Month: November 2023

Ron DeSantis is coming up short in his attempts to bring his plummeting ratings to heel (notwithstanding a slight uptick over the past week).

In the latest blow to the Florida governor, his biggest donor, Nevada real estate investor Robert Bigelow, says he’s considering switching his support to Donald Trump. Bigelow notably gave more than $20mm to the DeSantis campaign earlier this year, the largest donation to any 2024 candidate, FT reports.

“I’ve got to look at who would probably be the strongest commander, with the most experience . . . And that’s only one guy,” Bigelow told the outlet. “Who would you want as a commander? I’d want somebody that would be a hell of an ass kicker if he needed to be,” he continued.

“On the face of it, you lean toward Trump.“

Bigelow criticized Trump for running a weak campaign, and that Hamas’s October attack on Israel showed that the US needs a “streetwise” leader like the former president.

He also thinks Trump will wipe the floor with DeSantis during GOP primaries.

“I think Trump is too strong,” he said. “I think Trump has the momentum, the inertia, to beat him.”

Bigelow likened Trump to a “bull,” and DeSantis to “dinner.”

The comments come just ahead of the Republican party’s third primary debate, in Miami, where the candidates will try to gain some momentum in their attempts to catch frontrunner Trump, who will not attend.

 Recent polls of likely Republican voters put the former president about 30 points ahead of his rivals in the early 2024 primary contests. DeSantis and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley are fighting for second place. -FT

It’s not looking great for Ron, despite notching a slight gain following the endorsement of Iowa governor Kim Reynolds. Trump, meanwhile, has only widened his lead despite facing an array of felony charges.

Bigelow had initially warmed to DeSantis for his response to the pandemic, saying the state “epitomized the land of the free.”

After seeing DeSantis speak in Las Vegas in March, Bigelow invited the governor for lunch – where he wrote DeSantis’ campaign a $20,000,500 check after hearing someone else might chip in $20 million.

“I am not going to be number two,” he said. “You’ve got to have a sense of humor.”

Bigelow began to sour on DeSantis after the Florida governor signed a bill in April banning abortion past six weeks of pregnancy.

“Six weeks, she just found out she’s pregnant, the odds are,” said Bigelow. “It’s a sham. It’s make-believe. It’s condescending.”

Then, after voicing his opposition, DeSantis ghosted him. Instead, his wife Casey called him two weeks later.

“Not having him bothering to call me for an explanation taught me that he’s more of a user of people, actually, and that I didn’t matter enough for him to pick up the phone.”

DeSantis had also become “way too focused on conservatism”, while Trump was more socially moderate, Bigelow said. DeSantis was also less willing to engage in the rough and tumble of US election politics, he added.

“If he’s going to be in the gutter and you want to beat him, you better be willing and ready and able to go in the gutter too,” said Bigelow, referring to the former president. “You better be able to kill — and that’s not who Ron is.”

Asked for comment, a DeSantis spokesperson referred to the governor’s comment to NBC in August: “If I had a nickel for every naysayer I’ve had in my life, I’d be a very, very wealthy man.” -FT

Except this isn’t just a naysayer. This is your biggest donor, Ron.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Senate Democrats on Nov. 7 blocked a Republican-led bill that would provide standalone aid to Israel.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Ky.) and other Republican senators called for quick passage of legislation recently approved in a bipartisan U.S. House of Representatives vote. The bill would give Israel $14 billion in the wake of it being invaded by the Hamas terrorist group.

“A timely military aid package with a unified voice from Congress showing support for Israel will not only add to Israel’s stability, it will slow down and hopefully stop the evil plots of Hamas, Iran, and its proxies,” Dr. Marshall said on the Senate floor.

He emphasized that the level of funding is the same level in President Joe Biden’s October funding request.

President Biden’s request, though, also included additional money for Ukraine.

“Our allies in Ukraine can no more afford a delay than our allies in Israel,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said on the floor in Washington.

“There is strong support here in Congress to address these urgent priorities in one package—and that is exactly what I am working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do now,” she added later.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a supporter of the House-passed package, argued that funding for Ukraine and Israel should not be tied together.

