg Island or Iran’s floating oil reserves outside the Persian Gulf.

If war with Iran ends with a return to the status quo (Gulf open-ish, nukes delayed but not forever gone, Islamic government in power, etc.) it will send a clear message that the U.S. failed again in its broader, historical strategy. Iran will be further empowered. Gulf states will be forced to diversify their diplomacy. Countries like China and India may be forced to expand their diplomatic efforts. Israel will steadily act more unilaterally. This all will happen slowly, carefully, evolutionarily, with much less of an immediate impact than MSNOW and the Atlantic will proclaim. Washington will hopefully back away from the illusion that the United States can engineer political outcomes in societies it only partially understands, a lesson it should have learned from the Vietnam War.

We are not at the end of a war that Trump began, but in the midst of something bigger. America must now look past blame and toward how it will adapt to the encroaching next chapter in the Middle East. The pressing question is not really whether the United States can win this war. It is whether it can recognize that the kind of victory it seeks is no longer practically available.

The post How Will the Iran War End? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Does Trump Get Another Shot at North Korea?

Posted on by patriotsheart
Foreign Affairs

Does Trump Get Another Shot at North Korea?

The president’s upcoming Beijing trip may provide an opportunity to reengage.

TOPSHOT-SKOREA-US-NKOREA-DIPLOMACY
(Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming Beijing trip, speculation is swirling again over a possible meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on the sidelines.

At their last summit in Hanoi in February 2019, negotiations collapsed after the two sides failed to bridge the gap between Pyongyang’s offer to dismantle nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and Washington’s demand for a broader denuclearization package in exchange for major sanctions relief.

Even so, both leaders have reasons to look again, and both have signaled renewed interest. Trump has reiterated his openness to an unconditional talk, while Kim appears receptive on the condition that the U.S. acknowledges its nuclear-armed status.

But the harder question is what either side could realistically gain from a third meeting, whether a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula remains even a plausible objective, and how the ongoing Middle East conflict may have hardened the regime’s already strong nuclear obsession.

To gain deeper insights, The American Conservative spoke with Moon Chung-in, a former security adviser to South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in and the James Laney Distinguished Professor at Yonsei University. 

What lessons might Pyongyang draw from the conflict in the Middle East?

The Iran War has reinforced Pyongyang’s long-held view of the U.S., namely that when Washington deems it necessary, it is prepared to use military force against North Korea and even seek to decapitate its leadership.

But the reason the U.S. cannot strike North Korea as easily as it did Iraq, Libya, or Iran is precisely that the former possesses nuclear weapons and the means to retaliate. For Kim Jong Un, the lesson will be unmistakable. Nuclear status is not something to surrender, nor is it up for negotiation.

To make its deterrent more credible, North Korea will probably hone its ability to strike U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan, while also strengthening what it sees as “dual deterrence,” meaning the ability to hold the U.S. mainland at risk with ICBMs.

To showcase such capability, Pyongyang could conduct more short- and medium-range ballistic missile tests. ICBM tests in 2026 cannot be ruled out either.

Is another U.S.–North Korea summit still possible?

The 12-Day War last June and the latest Iran conflict have sharply eroded North Korea’s trust in the U.S. In both cases, from Pyongyang’s perspective, Washington unilaterally derailed talks and attacked Iran while diplomacy was still under way—reportedly even making progress.

Yet Kim may still be willing to meet Trump if denuclearization is not placed at the entrance to negotiations as a summit agenda, but treated instead as the eventual exit point of a broader process.

What Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington seek is North Korea’s denuclearization. But that is not deterrence; it’s compulsion. It is a policy aimed at forcing the North Korean regime to do what it has no intention of doing.

The crossroad now is whether to accept, at least in practice, that the regime possesses nuclear weapons, and move from there toward non-proliferation, nuclear arms control, and reduction talks, or to continue pursuing a coercive strategy designed to make Pyongyang give up its arsenal.

If bilateral talks were to resume, how might negotiations unfold?

