We are less than a month away from the first anniversary of Hamas’s bloody breach of a cease-fire, which launched war in Gaza. This war should have ended months ago with a decisive win by Israel, and would have done so if not for the interventions of the Biden-Harris administration. By putting all the pressure on Israel to reach a cease-fire on just about any terms, so long as they are acceptable to Hamas, the Democrats have strengthened Hamas’s bargaining position while delaying an end to the conflict.

Representative of the administration’s mindset is the latest apologia for the Biden-Harris regime, written by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, grandly titled “How Netanyahu Is Trying to Save Himself, Elect Trump, and Defeat Harris.” This hit piece begins by accusing Benjamin Netanyahu of dragging out negotiations with Hamas over the release of the hostages, and purports to hold him accountable for the death of six Israeli hostages (one with dual American citizenship) who were shot in the head by Hamas leaders. Later in his essay, Friedman does briefly refer to the real villain of the situation, Yahya Sinwar, as a “murderous Islamo-Fascist leader” to make the point that it is “also” (along with Netanyahu) in Sinwar’s interest to prolong the war for two ends: first, to create massive strains in the now fragile US-Israel alliance, and second, to provoke internal discord in Israel.

Frodo: I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

Gandalf: …Bilbo was meant to find the ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.

There is an event planned for Washington, DC on September 29, 2024. It is a rally to Rescue the Republic. I listened to Bret Weinstein on Joe Rogan’s podcast make a pitch for the rally. I agree with his point: It is critical that the powers that be see the strength of their opposition to the direction of the country; that it will likely take several hundred thousands showing up to do that. The “silent majority” rhetoric will not cut it. There are already plans in place to diminish the size of any organic expression in the polling booth. Only a visible act of strength will do two things: (1) give a tangible voice for a new direction, and (2) make a “steal” in November more evident were it to occur — and thus rob of powers that be of even marginally credible claims of popular support.

As listed on its website, Rescue the Republic has an 8-point message that I believe is broadly supported in the country and, if not, we are no longer the country we thought we lived in:

… you shall appoint judges and officials throughout your tribes to administer true justice for the people. You must not distort justice: you shall not show partiality; you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes even of the wise and twists the words even of the just. Justice, justice alone shall you pursue … You shall not plant an asherah or any kind of tree next to the altar of the LORD, your God, which you will build.

An obvious question, of course, is about the proximity of these verses: what does the tree have to do with perverted justice? Why is a tree antithetical to justice and impartiality?

I was surfing YouTube, and I ran across an Air Force Senior Airman (E-4) who relates his journey in changing careers in the Air Force from an office job, to getting a flying job.  There were two choices available to him at the time, loadmaster and flight attendant.  Flight attendant came up first.  When he made this career change, he already had six years in the Air Force, and he wanted to stay in.  He hated his job, so he changed specialties.

If you search in YouTube or Google, you’ll find his vlog easily enough.  There aren’t a lot of videos on that subject.

General (ret.) H.R. McMaster, the Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, returns to Uncommon Knowledge to discuss his latest book, At War with Ourselves, in which he candidly recounts his experiences as former national security advisor to President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2018. In this wide-ranging interview, McMaster delves into the complexities and challenges he faced while serving in the administration and describes his role in providing the president with multiple options and safeguarding his independence of judgment, partially by drawing on the Stoic philosophy of Epictetus to “play well the role assigned to you.” He reflects on the internal tensions and conflicts within the White House, often exacerbated by differing agendas among staff and cabinet members. McMaster also discusses the difficulties in maintaining a productive relationship with President Trump, especially when offering candid advice that sometimes led to alienation. The conversation is a revealing look into McMaster’s often tumultuous experiences in the Trump White House but also emphasizes the importance of a well-structured decision-making process in the realm of national security. Recorded on July 10, 2024.

Just a quick thought – inspired by a comment from @WBob on another thread (Bob, if I misrepresent your comment, please correct me – I can’t find it right now…).  In a recent post, I commented on Facebook censoring the adjacent picture, labeling it as “Violent and graphic.”  Bob commented on another thread of the tendency of Democrats to censor alternative viewpoints, rather than debating them.  

But that made me wonder, how would Democrats debate a patriotic image?

They can’t.  And they know it.  Which is just another example of one of my long-held opinions:  Censorship is for those who KNOW they’re wrong.  If you suspect that you might be wrong, you argue and debate.  But if you KNOW you’re wrong, you censor.  You know that your views are wrong, or evil, or destructive, or whatever.  They’re indefensible.  So you don’t defend them.  At that point, all you can do is prevent any alternative viewpoints from being expressed.  And accuse those who don’t go along as being racist, or being climate deniers, or whatever.  If you know you’re wrong, there’s nothing else you can do.

Does the Torah really want us to have a monarchy? After all, the text is ambivalent:

If, after you have entered the land that the LORD your God has assigned to you, and taken possession of it and settled in it, you decide, “I will set a king over me, as do all the nations about me,” you shall be free to set a king over yourself.