mymonkeyhusb

I reread your post and your idea about "Properly addressing issues like this requires a layered, thought-through response, and that inevitably takes more than a lazy one-line retort." brought to memory some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes I recently heard concerning public education, critical thinking and thoughtfully taking time to research the facts and prepare a well-considered answer... to think through your argument before the debate. And here they are... “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” https://www.azquotes.com/quote/145702 1789 letter to Richard Price Full quote. “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” https://www.freedominfo.org/resources/freedominfo-org-list-quotes-freedom-information/ Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis September 28, 1820 Excerpt from the letter: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” National Archives and Records Administration (Jefferson papers) Jefferson believed that if ordinary people have accurate information and education, they are capable of governing themselves and correcting problems in government. Information. In his 1807 letter to John Norvell: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” Looks like there was bias back then too. In a 1787 letter to Edward Carrington, he wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Absolutely need an avenue for good ideas and truthful info to flow to WE THE PEOPLE. Education. Look at the difference in the quality of education folks back then enjoyed versus the tribal Marxist indoctrination today.

Very good comment! Enjoyed reading it. Quite true what you posted. My reference and source links didn't survive my posting, so I sent my references and sources to JerryM. He should have them now.

Sources didn't survive my posting. Please check as I sent all sources I used for my comment. Thanks!

Independent corroboration exists from multiple sources that did not survive my posting. Thanks for noticing. I prefer to list sources in the text and then list them all as footnotes which obviously didn’t happen. Thank you for not rhetorically moving to dismiss my comment quickly! Venezuela https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/venezuelan-immigrants-united-states-2025 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM). They jointly track the crisis through the R4V platform. Reference: “More than 7.7 million Venezuelans have left their country.” Source: R4V Inter-Agency Coordination Platform (UNHCR/IOM) https://www.r4v.info⁠ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/venezuela-refugee-crisis-to-become-the-largest-and-most-underfunded-in-modern-history/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/venezuela?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.cfr.org/articles/venezuelan-exodus?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.worldometers.info/oil/venezuela-oil/ https://lodi411.com/lodi-eye/venezuelas-oil-industry-in-global-market-january-2026 https://www.ipsedixit.news/data/venezuela-tops-global-oil-reserves-with-303-billion-barrels/182/a7011167cc https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2021/09/30/encovi-2021-venezuela-is-the-poorest-country-in-latin-america/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.oas.org/docs/grupo-trabajo-venezuela/informe-preliminar-mar-2019/en/files/basic-html/page10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/19/Venezuela-75-of-population-lost-19-pounds-amid-crisis/2441487523377/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://aleteia.org/2017/02/22/survey-shows-venezuelans-have-lost-average-of-19-pounds-over-past-year-due-to-food-shortages/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/venezuela-hungry-food-insecure-un-world-food-program?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.623603/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.cfr.org/articles/colombia-isnt-ready-new-venezuelan-migration-wave-plus-bukeles-mano-dura-threats-wont-fix ENCOVI survey: https://www.proyectoencovi.com WFP food security report on Venezuela: https://www.wfp.org/countries/venezuela Humanitarian report summarizing ENCOVI findings: https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/Venezuela%20CHE%20Food%20Dec%202018.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/27/hugo-carvajal-venezuela-pleads-guilty-drug-charges https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-united-states-indicts-venezuelas-maduro-on-narco-terrorism-charges/2020/03/26/a5a64122-6f68-11ea-a156-0048b62cdb51_story.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/05/nicolas-maduro-venezuela-criminal-indictment https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/venezuelan-inflation-predicted-to-hit-1-million-percent-this-year.html Nigeria https://apnews.com/article/nigeria-weapons-sale-us-pentagon-security-46ef84cebf80f677ec7c3d402b89e8cb https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigeria-approves-652-million-china-exim-bank-road-finance-package-2025-05-06/ https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Data/Africa_file/Manualreport/cia_10.html https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/government-public-sector-services/china-investment-africa-infrastructure-development.html Iran https://www.businesstoday.in/world/story/iran-bragged-about-having-60-enriched-fuel-enough-for-11-bombs-trump-envoy-reveals-what-happened-in-first-talks-519608-2026-03-08 https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2019/sep/30/trump-sanctions-iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_strikes_on_Iranian_nuclear_sites?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/03/03/8023603/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-has-further-increased-production-of-near-weapons-grade-uranium-un-watchdog-says/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/witkoff-iran-negotiators-boasted-of-having-enough-enriched-uranium-to-build-11-nuclear-bombs/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