South Korea’s President Lee Jae-myung has proposed a three-stage approach. The first step is to freeze North Korea’s nuclear and missile activities, including the production of plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and nuclear advancement. The second is to roll back, or at least reduce, the number of nuclear weapons and missiles in its arsenal, along with its stockpiles of both materials, in a verifiable manner. The third, over the longer term, would be to work toward a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

North Korea, in return, would likely seek diplomatic normalization with the U.S. and an end to what it calls Washington’s hostile intent and policy. That could mean suspending South Korea-U.S. joint military exercises and training, as well as halting the full deployment of American strategic assets to the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang would also demand comprehensive sanctions relief.

In fact, establishing diplomatic ties between the U.S. and North Korea was the first item in the Singapore Declaration of June 12, 2018. In Pyongyang’s reading, even a freeze on its nuclear and missile activities should be enough to put normalization on the table.

With Washington increasingly focused elsewhere, is it prepared for another summit?

One problem is timing. Whether Trump meets Kim Jong Un during his mid-May visit to China or on the sidelines of the Shenzhen APEC Summit in November, the runway for serious preparation would be extremely short. 

The Trump administration also lacks, at least for now, a deep bench of North Korea specialists. Allison Hooker, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, may be the best placed official, but she appears to have little room for sustained attention to the North Korea file.

The counterpoint is that the familiar North Korea hawks from Trump’s first term, including Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Matt Pottinger, are no longer in there. Pyongyang also knows that a second Trump administration is heavily top-down. That could allow diplomacy to move quickly, and perhaps make Washington more willing to put major concessions on the table.

South Korea’s spy agency recently assessed that Kim Ju Ae, Kim Jong Un’s teenage daughter, is likely being groomed as his heir. How do you read that judgment?

Talk of succession politics in North Korea seems premature, if not nonsensical, at this stage. Kim Jong Un has tried to distinguish himself from both his grandfather, Kim Il Sung, and his father, Kim Jong Il. Neither projected the image of a leader with a visible family life. The ruling family was shrouded in myth and kept at a remove from ordinary society.

Kim Jong Un, by contrast, is trying to present himself as a more normal leader, even a more relatable one. His public appearances with his teenage daughter, Kim Ju Ae, should be understood partly in that context.

He is also acutely aware of South Korean cultural penetration into the North and has moved aggressively to contain it, including through laws targeting so-called reactionary thought and culture. Seen in that light, Kim Ju Ae serves a domestic purpose. She helps project dynastic confidence while offering North Korean youth a state-sanctioned source of pride and dignity.

The post Does Trump Get Another Shot at North Korea? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Israel’s Campaign to Remake the Mideast Hurts America

Posted on by patriotsheart
Foreign Affairs

Israel’s Campaign to Remake the Mideast Hurts America

The war with Iran is one part of a broader Israeli project.

Palestinians walk past Israeli soldiers after shopping in
(Photo by Nasser Ishtayeh/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“I promised you that we would change the face of the Middle East.” So spoke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly seven weeks after he and President Donald Trump initiated Operation Epic Fury. Amid the noise and chaos, it is easy to lose track of the broader vision behind the war with Iran. This war is the culmination of a comprehensive Israeli effort—backed by the United States—to remake the Middle East following Hamas’ terror attack on October 7, 2023. Proponents argued it would produce a more peaceful and stable region. 

They were wrong. 

Like past attempts to remake the Middle East, the post–October 7 vision relies on hubris: namely the belief that Washington and its partners can reshape the region through force alone. For two and a half years, Washington has backed Israel’s regional campaign, incurring significant political, economic, and strategic costs in the process. Continued U.S. support for this project guarantees perpetual conflict at further expense to American interests. 

Israel’s post–October 7 vision is aggressive, expansionist, and open-ended. It is defined by three maximalist objectives: to entrench Israeli domination over Palestinian territories by establishing “facts on the ground” that preclude a viable political resolution; to dismantle the Iran-backed militant groups that comprise the so-called axis of resistance; and to neutralize the linchpin of the axis—Iran. To that end, Israel mounted a broad, multifront effort to reshape the regional order further in its favor. 

This effort relied on the ability of the United States to insulate Israel from the political, economic, and military costs of its policies. Since October 7, the United States has shielded Israel from diplomatic blowback, helped pay for Israel’s wars, and, in some cases, undertaken direct military intervention to both protect Israel from retaliation and help fight its adversaries. 