“The idea that these policies are not in tension with one another, the idea that what happens in Russia and Ukraine is separate from what happens in Israel is not just obvious, it is common sense, and it has been borne out by the reality of the last couple of weeks,” Mr. Vance said on the floor. “Now, my colleagues would like to collapse these packages. Too many of my colleagues would like to collapse these packages because they would like to use Israel as a political fig leaf for the President’s Ukraine policy.”

He questioned what the end goal is in Ukraine, noting the United States has already sent more than $100 billion to the country following the Russian invasion.

The supplemental funding package crafted by the House includes $4 billion for Israel’s defense systems, including the Iron Dome, as well as additional funds for replenishing stockpiles, procuring ammunition, and obtaining weapons.

The bill would also cut the same amount that would be sent to Israel from the IRS, prompting criticism from some Democrats.

But Senate Democrats primarily focused on the lack of funding for Ukraine.

“The House Republican messaging bill represents a misguided attempt to deny needed assistance to Ukraine. It’s not really about helping Israel. It’s about failing to keep our commitments to Ukraine,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said.

He claimed that without more funding for Ukraine, China would receive the message that “you can attack, wait the West out, and eventually they’ll concede.”

“At this moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the United States, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack from brutal adversaries,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said. “That means ensuring that Israel has the right to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal October 7 attack of Hamas. It also means ensuring that the people of Ukraine defend themselves against Putin from Russia. This proposal on the floor today is tantamount to surrendering to Putin’s aggression. This is waving a white flag.”

After Democrats blocked the bill, Dr. Marshall decried the move.

“Democrats turned a bipartisan opportunity to help our closest ally in the Middle East into political showmanship by using the tragedy unfolding in Israel to demand another blank check for Ukraine,” he said in a statement.

Some Senate Republicans had also voiced concern about only aiding Israel.

“The Senate will soon take up a supplemental spending bill to address defense issues and any such bill should promote security abroad by providing support for our allies—specifically right now: Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the Senate minority whip, said this week.

President Biden had said that he would veto any supplemental spending packages Congress passed if they did not feature additional money for Ukraine.

“The president would veto an only-Israel bill. I think we’ve made that pretty clear,” John Kirby, a White House spokesperson, told reporters at the White House.

New House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has defended the package, saying lawmakers were “trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ resources” by offsetting the aid with cuts to the government.

Mr. Johnson also said that aid to Ukraine should be taken up separately.

That aid should be linked with more funding for security at the U.S.–Mexico border, Mr. Johnson has said.

“When you couple Ukraine and the border, that makes sense to people because they say if we’re going to protect Ukraine’s border … we have to take care of our own border first,” he said on Fox News.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is currently at a Group of Seven summit in Tokyo, where he told a press briefing on the sidelines that “it is clear that Israel cannot occupy Gaza” on a permanent basis.

The comments affirm that Washington has been intensely involved in talks concerning what happens after the war. “Gaza cannot be continued to be run by Hamas. That simply invites repetition of Oct. 7… It’s also clear that Israel cannot occupy Gaza,” Blinken said after meeting with G7 foreign ministers.

“Now, the reality is that there may be a need for some transition period at the end of the conflict … We don’t see a reoccupation and what I’ve heard from Israeli leaders, is that they have no intent to reoccupy Gaza.”

Earlier this week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he foresees Israeli troops overseeing the security of Gaza “for an indefinite period” after Hamas is defeated. He appeared to reject headlines suggesting a multinational peacekeeping force would fill the role. 

“I think Israel will for an indefinite period have security responsibility,” Netanyahu told ABC News. “We’ve seen what happens when we don’t have that… security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn’t imagine.”

The words are being widely interpreted as a sign of growing disagreement between the US and Israel over the crisis. The divide is sharpening and becoming more and more public, also after on Monday Netanyahu rejected Biden’s request for a three-day humanitarian ‘pause’ in a phone call. On top of this remains the growing international pressure over the immense civilian death toll in Gaza, having surpassed 10,000 people by the start of the week:

And the mounting death toll and humanitarian crisis have fueled growing outrage. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion that Israel would maintain “overall security responsibility” for Gaza when the conflict ends raised new questions over what his country plans, and drew a new warning from the White House.