A crisis is basically a moment when a situation becomes unstable and could quickly get worse or better. The important point here is that the crises I mentioned were already happening when Donald Trump took office. A new president doesn’t get a pause button on world events. When an administration starts, it inherits the global situation as it already exists and has to respond right away. One clear example is Venezuela. Under Nicolas Maduro, the country experienced one of the worst economic collapses in modern history. Hyperinflation, food shortages, and political repression caused millions of people to leave the country. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, more than 7.7 million Venezuelans have fled the country since about 2014, making it the largest displacement crisis in modern Latin American history. Most of those people went to nearby countries like Colombia and Peru, which suddenly had to deal with millions of new migrants. But the migration didn’t stop there. Over time, more Venezuelans began appearing at the U.S.–Mexico border, where they became one of the largest national groups encountered by border police. Venezuela’s collapse wasn’t just a domestic problem. Millions fled the country, and the migration eventually began affecting the United States too. Another reason the Venezuelan crisis began affecting the United States more directly was the migration route through the Darién Gap, a dangerous jungle corridor between Colombia and Panama. This is why for several years Venezuelans became one of the largest groups traveling through this route while heading north toward the United States. According to migration authorities in Panama, hundreds of thousands of people crossed the Darién Gap in recent years, many of them Venezuelans. This surge showed how the collapse inside Venezuela was increasingly turning into a broader regional migration crisis. Venezuela also matters because of its natural resources and international connections. The country actually has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, about 303 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. On top of that, Venezuela has built strong relationships with countries like Russia, China, and Iran. Because of that, instability in Venezuela isn’t just about its own economy. U.S. policymakers have always been concerned about rival powers gaining influence in the Western Hemisphere. That concern goes back at least to the Cuban Missile Crisis during the Cold War. So when a country with huge oil reserves and ties to U.S. rivals is collapsing politically and economically, it naturally gets attention in Washington. The scale of Venezuela’s economic collapse was extreme. For comparison, during the Great Depression the U.S. economy shrank about 26–30 percent between 1929 and 1933. Venezuela’s economy contracted by roughly 75 percent between 2013 and 2020 according to analyses from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, and the Council on Foreign Relations. In other words, Venezuela’s collapse was dramatically deeper than the worst economic downturn in modern U.S. history! Hyperinflation shows just how bad things got. In simple terms, hyperinflation meant that money quickly became almost worthless. At one point inflation reached about 1,000,000 percent. That number is hard to picture, but the effect is simple: prices increase about 10,000 times. Imagine going to the store where a candy bar used to cost $1. After hyperinflation, that same candy bar could cost around $10,000. Your dollar that used to buy the whole candy bar would now only buy a tiny crumb of it. Because of this situation, the United States had to make immediate policy decisions. One of the big ones was whether to recognize opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate president and impose sanctions on the Maduro government. There were also security concerns. In 2020, the United States Department of Justice charged Maduro and several Venezuelan officials with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. Prosecutors alleged that government officials helped protect drug-smuggling operations sometimes called the “Cartel de los Soles.” The charges also claimed cooperation with the Colombian guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Bad dudes. Nigeria was dealing with a different type of crisis. In northern Nigeria, jihadist groups like Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province were already carrying out attacks, kidnappings, and territorial insurgencies across the region. These groups killed thousands of people and forced millions from their homes. Nigeria’s stability matters because it’s Africa’s most populous country, with more than 200 million people, and one of the continent’s biggest economies. Violence from Boko Haram has already spread beyond Nigeria’s borders into nearby countries like Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. Because of the growing threat, Nigeria sought security cooperation with partners including the United States. Iran was another big ongoing challenge. The government of Iran had been expanding uranium enrichment while continuing to develop ballistic missiles and drones. At the same time, Iran supported proxy groups across the Middle East. Groups backed by Iran, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, were involved in conflicts affecting Israel, Gulf countries, and international shipping routes. These problemss raised immediate strategic questions for the United States about nuclear proliferation, regional stability, and protecting allies. The reason Iran’s nuclear program grabs the attention of policymakers is that nuclear weapons could dramatically change the balance of power in the Middle East. If Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, neighboring countries might feel pressure to develop their own, which could trigger wider nuclear proliferation in the region. That possibility is one of the reasons U.S. administrations—regardless of party—have treated Iran’s nuclear program as a major strategic issue. None of these situations suddenly started on the day Trump became president. They were already happening. But when a new administration takes office, it has to deal with those situations right away. So the real question isn’t whether these crises existed—they clearly did. A reasonable debate is about how governments should respond to them. A new administration might choose a different policy approach. But it can’t ignore the crises themselves, because global events don’t stop just because a new president takes office. If someone argues that these weren’t active crises at the time, it would be fair to ask which one they think wasn’t: Venezuela’s economic collapse and migration wave, Nigeria’s jihadist insurgency, or Iran’s nuclear and proxy expansion. In the end, the question isn’t whether these crises existed—they clearly did. Venezuela’s economic collapse was already pushing millions of people out of the country, jihadist insurgents were attacking civilians and expanding territory in Nigeria, and Iran was continuing to develop nuclear capabilities while supporting armed proxy groups in the region. Those situations were already unfolding before the new administration took office. Any president stepping into office would have had to respond to them immediately. Global crises don’t wait for a new administration to get comfortable.