In Gaza, Israel employed overwhelming force to impose a new status quo on the enclave. Citing its two stated objectives—eliminating Hamas and freeing the hostages—Israel reduced Gaza to ruin and entrenched Israeli control over the enclave. By the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel had destroyed at least 70 percent of buildings in Gaza, displaced 90 percent of its population, and killed tens of thousands of civilians—the total number is unknown due to the extent of the destruction. The post-ceasefire “yellow line” left Israel in possession of more than half of Gaza, and Netanyahu remains adamant that Israel will retain “security control” over the entire enclave.

In parallel with the war in Gaza, Israel accelerated existing efforts to deepen its control over the West Bank. Israel increased and expanded its settlements, seized more land, and launched large military raids, all of which was accompanied by record rates of settler violence. In sum, the suite of policies amounted to de facto annexation and the destruction of a two-state solution. There is little pretense here—Israeli officials including Netanyahu openly boast about preventing a Palestinian state and ensuring lasting Israeli control over “all territory west of the Jordan River.”

American support is central to the post–October 7 vision in these territories. Washington embraced the war in Gaza without reservation. The United States vetoed six United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and provided Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and weapons—which human rights organizations have linked to widespread atrocities. In the West Bank, Washington claims to oppose annexation—Trump said annexation “won’t happen” and that Israel would “lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.” Yet the United States has stood by as Israel pursued just that policy. 

By backing Israel’s effort to indefinitely subjugate Gaza and the West Bank, Washington has committed itself to an endless conflict. In Gaza, despite considerable losses, Hamas remains the dominant political and military actor—it has effectively replenished its ranks to prewar levels, recruiting from a desperate population. Israel can degrade the group’s capabilities and kill its leaders, but without a route toward a credible political solution, militancy will persist, whether under the banner of Hamas or something else. In the West Bank, Israel is pushing the enclave toward collapse, risking mass unrest as desperation overtakes prospects for change. Enabling Israeli expansion in the West Bank risks foreclosing any political solution to the Israel–Palestine conflict. Trump’s policies do not match his rhetoric on the issue.

Instead of encouraging Israel to pursue a sustainable political solution to the conflict, Washington’s ironclad support encourages Israeli maximalism. So long as Israel feels it has American support to reject Palestinian self-determination or sovereignty in any form, it is unlikely to compromise. This trajectory will pull the United States deeper into the conflict as the occupation becomes more unsustainable. 

As Israel aimed to consolidate its control over Gaza and the West Bank, it also went on the offensive against the loose network of Iran-backed regional actors spanning Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Here too, Israel had U.S. support—Washington considerably increased its military footprint in the Middle East to bolster Israel. Yet, as in the Palestinian territories, the post–October 7 vision produced unstable and untenable outcomes at the regional level. 

In Lebanon, Israel’s campaign to degrade Hezbollah has expanded into an effort to establish a buffer zone as far north as the Litani River and potentially foment civil war between the group and the Lebanese government. However, a new Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the chaos produced by a Lebanese civil war risk empowering Hezbollah by reigniting precisely the same grievances that led to its rise in the 1980s. Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon in a bid to deescalate with Iran, but Israel shows no indication of altering its strategy. 

In Syria, following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, Israel has sought to keep the country weak and decentralized, encouraging fragmentation along ethnic lines while also carving out a large buffer zone near the Golan Heights. This jeopardizes a fragile postwar order that Trump, claiming he wants to see the country succeed, has endorsed.

In Yemen, the Houthis responded to the war in Gaza by targeting vessels in the Red Sea in protest. Washington responded with a prolonged, multi-billion-dollar U.S. military campaign to defeat the group, which ultimately failed. The result is that the Houthis have demonstrated a new source of leverage over the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait—an outcome directly linked to Israel’s actions. 

Across these cases, force has failed to produce order. Yet, for Israel, these operations paved the way for it to go after Iran directly. After a series of tactical blows to Tehran’s regional partners, Israel sought to capitalize on this vulnerability to eliminate what Netanyahu has often called the “head of the snake.” 