There was also growing evidence of fallout in the United States, where tensions have been high on city streets and college campuses. House lawmakers censured Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the sole Palestinian American in Congress, over her remarks and actions in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

Meanwhile, IDF troops have been circulating photos like the following from Gaza:

PHOTO: Israel is back in #Gaza – and we ARE HERE TO STAY in our ancestral land and our ancient beaches!!! pic.twitter.com/8vvWnWjp9m

— Yishai Fleisher يشاي ישי פליישר 🕎 (@YishaiFleisher) November 8, 2023

The Biden White House has lately been mulling a plan behind the scenes that would see international peacekeeping forces control the security situation in the Gaza Strip once the war is over, which is premised on the total demise of Hamas, proving no small task especially given the immense network of miles of tunnels the group can utilize.

The post-Hamas “day after” has also been subject of proposals out of some leading Congressmen. There was speculation at first that Israeli leadership might welcome this, but the Netanyahu remarks in the ABC interview reveal different thinking in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

This week civilians in Gaza have been seen fleeing from the northern half of the Strip to the south while holding large white flags, after in some prior instances civilians were killed by Israeli airstrikes while traversing north-south roadways.

As for the G7 meeting, a statement produced from Tokyo said it also supports Ukraine’s defense against Russia “for as long as it takes.” The G7 statement also took aim at alleged Russian-North Korean weapons transfers, and also heavily criticized China on a range of issues.

Via SchiffGold.com,

The Federal Reserve operates under a dual mandate from Congress – to achieve maximum employment and stable prices. In a recent podcast, Peter Schiff explained why the Fed won’t achieve either.

The FOMC held its November meeting last week. As expected, the Fed left interest rates unchanged. Peter said you can almost always count on the central bank to do what is expected.

The Fed never wants to confound expectations. They never want to surprise the markets. So, if the markets expect no rate hike, well, they deliver no rate hike, and that’s what happened.”

During his prepared remarks, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell acknowledged the “economic hardship” caused by price inflation. But Peter said he doesn’t seem to grasp the full picture.

Since inflation is caused by the government, and caused by the Federal Reserve, it’s the government and the Fed that are creating that hardship. It’s not like it’s just happening out of left field.”

It’s an intentional policy. The government has decided that it will pay for its borrowing and spending through an inflation tax.

Now, had they used another form of taxation, had the Biden administration, and the Trump administration for that matter, had they raised taxes enough to pay for all of these government programs, that would have created hardship too. Families would be struggling under the burden of crushing taxation. So because the government decided to tax them through inflation as opposed to through the income tax or the payroll tax, the hardship that is being created is because of government. It’s not just something that’s happening by happenstance.”

Powell also reiterated that the goal is “price stability.” Nobody ever bothers to ask, “Why?” What’s so good about price stability?

What about lower prices? Because price stability, the way a normal person would define it, is prices stay the same. Well, I’m a consumer. I’d rather have prices go down than prices remain the same. So, what if prices went down 1% a year, or 2% a year? Why is that so bad? Why does the Fed have to replace that with stability?”

Peter said we don’t really need “price stability.”

It’s really a BS goal.”

And we don’t even actually have a goal of price stability. The goal is for prices to go up 2%.

There’s nothing stable about that other than the rate of increase.”

After the Fed meeting, Powell admitted the central bank isn’t anywhere near that goal and that this is a long process.

He’s underestimating. Waiting for inflation to go to 2% is going to be like waiting for Godot. It’s never going to happen.”

During the Q&A, Powell emphasized that we have a “very strong” economy. Just two days later, we got a very weak jobs report. (Peter talked about this earlier in the podcast.)

How is the economy so strong if the labor market is that weak? … I don’t know what Powell is looking at. I think he’s just reading a script that the Biden administration handed him because he’s just reiterating their talking points to talk up the economy so Biden can get credit for it.”

The question is how will Powell respond when the labor market continues to deteriorate? That would imply the Fed should stop hiking. But as Peter pointed out, one of the reasons the labor market is weakening is because price inflation is strengthening. How can he focus on a weakening labor market and ignore strengthening inflation?

Meanwhile, Powell continued to insist that we need to see a slowdown in economic growth and some “dampening” in the labor market in order to “fully restore price stability.” In other words, he wants to see more people lose their jobs. That’s because he thinks people are spending because they are doing well, that spending is creating more jobs, and also pushing wages higher. Peter said people are spending more because prices are going up.