Yeah. So what? Read the article. Okay. No surprise. The claim in that article is opinionated and misleading. It's good you give credit to BLMFem because it excuses you. The article is useless. "In the same period, though, he has ordered strikes against targets across no less than seven nations—Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen." Yahoo News quoting The Daily Beast! 😵‍💫 A child of seven, maybe six years of age could see through this journalistic masterpiece. ▪️What period of time are these fair and balanced 🤢 news sites measuring? They measured the beginning of Trump's second term only when inherited and new crises erupted like Iran, Venezuela, Islamist in Nigeria, Russia/Ukraine, Hezbollah and the Houthis had to be dealt with immediately. ▪️Counts number of countries with strikes... not considering wars or how many deaths or casualties. ▪️Ignores ongoing wars that spanned across presidencies. ▪️What do they mean by "attack"? ▪️What is being counted? Single drone strikes? Air strikes? How many? Special forces operations? Oh, don't know. "Countries attacked" exaggerates small actions? Donald Trump 7 strikes (whatever a strike is) Iraq Somalia Syria Yemen Iran Nigeria Venezuela Barack Obama 7 strikes (whatever a strike is) Iraq Somalia Syria Yemen Afghanistan Libya Pakistan So the number of countries hit by strikes can increase within a very short period of time simply because multiple crises are happening simultaneously, like what happened to Trump. So I say again to this all headline, no substance, empty argument, narrative in search of evidence... SO WHAT?

There you have it! Authentic progressive slander and drivel. The newest progressive talking point 🤪 has been received and it is trending! I'm amazed at how far progressives will go to ignore reality and convince themselves of things that aren’t true. If only you took that extra minute to research. Your claim that Donald Trump is “the most violent president in U.S. history” is not supported by historical evidence. Your new progressive talking point is just the same old same old Marxist useful idiot rhetoric, not a factual ranking. Calling Trump the most violent president in U.S. history is historically illiterate (like so many anti-conservative posts). Let's see how trustworthy your post is. Franklin D. Roosevelt World War II 70–85 million dead Woodrow Wilson World War I 16–20 million dead Abraham Lincoln American Civil War 620,000–750,000 dead Harry S. Truman Korean War 2–3 million dead Lyndon B. Johnson / Richard Nixon Vietnam War 2–3 million dead James K. Polk Mexican–American War 25,000–50,000 dead George W. Bush Iraq War & War in Afghanistan 400,000+ to over 900,000 dead depending on estimates Donald Trump 200,000 to 300,000 total deaths globally during the Trump years. The deaths listed include all combatants and civilians, not just those caused by U.S. forces under Trump. ⚠️ Important context: Including: Most of these wars began before Trump (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Syria 2011, Yemen 2014). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war No verified evidence that Trump has personally committed acts of physical violence against people in the way. Accused of aggressive rhetoric while progressive, leftist Presidents speak only in "cordial political hyperbole or jokes". You are alowed to hear, “fight like hell” but not allowed to hear, "protest peacefully and patriotically.” President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. U.S. military operations continued in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. But every modern U.S. president has authorized military force, including: Barack Obama (extensive drone strikes!) Drone strikes ordered during Obama’s presidency (2009–2017) U.S. government estimate: A U.S. intelligence report said that strikes outside major war zones: 2,372–2,581 militants/combatants killed 64–116 civilians killed https://www.cfr.org/articles/questioning-obamas-drone-deaths-data 578 strikes—50 under George W. Bush, 528 under Obama, which have cumulatively killed an estimated 4,189 militants and 474 civilians George W. Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan wars) And Now for Something Completely Different. President of peace... Would you call someone a President of peace if he invaded Germany and killed Hitler (15–20+ million dead)? How about Mao Zedong (30–45 million dead)? How about Stalin (6–20 million dead)? How about Pol Pot (1.5–2 million dead)? How about Kim Il Sung (millions dead)? How about Mengistu Haile Mariam (hundreds of thousands to over a million dead in the Etheopian Red Terror)? How about Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths in the Congo Free State atrocities)? Yeah, I'd say Trump has been a president of peace so far. During Trump’s term, the U.S. did not begin a large-scale war. His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan). Amazing! Trump held unprecedented summits with Kim Jong Un, the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader. I would call someone a President of peace if he successfully used pre-emptive or preventative war to protect the citizens of my country and spare the world from an inevitable world-wide conflict. Wait and see. Ever heard of pre-emptive and preventative war? Do you know how they're defined; their distinctions? Plenty of examples of and discussions about why they were successes or failures. Is it even infinitesimally possible, in your mind, that Trump, having info you and I don't have, has determined it best to fight now, changing the course of events in effort to prevent horrific loss of life in the future or country collapse? Hmmm? 🧐 Maybe you could do your homework on pre-emptive and preventative war and do an interesting post on this idea. Betcha' get a lot of replies. By the way, the progressive's expensive and extensive coordinated attempt to control the narrative and shame MAGA supporters into compliance has succeeded... in their own mind. 🥴 In reality all their work is what you call FAIL. 😁 But I just don't have the heart to tell them and spoil their bliss. 🤭 If you want to take care of your family and home and country first, then you're MAGA.