Israel’s shift toward direct confrontation with Iran unfolded through a series of escalating steps. Two rounds of direct Israel–Iran strikes in April and October 2024—during which the United States defended Israel from Iranian missiles—marked the pivot from decades of indirect competition to open conflict. Next, in June 2025, Netanyahu initiated what we now call the “12-day war,” hoping, according to leaked transcripts, to draw the United States directly into the fight. He succeeded: After again defending Israel, Washington carried out its own first direct strike on Iranian territory (Operation Midnight Hammer), targeting three key nuclear facilities. In late February, the U.S. and Israel jointly launched a war with Iran.

Netanyahu led the push for a large-scale U.S. war with Iran—something he has championed for more than three decades. On his seventh trip to the United States in the first year of Trump’s second term, he presented a confident assessment to Washington: Iran’s missile capabilities would be neutralized within weeks, Tehran would be unable to choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and protesters would return to the streets and topple a weakened regime. Netanyahu acknowledged after the war began that American military support was decisive in enabling him to, in his own words, achieve what he has “yearned to do for 40 years.” 

None of Netanyahu’s predictions proved correct—as in other cases across the region, strategic success remains elusive. The Islamic Republic remains intact, is unlikely to capitulate or collapse, and has hardened its resistance to the United States. Both Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs remain intact and likely cannot be eliminated with more bombing. Tehran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, causing the largest oil disruption in history—the ramifications of which will outlast the war.

By convincing Trump to initiate war with Iran, Netanyahu entangled the United States in a conflict it can neither easily win nor exit. Washington now seems desperate for an off-ramp—it was Trump who pushed Pakistan to host the initial negotiations between the United States and Iran on April 11. But Trump has adopted the same maximalist demands that precipitated this war, refusing to recognize that Tehran will not bargain away its sources of leverage after the United States and Israel failed to achieve their objectives through force. 

Israel has signaled it intends to press forward with its regional vision and is preparing for prolonged conflict on multiple fronts. But Netanyahu can only sustain this campaign with the support of the United States—to maintain this pace and scale of military operations, he needs the guarantee of American help. 

Israeli officials likely perceive this as a race against time—they are acutely aware of the seismic shifts in American public opinion and are acting with urgency while they have enough support in Washington. This shift is bipartisan and most pronounced among younger Americans: According to a recent Pew poll, disapproval of Israel among Democrats and Republicans aged 18–49 is 80 and 57 percent, respectively. To combat this, Israel has launched an aggressive public opinion campaign within the United States, particularly online—Netanyahu described social media as one of the most important “weapons” in this effort. With U.S. support declining and generational change on the horizon, Netanyahu’s urgency to harness American power will grow. 

Continued support for this project sacrifices American interests at an extraordinary cost. Since October 7, Washington has enabled and initiated wars that have killed and wounded countless innocent people to no benefit for the Middle East or the United States. The United States has drained its resources subsidizing Israel through record amounts of military aid and expending massive sums in a host of military operations—even prior to Operation Epic Fury. Now, the Pentagon has requested at least $200 billion to compensate for the war with Iran, separate from the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget for 2027. Additionally, the United States has depleted its stockpiles of critical weapons systems defending Israel, especially during the war with Iran—shortages that will take years to replenish. Washington continues to squander time and resources in the Middle East at the expense of more pressing policy issues at home and abroad.

Decades of American efforts to manage the Middle East through force have racked up immense costs for essentially illusory benefits to the United States, yet Washington refuses to change course. This latest attempt to transform the region with Israel is no different. Lockstep American support for Israel has fueled widespread hostility toward the United States while perpetuating the causes of regional unrest and conflict—outcomes that are anathema to U.S. interests. The result is chronic instability and endless American intervention in the Middle East. 

The United States does not have an interest in perpetual war in the Middle East. The post–October 7 vision has no clear endgame and imposes significant costs on the United States. It is open-ended, driven by fantastical thinking, and can only happen because Washington insulates Israel from the consequences of its bellicosity. The Trump administration should stop enabling this disastrous campaign and make clear to Israel that U.S. support for this project is over.