They’re spending because the money supply has gone up. They’ve got more money to spend, and they’re spending because they’re still able to access credit. They’re taking that borrowed money and spending it. This is not how you grow an economy. This is how you destroy an economy. This is not a virtuous dynamic that he is describing. It is a vicious one that is going to end in ruin. Because you don’t grow an economy by people spending money.”

You grow an economy by not spending money and saving. That provides seed corn for capital investment. That increases productivity creating more output.

You produce your way to prosperity. You save your way, and then invest and produce your way into prosperity. We’re not doing that. We’re trying to put the cart before the horse.”

Peter reiterated that we don’t have a strong economy. We have an inflationary economy.

It’s inflation that is driving everything. Powell just doesn’t realize that. He’s looking at the ‘strong’ economy, and he’s thinking everything is good. He’s looking at inflation. He just doesn’t understand that.”

Peter said he doesn’t think there are any more rabbits the central bankers can pull out of their hats or any road left where they can kick the can. The economy is about to implode and inflation is alive and well. That means the Fed can chuck both its mandates right out the window.

Five candidates have met the criteria needed to appear on stage for the third Republican 2024 presidential debate in Miami on Nov. 8, according to the Republican National Committee (RNC).

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, businessman and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have all qualified for the latest debate and will take to the stage at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County.

All five of the GOP 2024 presidential candidates made the cut after polling at least 4 percent in two national polls or 4 percent in a national poll as well as two polls from four of the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

The Republican White House hopefuls also needed to receive a minimum of 70,000 unique donors, with at least 200 of those coming from 20 states or territories.

Additionally, the candidates had to sign a number of RNC pledges, including promising to support the party’s eventual nominee.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum failed to qualify for Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate and won’t appear on stage, according to the RNC, nor will former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who qualified for and participated in the first debate but did not make the stage for the second one in Southern California.

Former Vice President Mike Pence dropped out of the race in October.

Elsewhere, former President Donald Trump, who did not appear at the first two debates (and is scheduled to skip this one), surpassed the donor and polling requirements with ease, according to an analysis by NBC News, and will instead hold a rally at Ted Hendricks Stadium in nearby Hialeah, Florida.

But, as Jackson Richman writes at The Epoch Times, while this will be an opportunity for the GOP candidates to appeal to those beyond the conservative echo chamber, it isn’t without facing NBC’s left-wing bias.

Following conservative Fox News and Fox Business hosting the first two Republican presidential primary debates, a liberal media outlet is set to put on the third one to the displeasure of conservative media critics.

NBC News will broadcast the Nov. 8 debate from the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County in Florida.

This debate is an opportunity to appeal to voters outside the right-wing echo chamber.

Rick Edmonds, media business analyst at the centrist Poynter Institute for Media Studies, told The Epoch Times that NBC “makes sense,” given that “the Republican candidates need now to be thinking about how they can appeal to a broader swath of voters should they win the primary.”

John Ziegler, a right-wing media critic, told The Epoch Times that the debate will be an opportunity for the candidates to appeal to independents—although President Trump holds a commanding lead in the primary.

Mr. Edmonds noted that in 2012, Brian Williams, then-anchor for the NBC Nightly News, hosted one of the Republican primary debates and asked about the issues, not parroting Democrat sentiments.

However, don’t expect that attitude to be echoed during this debate, according to Mr. Edmonds.

Pushback

NBC has come under fire from conservatives for the network’s left-wing media bias.

While the Republican candidates should face tough questions, there’s a difference between playing hardball and being a propagandist, according to Emily Jashinsky, director of the conservative National Journalism Center and the culture editor of the right-wing outlet The Federalist.

Ms. Jashinsky remarked that left-wing outlets such as NBC News can’t be moved to be objective toward Republicans.

“Repeatedly giving those outlets access rewards bad behavior and does voters a disservice,” she told The Epoch Times.

Ms. Jashinsky said the RNC’s decision to pick NBC News as the broadcaster for the debate is “a totally unforced error,” as it would enable the outlet to unfairly cover Republican voters.

“Republicans should face tough questions from the left, but they shouldn’t help leftists pretending to be neutral journalists keep lying to the public about their biases,” she said.

Nicholas Fondacaro, an analyst at the right-wing Media Research Center, told The Epoch Times: “It’s disappointing to see the RNC award a debate to a network that has no interest in giving Republicans a fair shake on the stage or at the ballot box. After previous debates this cycle, NBC was one of the networks that voiced exacerbation that the primary process was still playing out despite Trump being the front-runner and not attending.”

