| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comedian Roseanne Barr talks with fellow YouTuber Tal Oran (The Travelling Clatt) and another guy.
The other guy has recently visited Jerusalem for the first time. He gives his impressions. Which I agree with. Namely that Jerusalem is unique, magical, special. A kaleidoscope of humanity in all its ethnicities, religions, races and beliefs. All bumping up with each other and getting along. He finds Jerusalem very special. And so did we.
I’ve lived, I've spent three years or more, in some of the world's major cities. Tokyo, Sydney, Canberra, Rome, New York, Berlin, Cape Town, London, Beijing, Shanghai and now Hong Kong. Even compared to these wonderful places, Jerusalem is most special. Really! And utterly so.
I remember our own visit. The Nuns in full habit, Muslim women in chador, Muslim men in their Dishdasha and Kufi, Jewish men in their funny hats and curly side whiskers, and we atheists in our daggy shorts and flip-flops, all wandering through this wonderland of sights, sounds and smells, unhassled, unruffled.
This city is unique. There is none approaches it in the world, let alone in the Arab world.
Would you rather a country where this interaction and mutual rubbing along is possible? Or one in which all but Muslims are expelled, repressed? Would you rather, in short, an Israel; or a Syria? An Israel or an Iran?
There is not a single Arab country run as well, or even half as well, as Israel. I've been to many: Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, UAE, Qatar. Not just Arab, there’s Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia too. There's not a single Muslim country, of the 57 in the world, that is run well. That’s not just me saying that. The United Nations Human Development Report concludes the same: countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference countries all at the bottom of the rankings. (Added: some of the Gulf countries are run well, as in competently; they do not pass the democracy and freedom test, however).
Islam is a curse. A curse on Muslims as much as we "infidels". Stating ths simple truth makes me a horrid right-winger, of course. Don’tcha know… all cultures are equal! Well yeah, but nah. Some are more equal than others. And some are a whole lot worse.
A western culture which allows free speech, equal rights for all religions, for all minorities and for all beliefs, that gives equal and fair treatment, to women, to the LGBT community, such a culture is superior to one which is supremacist, homophobic, misogynist, censorious and intolerant of anyone not of their beliefs.
In short: Western culture is good; Islamic culture is bad. If any Occasional Reader (OR) has a different view I’d be pleased to hear it. Especially pleased to hear how today’s Islam is even equal to today’s western culture, let alone better.
Have at it.
https://youtu.be/3jVBcsXoriU?si=pMH8uKZFeoL8b407
PS: I forgot to say. Roseanne may be “just” a comedian. She’s a YouTuber now. A commenter. She has clear-headed, sharp, insightful views. I enjoy her.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
A. When information comes from the Israeli Defence Forces, it is to be doubted, by default, until and unless it can be unimpeachably verified, by at least several sources.B. When the information comes from Hamas, or any of its surrogates, like the Hamas Ministry of Health, or the UNRWA, it is to be accepted, by default, unless there is immediate, clear and unambiguous debunking of the claim. Even then, even if it is debunked, the debunking will be reported at the bottom of page 57.
Re "B" above, the most recent and egregious example of this was the photo on the front page of the New York Times. A Gazan woman is holding a severely malnourished infant in her arms, just skin and bones. The story was that this child was starving to death in his mother's arms because Israel was withholding food.
It turned out that this was a photo of a boy who was suffering from a birth defect of severe, and incurable, Muscular Dystrophy. His younger brother, who had been cropped from the photo, was in perfectly good shape, when the full photo was revealed. The New York Times had carried the photo on its main digital page, "The New York Times dot com", with its 55 Million subscribers.
When the NYT were forced to retract the photo, they did so on their "NYT PR" page, which has 55 thousand subscribers. IOW, only 0.1% of the readers of the original, and horrific photo, would have seen the retraction. Of course, the NYT can say "we retracted the photo as soon as we knew it was fake".
What the NYT did NOT do -- nor did the many western media outlets that also carried the photo -- was to try to verify the photo before publishing. They didn't do so because it had come from Hamas, and ... see "B" above.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dear Jewish community in Australia,
Thoughts on contemplating the Bridge Bigot Brigade:
Because of the principles in this Declaration, Israel is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, with equal rights for all, including its 22% of Arab citizens.[Article 13] THE STATE OF ISRAEL will ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it. (Preamble)
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. (Article 13)
The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression. (2017, Article iv).
These are two foundational documents. The Israeli Declaration of Independence and the Hamas Charter. Both are still in effect.
[Article 13] THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Because of the principles in this Declaration, Israel is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, with equal rights for all, including its 22% of Arab citizens.
ADDED: Israel called on the very people that were then attacking them, to join in building the State of Israel:
[Article 16]. WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. [Here]
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it. (Preamble)
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. (Article 13)
The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression. (2017, Article iv).
Could there be more stark differences between a Declaration of “peace and freedom for all” vs a Charter of “kill all the Jews? Kill all people who re not Muslims?” There is much much more, along similar lines to make this point a fortiori.