The post Israel’s Campaign to Remake the Mideast Hurts America appeared first on The American Conservative.

Scott Jennings: ‘We Have a Left-Wing Violence Problem in America’ (VIDEO)

Posted on by patriotsheart

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

During a recent episode of his radio show, Scott Jennings of CNN examined some of the rhetoric surrounding the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in which a crazed school teacher rushed the event in an effort to kill Trump and members of his team, and concluded that we have a left-wing violence problem in America.

It is impossible to disagree.

Some days, it actually feels like we are already engaged in a sort of civil war, where the bullets are only flying from one direction. The left has acted out in violence so many times over the last decade that it is starting to seem normal, which is not good.

Jennings broke it all down.

Townhall has details:

“In the hours that followed the dinner, which was postponed, a clear picture emerged. This man, a school teacher with a PhD from CalTech, had been marinated in standard-issue Left-wing talking points,” Jennings said, “things you hear every day on cable news and on the Left’s social media websites. He also attended a ‘No Kings’ rally, apparently, where people routinely hold signs and call for Trump’s death.”

“‘Trump is Hitler,’ ‘Trump is a fascist,’ ‘Trump is a racist,’ ‘Trump is a threat to democracy,’ ‘Trump is a pedophile.’ That is what Cole Allen was marinating in on a regular basis, and he was programmed by people like Congressman Ted Lieu,” Jennings noted.

Jennings then played a clip of Lieu speaking.

“Donald Trump is in the Epstein files thousands and thousands of times,” Lieu said. “In those files, there’s highly disturbing allegations of Donald Trump raping children. Of Donald Trump threatening to kill children.”

“Obviously, the shooter believed Ted Lieu’s lies and decided to do something about it,” Jennings said. “I mean, if you believed all the things they say about Trump, you could see how someone might get the idea that killing him is a good idea. Would it be a good idea to kill Hiltler, after all?”

“But when violent action occurs, we get Democrats immediately claiming they have no idea what you’re talking about,” Jennings continued. “Listen to Congressman Jamie Raskin on Sunday morning, the morning after this, on CNN. It’s jaw-dropping.”

Watch the video below:

Democrats and liberals in media have repeatedly tried to claim that this is a ‘both sides’ problem.

It is not.

The post Scott Jennings: ‘We Have a Left-Wing Violence Problem in America’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

FAFO: Healthcare Company Fires Social Media Manager for Claiming to be Sad That WHCD Shooter Missed (VIDEO)

Posted on by patriotsheart

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

In a situation that has become all too familiar, a leftist has lost her job at a healthcare company for making a video in which she sarcastically claims to be sad that the WHCD shooter missed his target, President Trump.

The irony here is that this woman was the social media manager. You would think a person in this position would know better. And to add to the irony, she worked for United Health Care, the same company that lost its CEO to alleged shooter Luigi Mangione.

It’s a shame that this keeps happening but people on the left just can’t seem to keep their bloodlust to themselves.

FOX News reports:

UnitedHealthcare fires woman over ‘Aww, they missed?’ comment on Trump assassination attempt

UnitedHealthcare has fired a woman who expressed sadness in a TikTok video that President Donald Trump was not killed in the Saturday shooting during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. In the video, she sarcastically asked, “Aww, they missed?”

“We’re cooked as a country when my first reaction to hearing the news about Trump’s attempt was, ‘It was probably fake,’” Alison King, who has reportedly deleted her LinkedIn account but was identified as a social media manager for UnitedHealthcare, said in the video.

“Like, immediately I was like, ‘Oh, that wasn’t real, probably fake,’” King said. “And the second was ‘Aww, they missed? So happy they missed.’ Yeah, that’s sad,’” King said sarcastically.

“That’s when you know we’re cooked,” King added.

In a Tuesday statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare said, “Violence is never acceptable and any comments that suggest otherwise are in no way consistent with our mission and values. The person who made comments online about Saturday night’s incident at a Washington event where President Trump and many other political leaders were gathered is no longer employed by the company.”

You can see her video below:

Now she’s out of a job.

All these people have to do is not be a horrible human being. Why is this so difficult for so many on the left?