After all, Mr. Fondacaro said, there are outlets other than Fox News, Fox Business, and NBC News that could have hosted the third debate, including The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, NewsNation, and Newsmax.

Will the Debate Be Fair?

But the Republican National Committee doesn’t seem to be worried about the possibility of left-wing bias from moderators Kristen Welker, anchor of Meet the Press, and Lester Holt, anchor of NBC Nightly News.

“I am eager to announce that the RNC has selected NBC News, Salem Radio Network, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and Rumble as our partners for the third Republican primary debate in Miami,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement.

The third moderator, Hugh Hewitt, is a conservative radio host, but “even he will be ineffective in whatever questions he asks,” according to Mr. Ziegler.

“But he’s there as a token so that conservatives feel like it’s not a complete left-wing crap show,” he said.

Nonetheless, the RNC stated, “The partners for our third debate will offer our candidates an excellent opportunity to meet the moment and contrast their plans and vision with the failures of the Biden White House.”

But according to critics, that’s wishful thinking.

Former Fox News producer Eduardo Neret, who lives in Miami, told The Epoch Times that left-wing outlets such as NBC News shouldn’t broadcast GOP primary debates.

“Mainstream and left-wing media outlets don’t care about conservatives,” he said.

“They oppose conservatives on every issue and work to suppress and smear conservative voices and beliefs. That’s apparently not obvious to the RNC.”

Ms. Jashinsky said: “Like most political institutions, the RNC faces enormous pressures from legacy media. They’re convinced they can negotiate with companies like NBC News when, in reality, they’re just getting rolled and are trying to make themselves feel better about it.”

Mr. Fondacaro predicted that the moderators will ask the candidates questions about issues such as climate change that are usually not of interest to Republican voters. Mr. Neret said to “expect Lester Holt and Kristen Welker to run interference for the Democratic Party on a host of other issues.”

“And unlike the Fox News debates, they’re sure to make it largely about the guy who’s not there,” Mr. Fondacaro said, referring to President Trump.

“Expect loads of questions about January 6, Trump’s legal woes, and maybe even some loyalty questions.”

Mr. Ziegler concurred with Mr. Fondacaro but went as far as to call the debate farcical and cynical given President Trump’s domination in the primary polls.

“They don’t care that these candidates are being fed to the wolves because they’re perfectly fine and maybe even in favor of Donald Trump being the nominee,” Mr. Ziegler said.

“So this is all going to favor Donald Trump just like the first debate did, just like the second debate did, and the third debate will. It’s Groundhog Day.”

Mr. Fondacaro suggested NBC News wants a Trump–Biden rematch because the incumbent could win a second term if he faces his predecessor.

Mr. Neret called for Mr. Holt and Ms. Welker to ask “questions on issues that primary voters care about, like immigration, crime, and the economy.”

Neither the RNC nor NBC responded to a request for comment on possible bias from Ms. Welker and Mr. Holt.

NBC Universal’s Recent History of Moderating Debates

This won’t be the first time NBC Universal will have a GOP presidential primary debate on any of its platforms.

In 2015, CNBC hosted such a debate—moderated by John Harwood, Becky Quick, and Carl Quintanilla—that was denounced for being biased against the 2016 GOP presidential primary field.

Mr. Harwood asked, in a snarky tone, then-candidate Trump if he was running “a comic book version of a presidential campaign” by calling for a wall on the southern border, the deportation of 11 million illegal aliens and, in Mr. Harwood’s words, “[making] Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others.”

Mr. Quintanilla asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) about missing Senate votes in order to be on the campaign trail with, “Do you hate your job?” He asked this question repeatedly.

He asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), regarding a debt ceiling agreement, “Does your opposition to it show that you’re not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?”

Mr. Cruz fired back with a summary of the bias during the debate.

“You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” he said.

“This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions: Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?

“How about talking about the substantive issues.”

Mr. Cruz went as far as to tell the moderators that they have no “intention of voting in a Republican primary.”

Then-RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the moderators did “a disservice to their network, our candidates and voters.”

Mr. Holt moderated the first debate of the 2016 general election cycle, where he baselessly accused President Trump of “calling for tax cuts for the wealthy.”