BLMFem is effectively accusing Donald Trump of rape. Your words: "so what's another rape of a minor, right?" Your second sentence goes beyond merely reporting that accusations exist. Your sarcastic phrasing suggests you are treating the allegation as credible or true, or at least presenting it as part of Trump's conduct. You are accusing President Trump of raping a 13 year old girl, a minor! No reliable evidence has established that Donald Trump raped a 13-year-old girl. What exists are allegations, not proven facts. Anyone can allege (assert to be true; affirm) anything about anyone or anything. So prove it true or take a seat. Typical. Someone lighting a match gleefully hoping for a forest fire? There could be many phoned in anonymous tips about you doing horrible things that are made public but I would wait until the tips lead to your conviction in a court of law before I respond... I wouldn't try to defame you. If someone did try to defame youusing mere allegations against you, it would show that their character is very disgusting and evil. From your friends at CHATGPT: 1. The 2016 lawsuit In 2016, a woman using the pseudonym “Jane Doe / Katie Johnson” filed a civil lawsuit accusing Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of sexually assaulting her in 1994 when she was 13. Key points: The lawsuit was filed anonymously. It was withdrawn by the plaintiff before the case proceeded (November 2016). Because it was withdrawn, no court examined the evidence or ruled on the claims. Trump denied the allegations. 2. Epstein-related documents Some FBI or Justice Department records connected to investigations of Epstein include reports of tips or statements repeating allegations involving various public figures. These documents generally: Record what someone told investigators. Do not confirm the claims are true. Often include uncorroborated information. The document in your image appears to be an FBI intake report, which simply logs a tip received by investigators. Such reports do not represent findings or conclusions. 3. Trump’s connection to Epstein It is documented that Trump and Epstein knew each other socially in the 1990s and early 2000s, but Trump has said he cut ties with Epstein years before Epstein’s later criminal cases. Trump has never been charged in connection with Epstein’s trafficking crimes. ✅ Bottom line: There was an accusation. The case was withdrawn and never tested in court. No court, investigation, or conviction has established that it happened. If you want, I can also explain what FBI “tip” or “intake” documents like the one you posted actually mean, because they are often misunderstood and shared online as if they were confirmed evidence. Maybe you should have someone explain why tips are not confirmed evidence. I would have normally responded with a red thumbs down. 🧐