The post FAFO: Healthcare Company Fires Social Media Manager for Claiming to be Sad That WHCD Shooter Missed (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Expert Criminal Profiler Offers Analysis of What Drove WHCD Shooter Cole Allen

Posted on by patriotsheart

Police officers respond to a situation involving a man lying on the floor in a public space, highlighting a tense moment during an intervention.

Police officers respond to a situation involving a man lying on the floor in a public space, highlighting a tense moment during an intervention.
WHCD shooter Cole Allen

In the days since the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, there has already been a ton of speculation about not just the shooter’s obvious goals, but what drove him to the point of acting out in such a way.

He did leave a manifesto, which offers some insight, but in a recent interview, a former FBI profiler named Jim Clemente offered his take on the psychology behind Cole Allen’s actions.

It’s an interesting take and considering that Clemente was one of the people who helped solve the DC Sniper case in 2002, he clearly has some expertise in this area.

From FOX News:

Jim Clemente, a retired 22-year FBI veteran who helped crack the 2002 D.C. sniper attacks cases, said Allen expected to die in the attack and that his actions were so extreme that he likely wanted to end his own life.

“He seems, especially through those communications that he sent, he seems like a rational human being who has human empathy. He doesn’t sound like a psychopath,” said Clemente. “He doesn’t sound like somebody who is unstable mentally. Certainly, emotionally, that’s a different story … nothing that I have read or seen indicates that he was having some kind of psychotic break or that he would be schizophrenic.”

“He basically ran through a security checkpoint knowing that there would be numerous armed guards right there, and he’s firing a weapon,” Clemente continued. “But for the circumstances where he apparently tripped and fell, and they pounced on him, he most likely would have been taken down in a hail of gunfire. Now, he’s not stupid. He must have known this. And that might have been part of his motivation, that he didn’t have the will to live, and once you lose the will to keep yourself alive, other people’s lives become much less important.”…

“He didn’t have a general disrespect for human life, he had a very specific disrespect for human life,” said Clemente. “And I think that went along with his own disrespect for his own life.

“Obviously, he was outwardly motivated by the actions of politicians, which is why he targeted them, and this is probably something that he has expressed in his life recently, maybe for a long time,” Clemente said. “But clearly, he’s gotten to the point where that rose to a level — or his own self-image lowered to a level — where he felt like he needed to do something to feel better about his own image or what he perceived the world to be at this time.”

One thing is sure. Allen is going to go to prison for a very long time, possibly for the rest of his life, and for what?

He ruined his life based on ravings he heard from Trump=deranged people in politics and media.

What a sad and stupid decision.

The post Expert Criminal Profiler Offers Analysis of What Drove WHCD Shooter Cole Allen appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

HILARIOUS: Twitter/X Users Get Creative With Ilhan Omar ‘World War 11’ Memes

Posted on by patriotsheart

Ilhan Omar speaking at a press conference with the American flag in the background, addressing important political issues.

Ilhan Omar speaking at a press conference with the American flag in the background, addressing important political issues.
Screenshot

As the Gateway Pundit reported just yesterday, a resurfaced video of Rep. Ilhan Omar has been going viral in which she declares that the last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was “during World War Eleven.”

In case you missed it, here’s the video:

Over the last 24 hours or so, people on Twitter/X have gotten very creative with this and some of the results are downright hilarious.

Take a look below:

People are so creative. Fun stuff like this is what the internet was made for.

The post HILARIOUS: Twitter/X Users Get Creative With Ilhan Omar ‘World War 11’ Memes appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

89-Year-Old Man Arrested for Opening Fire With a Shotgun Inside an Athens Courthouse

Posted on by patriotsheart

Police officers stand near orange caution tape in a partially constructed building, indicating a restricted area during an investigation.

Police officers stand near orange caution tape in a partially constructed building, indicating a restricted area during an investigation.
Athens courthouse targeted by shooting – Screengrab Social Media/X

At least five people were wounded by an ‘experienced’ Greek shooter.

It’s a dangerous world, and mass shootings in places like schools, churches, and markets (not to mention hotels) are becoming ever more normalized.