Ms. Welker, who moderated the second debate of the 2020 general election cycle, seemed to ignore the science that the risk of children suffering from or dying of COVID-19 is low. She asked President Trump what is his “message to parents who worry that sending their children to school will endanger not only their kids, but also their teachers and families.”

At the end of the day, Ms. Jashinsky said, “NBC News likely won’t do a good job covering issues Republican voters care about, but even if they touched on the right topics, it would still be presented with dishonest and counterproductive framing, which is why the debate is a giant missed opportunity to push legacy media to do better with a stick, not a carrot, and a giant missed opportunity to work with a new media outlet that treats Republicans fairly.”

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The US has already given Ukraine $75 billion. Biden wants another $100 billion for Ukraine and Israel. What exactly is the mission?

It seems to me that if we are going to give foreign nations hundreds of billions of dollars, we ought to have defined goals and a method of achieving them.

White House Announcement

In a White House Announcement on October 20, here are Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine

“You know, history has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and to the world keep rising. ”

Lovely, But What’s the Goal?

Dear Mr. President, your statement sounds lovely. But what is the mission? What is the goal? How long are we willing to keep funding Ukraine and Israel to get it?

Biden says he supports a two-state solution. O.K.If that’s the idea, then why are we handing out hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached?

Over the years, the US has given Israel about $130 billion. What, if anything, do we have to show for it?

On NATO

“For 75 years, NATO has kept peace in Europe and has been the cornerstone of American security.  And if Putin attacks a NATO Ally, we will defend every inch of NATO which the treaty requires and calls for.”

That sounds lovely too, except to thinking individuals. By the way, how much is Germany contributing to NATO?

Germany is about 960 miles from Ukraine, by road. The US is 5,600 miles away by plane.

Why is it that the US is providing nearly all the aid to Ukraine and Israel?

What Price Do We Pay?

The US has no readily discernable mission statement other than Biden’s comments to make terrorists and Putin pay a price.

What price are we willing to pay to make Putin pay a price? $200 billion? $500 billion? A trillion? Unlimited? For what precise goals? When?

Biden’s statements may sound pretty unless you really ponder the implications: We are handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for wars that are essentially none of our business, with no strings attached.

We deserve answers. But don’t expect any.

The US spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan without ever having a stated mission, goals, or an end game. Afghanistan lasted 20 years. US military is still in Iraq.

And here we go again.

Meanwhile, Biden’s Democratic Coalition is Splintering Over Israel and the Economy

Also, please see Five Alarm Bell – Biden Trails Trump in Five of Six Battleground States

If Biden goes down in flames over this, at least will have gotten something for our money.

One Question Answered

Meanwhile, please note we do have an answer to a question I asked previously.

Q: How long are we willing to keep funding Israel with no strings attached?

A: Indefinitely, of course.

The US industrial military complex will settle for nothing less. And the best way to ensure “indefinitely” lasts for 20 years or longer is to not have a clear mission or clear goals.

Shares of Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. jumped more than 10% in premarket trading in New York following reports from Bloomberg sources that Grand Theft Auto VI will be released in December.

Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., announced in Feb. 2022 that development was underway for the next Grand Theft Auto game. The upcoming release next month will mark the 25th anniversary of the action-adventure series that first debuted in 1997. 

Last September, hackers published hours of footage from unfinished versions of the video game online. One of the most significant differences in the new version of the game is a playable female protagonist named “Lucia.”

GTA 6 will be the first release since GTA 5 debuted in 2013 and has sold more than 185 million copies, making it the second-best-selling video game ever, behind Minecraft. The game features gang violence, nudity, extremely coarse language, and drug and alcohol abuse – not suitable for children – but over the years, that has not stopped youth from playing the game. 

“GTA 6 RELEASE DATE + TRAILER DROPPING NEXT WEEK,” one user on X said. 

Folks have been waiting ten years for GTA VI. 

We’ve been waiting 10 years for GTA 6!! pic.twitter.com/Z8g6rISYXj

— Joe | GTA 6 Info (@GTASixInfo) November 8, 2023

Shares of Take-Two Interactive jumped 10%. 

The planned release of the violent video game comes as America’s youth has been desensitized to violence – just take a look at the lawlessness in metro areas (read: here & here) – thank Hollywood. Meanwhile, progressive lawmakers ignore media companies pushing violent video games and movies and instead focus on disarming law-abiding Americans.