It's a case of I believe you but I belive me more. Sorry about shoveling CHAT GPT on the post but I just didn't have the time to research and debunk if need be. From your favorite AI and mine: Short answer: No — there is no credible evidence that 80% of Americans believe that claim. The “80%” statistic appears to come from social-media posts, not a real, verified poll. 1. The “80% poll” claim The versions of the claim circulating online mostly trace back to Instagram and Facebook posts saying “a new poll suggests 80% of Americans believe Trump started the Iran conflict to distract from Epstein documents.” However, those posts do not cite any legitimate polling organization (like Gallup, Pew, YouGov, Ipsos, etc.). � Facebook +1 No reputable polling data matching that claim has been reported by major news organizations. 2. What real polls actually show Recent credible polls show very different numbers about related issues: A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 27% of Americans support U.S. strikes on Iran, while 43% oppose them. � Reuters A Washington Post poll found 52% oppose the strikes and 39% support them. � The Washington Post Those polls measure support or opposition to the military action, not whether people think it was a distraction. 3. Polls about the Epstein files Separate polls show strong public interest in the Epstein case, but again not the 80% claim: About 79% of Americans want all Epstein-related documents released. � Newsweek +1 Roughly 49% think the government is covering up Epstein’s crimes. � Wikipedia 4. Bottom line The “80% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from Epstein documents” statistic does not appear in any credible polling data. It likely originated from unverified social-media posts or satire/misinformation. Real polls show mixed views on Iran policy and strong interest in the Epstein files, but nothing close to that claim. ✅ Conclusion: The statement is almost certainly false or misleading. If you want, I can also show you how to quickly tell when a poll statistic online is fake or unreliable (there are a few easy red flags). I checked out your Reuters reference but couldn't find your 80%. Please be careful not to be caught in a social media avalanche.

You nailed it. One more thing if I may. Fanaticism. Let's also remember, in their core, in their heart of hearts, they were true believers of the Twelver Shia Islam who believe in Imam al-Zaman (the Imam of the Age), who is identified with Imam al-Mahdi (Muhammad al-Mahdi), the 12th Imam who is in occultation and will return at God’s appointed time. JEWISH GENOCIDE TIME. This belief is a core part of Shia theology and the doctrine of Imamate. CHATGPT: From Sahih Muslim: “The Hour will not be established until there has been much chaos (harj).” They said: “What is harj?” He said: “Killing, killing.” The hadith about the stones and trees appears in: Sahih Muslim, Book of Tribulations and Signs of the Hour (Kitab al-Fitan wa Ashrat al-Sa'ah), Hadith number 2922 (in the standard Darussalam numbering). Here is the commonly cited wording from Sahih Muslim (Book of Tribulations and Signs of the Hour): “The Hour will not be established until you fight the Jews, and the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stone or the tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him’ — except for the gharqad tree, for it is one of the trees of the Jews.” A similar version appears in Sahih al-Bukhari, though wording varies slightly between narrations. Fanatics who will gladly die for 72 raisins to help usher in the carnage of the last imam. Oh, yes... it is actually raisins. The virgins idea is being debunked; apparently a mistranslation don't you know. Seriously. Would they be fanatics for 72 raisins? 🙄 https://satyaagrah.com/religion/islam/2840-raisins%0A%20%7C%20 https://globalnation.inquirer.net/163694/raisins-not-virgins-quran-scholars-say

Not sure if it's been mentioned so far, is China's latest anti aircraft defences delivered to Iran are apparently useless. US and Issraeli aircraft have walked through all Chinese AND Russian air defence for that matter. Hate to be a salesman for Chinese and Russian air defence products right now.

MAYBE ALL THIS MIDDLE EAST WAR COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED!!! Talk about lost in translation!!! Islamic Scholar Punctures '72 Virgins' Theory, Says 'Martyrs' Will Only Get Raisins In Heaven "I'm sorry... say that again. Say WHAT? What did you just say?" What 72 could have been... Is now? https://globalnation.inquirer.net/163694/raisins-not-virgins-quran-scholars-say https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/islamic-scholar-punctures-72-virgins-theory-says-martyrs-will-only-get-raisins-in-heaven-340579.html Not even grapes. Dried grapes. That sucks.

I apologize. A failed attempt to be facetious concerning all the deep state deniers I've been reading recently but I obviously need to remember internet forums require clearly seen context before attempted wit and pleasantries. I actually agree with you. Good post.

The world renowned AI experts at the Hindustan Times say this is AI generated. Hope no AN members are questioning when to believe their eyes. 😁😲 😆 Anyone out there selling AI photo fact checking glasses?🥸😎🤓 https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/fact-check-did-trump-really-yell-at-pete-hegseth-heres-the-truth-behind-viral-photos-101772414992890.html?utm_source=ht_site_copyURL&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ht_site ✔️ Independent fact-checking sources • Meaww/Fact Check article — Viral photo isn’t real A fact-checking article published around the same time explains that the viral image claiming to show Trump yelling at Hegseth is false, is not connected to any real conflict or verified meeting, and there’s no evidence from reputable news outlets that such an incident occurred. They note that the photo’s origins appear to come from social media rather than a documented press event — and no credible reporting supports the claim. https://news.meaww.com/fact-check-is-the-viral-photo-showing-trump-yelling-at-pete-hegseth-real

No, it can't be true. Tell me there are no deep states in the Middle East. Deep states don't exist anywhere on the planet. 🫢🫣🤫🤔🤐🤨😐

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your sharing your experience. Good point that all the tensions you mentioned predate the Islamic Republic. Wow, all neighboring governments have to factor in domestic stability, regional rivalry, and the long memories on all sides when they establish policy. To your point, the Sunni–Shia accomodation and alliances with neighboring countries may shift over time, but geography doesn’t. My opinion is the Middle East has its own peculiar constant state of flux because the idea of forgive and forget cannot take root in their culture.