But today (28), in Greece, a tragic incident occurred with a distinct feature: police arrested an 89-year-old man who allegedly opened fire with a shotgun in a social security office and a courthouse in central Athens.

The attack reportedly wounded five people.

Associated Press reported:

“Law enforcement authorities said the suspect was arrested near the city of Patra, some 210 kilometers (130 miles) west of the Greek capital.

The gunman initially opened fire at the social security office, wounding an employee, police said. Police officers who arrived at the scene treated the man, but the gunman fled the scene.”

CCTV footage apparently showed the man carrying a short-barreled shotgun in his right hand.

“The same man was suspected of later opening fire on the ground floor of a court building in another part of central Athens, with several people wounded there, police said, adding that authorities had found the shotgun.

[…] The head of the Athens Judicial Employees Union, Stratis Dounias, said that initial information indicated that the man had shot at the floor inside one of the offices in the court building.

At least three female court employees were slightly wounded by ricocheting shotgun pellets, while media reports said that a fourth female employee was transported to a hospital without physical injuries.”

Read more:

Greece Announces Massive Closure Operation of 60 Illegal Mosques in Athens Operated by Bangladeshis and Pakistanis

The post 89-Year-Old Man Arrested for Opening Fire With a Shotgun Inside an Athens Courthouse appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Hijacking the Special Session: Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments Yesterday

Posted on by patriotsheart

Group portrait of Virginia judges in judicial robes, featuring a backdrop of the Virginia state flag, representing the state's legal system and diversity.

Group portrait of Virginia judges in judicial robes, featuring a backdrop of the Virginia state flag, highlighting diversity in the judiciary.

Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments pertaining to cases previously brought prior to the April 21st referendum election throughout the commonwealth.

Initially, the justices had lifted the temporary restraining order issued by Tazewell County judge Jack Hurley, Jr., without considering the merits of the case.  The Gateway Pundit reported on the issues that were facing the Va. Supreme Court ahead of the referendum vote.

However, the justices determined that they could only rule on the merits of the case if the election succeeded in passing the amendment, allowing the redrawing of districts to favor a new map giving Democrats a 10-to-1 congressional majority in an essentially evenly divided state.  The previous map was 6 to 5 in favor of Democrats.

Virginia requires an amendment to be proposed and agreed upon by a majority of the General Assembly.  Then, in the “first regular session held after the next general election,” members of the General Assembly must agree upon the amendment a second time in the new General Assembly.  Several legal experts have previously suggested that the ruling should favor the nullification of the election on the grounds that numerous procedural requirements were not followed in the process to propose and pass the amendment.

Yesterday, the seven justices heard oral arguments, days after the election.

Appellants Argue the Definition of the Term “Election”

During the oral arguments, a Justice asked, “Do you agree that the word ‘next’ in modifying ‘next general election for the House of Delegates,’ means that if the election has started, that’s not the one, you have to go to the next one?  Your disagreement with the other side is when the election starts?”

Appellant’s counsel responded that he disagreed with the definition of the word ‘election’ used by challengers on “the other side.”  He noted that the Constitution, in five separate provisions, defines the election as “a single day” that “takes place in November, not over a three month period that begins in September.”

“So your position requires us to interpret “election” in such a manner that literally every single vote that is cast for whatever the office is is cast before the election even begins?” the Justice asked.

“Yes, your Honor,” he replied, explaining that it’s consistent with the interpretation of the federal government and “sister states.”

The Justice then noted that constitutional provisions, if not specifically defined, are meant to be interpreted the way the people who ratified them would have.

“Do you think it is at all anomalous to tell somebody that when they went and voted…irrevocably cast their vote, that they were not actively participating in the election when they cast their ballot?” he asked.

Counsel tried to argue that the word “election” is defined; however, the Justice pointed out it was not defined in Article XII Section I that outlines the amendment process, and while the term “elected” appears in other provisions, it is not the word “election,” noting that one is a verb and the other a noun.

Shockingly, to justify the proposed amendment coming during the election but after someone had already cast their ballot, counsel argued that is a risk they are taking in utilizing the option to cast their ballot early.

Watch the exchange in the thread below:

 

In the clip below, the Justice noted that in the General Assembly debates over Virginia’s 1971 Constitution, “at least a few of the members” said the reason for the intervening election requirement was to ensure people knew how their delegates voted on a proposal before they cast their ballots for or against their incumbent delegate and to allow their opponent to say they would have voted differently.

Counsel argued, and the Justice agrees, that the legislators’ statements do not supersede the plain text of the Constitution.  But that still does not help define the term “the next general election”.  It does, however, offer context of the legislators’ intent in the requirement and whether the proposal can be made in the middle of an ongoing election.

 

Anecdotal of Disenfranchised Democrat Voter Unchallenged

Counsel for the appellees in their response referenced a sworn affidavit from Camilla Simon, a Democrat voter and plaintiff in the case who voted early during the 2025 general election for her delegate, Rodney Willett.  Willett went on to be the chief patron of the resolution that proposed the constitutional amendment introduced late in the 2025 general election.

Counsel notes that Simon had already voted and was “very unhappy” about the proposal and wished she could change her vote for Willett.  A Justice interrupted to inquire whether the trial court had accepted that as a fact.  Counsel stated it was accepted and was unchallenged by the appellants.

Counsel continued, “In any event, she, like a million or more other people, voted before this amendment was ever even proposed.  None of these voters had any idea this was coming.  And that’s not how the process is supposed to work because, as I mentioned before, it’s the People of the commonwealth, the voters, who possess the power to amend or modify the constitution.  And denying them the knowledge that this proposed amendment was coming through undermines the whole process.”

 

The Special Session Was Hi-Jacked to Propose the Amendment

In Virginia, a Special Session of the General Assembly may be called by the Governor or by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the General Assembly.  House Joint Resolution 428 called for a Special Session to address “budget bills.”  HJR 428 reads in part:

“…the General Assembly does hereby apply to the Governor to convene the General Assembly in a special session on Monday, May 13, 2024, for the purpose of considering Budget Bills; and be it”

Appellee’s counsel argued that if a proposal for the amendment had been included in the purpose of the bill for the special session, the General Assembly would not have been able to muster the two-thirds vote calling for the session.

But calling for a special session to consider budgetary bills was a sneaky way to assemble the legislature, introduce the proposed amendment, and then pass it with a simple majority, which Democrats hold in the General Assembly.  The makeup is 64 to 36 in the House of Delegates and 21 to 19 in the Senate.  Neither would have met the two-thirds requirement for a special session had the bill included a proposal to amend the constitution to allow for the redrawing of congressional districts.

Counsel notes that there is no known precedent for the Assembly taking on additional business during a special session outside the bounds of the agreed-upon issues.

Watch this shocking exchange here:

 

General Assembly Says ‘We Do What We Want’

In one of the most shocking exchanges during the hearing, counsel for the appellants argued that once in the special session, the General Assembly can ultimately ignore the bounds set forth in the bill and conduct any business they see fit with a simple majority.

Counsel stated:

“I want to reiterate the fact that the challengers’ sole argument with respect to the scope of business of the special session…is that they purportedly exercised a power not found in the text of the constitution to limit the scope of that special session.  I just want to point out that HJR 428…says ‘the business shall be to consider such matters as are provided for by the procedural resolution adopted to govern the conduct of business coming before the special session.’”

“So the General Assembly is the master of its own operations?  And if they wanted to close the door more tightly, it could, if it wants to leave it ajar, it can?” a Justice asked.

“Yes, that’s correct, and they can change that by majority vote at any time,” counsel responded.

“But in other words, if they had a pretty airtight resolution saying ‘we’re only gonna look at this one thing and absolutely nothing else,’ then you might agree…”, the Justice asked before being interrupted.

“No, your Honor,” counsel responded.

Shockingly, the use of the term “restore fairness” in the question proposed on the ballot did not come up once during the entirety of the arguments.

The Virginia Supreme Court today denied a request to pause the order blocking the referendum.

BIG NEWS: Virginia Supreme Court Denies Request From AG to Pause Order Blocking Democrat Gerrymander Referendum

 

The post Hijacking the Special Session: Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments Yesterday appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.