I've been working very hard to avoid talking about the national debt. That nervous tick is coming back. My Prozac co-pays almost bankrupted me. All I can say about the national debt is summed up by staring at The Scream by Edvard Munch. The national debt's other name is the Big Bang of Stupidity. I think Trump knows there's no way out of it and is trying to keep us alive by desperately trying to grow the economy to stay ahead of the inevitable "time to settle accounts.”

Good question. Quite a few Muslim countries have condemned Iran’s missile strikes on neighbouring countries and US/Israeli bases. This seems to be a conservative response. Probably want to keep their own governments stable and appear as mere observers of the strikes on Iran; cautious about being drawn into direct confrontation with two superpowers. In otherwords, no pro-Iran Muslim bloc. Hearing in the news that the nearby countries are actually breathing a sigh of relief now that the regime who used to be the bully is really being dismantled bit by bit. Also these countries have to consider their economies regarding trade and Western relations. I guess how radical the government is that fills the power vacuum will determine the attitude towards Israel. Seems like most Muslim countries were rather polite towards Israel. Were these Muslim countries sincere or just letting Iran do the dirty secret work? I don't know for sure. 5Do you agree?

So for 47 years of death threats against Jews and Israel, along with real action towards that end, it takes the 47th President to stop the dangerous and inevitable islamic solution to their "Jewish" problem.

'Great' Time to Defund the Department of Homeland Security, Democrats. Hey Progressives, Feel Stupid Yet? Sleeper cells thanks to the big guy, Joe Biden... anything happens, it's on Democrats and Progressives. Oh what am I doing? Call 'em by their real name: COMMUNISTS.

Of course you are, dear person. Adolf Hitler publicly “predicted” the destruction of the Jews of Europe before the mass extermination began. I looked it up... The most well-known statement is from a speech he gave to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939. From CHATGPT: Hitler quoted... “If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe.” Hmmm. Imagine that. NOBODY WANTED TO SUPPORT A WAR IN ANY FORM AGAINST ANY COUNTRY AGAINST ANOTHER. 😇 By 1942, Auschwitz was operating at capacity. 😱 The islamists in Iran have pushed a public threat of Jewish genocide that has built momentum for decades. Do you think the ayatollah, who now rests in pieces, and all his true believers would never use nuclear extortion or even physically nuke Israel to bring their islamic savior into the world? Yeah. Check it out yourself. Something about the last imam or something like that. Oh, I'll just give it to you and I'm not denigrating anything, just quoting. Regarding Imam al-Zaman (Imam of the Age): “The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him — except the gharqad tree…” Sahih al-Bukhari And yes — Ruhollah Khomeini, the ayatollah of rock and rollah, Supreme Leader of Iran, absolutely believed in Imam al-Zaman, who in Twelver Shia Islam is Muhammad al-Mahdi, the Hidden Imam. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) commander said as recently as February 2026 that “We will destroy Israel,” explicitly invoking the goal of eliminating the Israeli state. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602246511 So for 47 years of death threats against Jews and Israel, along with real action towards that end, it takes the 47th President to punch the out of control bully hard in the nose to stop the dangerous and inevitable islamic solution to the "Jewish" problem. No. I don't see it from your point of view. Human nature is intrinsically fallen and corrupted and will always be problematic. To stay alive, PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH works.

Epstein Trump files? So far, just another boring RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA. What exactly is the evidence? Nothing more than predictable banal bloviation. Give me proof from a court of law then I'll care. Just distraction from the left's SOTU disaster. 🤪 By the way, if someone says they're going to destroy you, (hint) take them seriously. "Some call this aggression... We call it survival." "It is not only an ancient lesson. It is a modern one." Feb 28, 2026. Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon speaks at a UN Security Council meeting following the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSnwleH5DzE Mr. President, for 47 years, the Islamic regime in Iran has led crowds in chanting Marjbar Israel Marjbar America. do you want to translate these chants? Your leaders have been chanting it for years in public events in your parliament. Marjbar Israel Marjbar America. They mean death to Israel, death to America. Israeli and American flags were painted on roads so they could be trampled. Our flags were burned in public squares. This is not the anger of a radical fringe. It is state sanctioned hatred. And while those marb chants echoed, uranium was enriched, centrifuges span, missiles were built, facilities were buried deep underground. It was never just empty rhetoric. It was preparation for action. But today, alongside our ally, the United States, we act to stop it. Israel stands before you today, having acted with the United States to confront and stop an existential threat before it became irreversible. The operation targets nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile sites, the machinery of repression that fuels terror across our region. We did not act of impulse. We did not act of aggression. We acted out of necessity because the Iranian regime left no reasonable alternative. This joint effort will continue for as long as the threat remains. We thank President Trump and acknowledge the close cooperation between Israel and the US which has brought the alliance between our countries to an all-time high in peace and in war. Let us be clear about what we are confronting. This regime has built nuclear weapons in blatant disregard of international law and UN resolutions. It has brutally murdered its own citizens and crashed descent and it's happened now as we speak in cities in Iran. It has expanded missile arsenals and armed proxies across the region. It has openly declared its intention to erase Israel from the map. Now, as it faces consequences, it is launching missiles and drones across the region, endangering the UAE, where a Pakistani citizen unfortunately was killed. Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq. As we speak in the last hour, Iran targeted the city of Tel Aviv. Civilian, they don't target military bases. Civilians struck a building in Tel Aviv. An innocent woman was killed and [1]21 people were injured. This is a regime that destabilizes wherever it reaches. It spreads violence outward while crushing freedom at home. It is not reacting. It is expanding. It is a machinery of radicalism that does not recognize borders. Mr. President, diplomacy was exhausted. Iran was required to stop enriching uranium, stop heavy water projects, stop developing nuclear capable missiles, and allow full inspections. Iran did none of it. Instead, it fortified its nuclear facilities so we cannot get to them, accelerated missile production, and continue to fund terror. Since the last operation in the summer, they spent billions on the proxies. The resolutions were clear. The strategy was just as clear. Delay, delay, delay. But we will not be played. And it's simple what they were planning. They were building the means to corner us, to force an irreversible reality with our backs against the wall. That is not a future Israel will accept. No responsible nation should. This operation is guided by clear objectives. eliminate immediate threats, dismantle the nuclear program, destroy its ballistic missile production, neutralize naval threats, break the proxy network that destabilizes the region. The operation was carried out in order to protect the people of Israel within the framework of the ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Iran in line with the UN charter and in accordance with international law. Our forces stand ready to stop extremism armed with nuclear weapons. To the soldiers of the IDF, our boys and girls, my son, my daughter, we salute you. You stand like lions defending our people. An entire nation stands behind you. We have heard the condemnation from few member states, from the secretary general. But we all know that escalation did not begin today. It began when Iran armed proxies and exported terror, expanded missiles and drones, advanced its nuclear program in violation of its commitments, turned on its own people, beating, imprisoning, executing. Where were the outrage of the UN? Where were the consequences? Now Israel acts to prevent an irreversible threat and the condemnation is immediate. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Some call this aggression. We call it necessity. We call it survival. Mr. President, history has taught us never to ignore those who openly call for our destruction. When a regime says it will destroy Israel, when it chants death to Israel, when it promises to wipe Hifa and Tel Aviv off the map, we believe it. We genuinely believe it. When we see those hundreds of ballistic missiles that are launching to Israel, we believe the threats. We do not ignore them. We do not gamble with our survival. We act. Now, let me address the brave people of Iran. You are not our enemies. This operation is not directed at you. It is directed at a regime that has silenced you, imprisoned you, and invested in missiles and uranium while your economy suffers. You deserve better. It is this regime, the Basij, the revolutionary guard who have dragged your country into a isolation. The world does not fear a free Iran. It fears a radical regime harmed with nuclear weapons and driven by extremism. Your future should not be defined by those who chant for death. As President Trump had said, the Iranian people deserve dignity, security, and the chance to shape their own destiny. We are thinking about you. You are seen. You are not alone. The future of Iran belongs to its people. We stand with you, Mr. President. This week, Jewish families all around the world celebrate Purim. Many Israelis will do so now in a bomb shelter. The story of Purim happened more than 2,500 years ago. In the same place in ancient Persia, an evil minister by the name of Haman sought to wipe out the Jewish people. And it began with words, with chants. It became a decree. It could have become a a genocide. But Queen Esther refused to remain silent. She stepped forward. She spoke up. She acted before it was too late. That is the lesson we learned. It is not only an ancient lesson. It is a modern one. Last week I stood at the gates of Auschwitz with dozens of UN ambassadors. We stood in a place that shows what happens when radicalism and extremism grows and no one stops it in time. Before the Holocaust, some leaders, serious leaders believed that they could come aggression with concess concessions. They were completely wrong. Giving in did not stop evil. It strengthened it. Winston Churchill understood what Queen Esther understood long before him. When destruction is declared and weapons are being prepared and assembled, leaders must act, not later. Now, today, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu understand that same lesson. For decades, the Iranian regime has built missiles enriched uranium, armed proxies, and spread terror far beyond its borders. This regime is not only Israel's enemy. It is an enemy of stability, an enemy of every peaceloving nation. In this joint operation, Israel and the US are acting together. Not because we see conflict.

You can disagree strongly with Trump without dehumanizing people who support him. If we care about standards in leadership, that includes how we talk about each other. Respect for military service and for political disagreement shouldn’t depend on party. Calling him a “moron” or “toddler” might feel good, but it doesn’t persuade anyone. If the criticism is strong, it should be able to stand on facts without name-calling. You can disagree with President Trump’s policies, but the constant name-calling (“moron,” “toddler,” etc.) just makes the your discussion look frivolous. Political debate is fair game. But when discussion turns into pure contempt for half the electorate, it stops being debate and becomes tribalism. That doesn’t help anyone. It’s interesting how quickly “tolerance” disappears when conservatives are involved. You can criticize Trump’s words or decisions — that’s fair game — but constant name-calling just signals that the debate is emotional, not factual. The level of hostility toward conservatives here demonstrates the left's boring playbook of shaming techniques that try to suppress the speech of conservatives like: moral framing, association with extremism, labeling & branding, withholding facts so to change the context of a story, fact-checking & “misinformation” labeling, media gatekeeping (look it up). Supporting Trump doesn’t make someone stupid or immoral. It just means they prioritize different policies. MILLIONS support him because of policies — border security, economic record, foreign policy — not because we think he’s perfect. If we’re going to debate, let’s debate substance. Again, many of us support him because of policies: border enforcement, economic performance before COVID, pushing NATO countries to contribute more, and a different approach to foreign policy. Voters support Trump because his administration increased defense spending, pushed NATO members to meet funding commitments, cut taxes, regaining control over immigration, exercising the duties of the Federal government specified in the Constitution, reduced regulations, and presided over strong pre-COVID economic numbers... all very important to realists. Those are policy reasons why millions supported him. The narrative that Trump “hates the military” doesn’t match reality. His administration increased defense spending and pushed NATO members to meet funding commitments. You can argue about style, but the record on military funding and pressure on allies is clear. On the NATO/Afghanistan issue — British, American, and allied forces fought and died together. That deserves respect across the board. The draft deferments were legal and common at the time — including for people who later became critics. If we’re going to judge 1960s deferments, that standard would apply to a lot of public figures. Let’s not pretend this is unique to Trump. The “draft dodger” line gets repeated a lot, but it leaves out context. During the Vietnam era, draft deferments — for education or medical reasons — were legal and widely used across the political spectrum. Singling Trump out as if he uniquely invented the system isn’t accurate. More importantly, voters in 2016 and 2020 weren’t deciding who served in the 1960s — they were deciding on policies: the economy, immigration, trade, foreign policy, and national security. You can disagree with those policies, but reducing everything to a half-century-old deferment feels more like a talking point than a serious argument. If Vietnam-era deferments are now the moral standard for public office, that would apply to a long list of politicians and public figures — not just Trump. It was a controversial system, yes, but it was the law at the time and widely used. It’s fair to criticize decisions made while in office. But using a 1960s deferment as a substitute for debating actual policy feels more like partisan shorthand than a serious critique. I say again: On the draft issue: Vietnam-era deferments were legal and widely used. Trump received student and medical deferments under the system that existed at the time. So did Democrats like Joe Biden (who received multiple student deferments and later a medical classification for asthma), Bill Clinton (student deferments while at Oxford), and Bernie Sanders (who sought conscientious objector status and was later classified 1-Y). If Vietnam deferments are the moral test for office, that standard would apply across party lines. When's the last time you heard about their deferments? NEVER! All of these leftist heroes whom received deferments or alternative classifications under the legal system at the time probably bumped into Trump in the waiting line.

BRAVO!