Because of the principles in this Charter, Gaza is a uni-cultural, uni-ethnic, uni-religious, xenophobic, genocidal state with no rights for minorities, gays, women, Jews.
Gaza population: 2 million. Number of Jews: 0. Number of Christians: 700, mostly foreign aid workers. Number of Arab Muslims: 1.999 million.
The Hamas Charter makes clear in many places that it is explicitly genocidal. It urges killing all Jews in all of "Palestine" and then in all the world.
These things in mind, it's a bit of a "thing I don't get" why people are violently anti-Israel, and worshipfully pro-Hamas. And are proud to repeat, to chant, the doctrines and hatreds of this vile outfit.
“Free, free Palestine”. It’s nonsense. And implicitly genocidal.
Me... I love Israel, Jews and their cult of life. I hate Hamas and their cult of death.
Love Israel; Hate Hamas.
I'm not buying any moral equivalence. One of these is good. The other is bad. T'were ever thus and remains thus.
Central Hong Kong, from Discovery Bay, before our wild thunderstorms of the last coupla days.
I read this essay decades ago.
It's worth reading again, when socialism seems to have a hold on young people in America. To the extent of making an avowed Marxist, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York. He's full of crazy ideas, ideas that will provably, from past experience -- that I've personally experienced in 1970s China -- be the ruination of New York.
I, Pencil, is about how freedom to make choices on where and when to buy and sell, create the best products, for the most people, at the best price.
I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.∗
Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that's all I do.
You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery—more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, “We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders.”
I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.
Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.
Pick me up and look me over. What do you see?ttps://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/read-i-pencil-my-family-tree-as-told-to-leonard-e-read-dec-1958
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| Click above or here |
Aussie-based Musk fan-boy and Tesla Bull, Steven Mark Ryan, conducts a test. Which he describes above. Interesting.
I got the same results when I Googled "Tesla". Every single result was negative.
The real crime here by Google is that they post anecdotes not data. Anecdotes about one single accident of a Tesla using self-drive software.
Whereas the data are these:
1. Tesla vehicles are the safest cars in America. The Model Y has been rated THE safest car in America, for the past seven straight years, as tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Here.
2. The Tesla FSD "Full Self Driving", with human oversight, is NINE times safer than driving without the FSD. Here.
To repeat: driving with Tesla's self-driving software is FIVE times safer than driving by oneself. That's the real story. Not that there's the occasional crash. For there will always be. But that it's way safer, by almost an order of magnitude, to use Tesla's FSD than it is to drive oneself. Imagine the benefits for society at large when this software becomes the standard. The benefits will run into the billions, apart from the benefits of fewer families ripped apart by the tragedy of a serious car accident.
These facts are surely relevant.
But not to Google.
You find them nowhere in the Google results. How can this be a fair search result? Obviously it is not.
Turns out that YouTube, for all its own faults and biases, does a better and fairer job than Google in giving a balanced story.
Musk and Tesla are improving life in America. Its environment and its people. But the mainstream hates him. Because, you know, Trump. And Doge. That is a seriously warped view, IMO. One that is bad for America.
https://youtu.be/7c2Pmjxhpes?si=ensJKN4jwDwxnLWF
For the record: Tesla Bulls and Bears are here
 |
| Photo taken by Sail Magazine camera boat |
Popped up in my daily photo feed this morning.
That’s me on the helm. We won that regatta.
Koh Samui is an island off the East coast of Thailand. It’s very beautiful. We sail Xena down from Hong Kong. Takes about a week of sailing.
Ahhh… those were the days! Of youth and ease of movement. When I was a stripling of 61.
Xena is an X-55 by X-Yachts in Denmark. We bought her new in 2008.
 |
| Click above for the video |
There are really only two sources: Hamas or Israel. Most of the world, most of the media, most of academia, most of the people I know, most everyone, takes their information from Hamas. Often without checking as happened with the image of the skeletal boy, allegedly dying of hunger, that went viral last week.
I take my news from representatives of Israel, usually the IDF. And from people who are in Israel, and in Gaza, with feet on the ground.
There is no guarantee that one or the other is the most accurate. Just that history has shown, in previous wars with the Palestinians, the information from the IDF has been found to be vastly more accurate than that trom Hamas. Information from Hamas is often wrong deliberately. Where the IDF is wrong it's by accident.
That's the facts of the matter on this issue of information. The truth.
To Hamas: "Surrender. Release the hostages. Put your weapons down". Result: peace and no more hunger for the children of Gaza.
This is what I've long said on these pages. That the blame for what is happening in Gaza has to be placed clearly, repeatedly and unabiguously on who deserves the blame. Hamas.
That the Israel’s many enemies have a huge incentive to promote the idea that Israel is using starvation as a tool of warfare. The New York Times, along with most major media outlets throughout the world, turned a photo of a skeletal toddler in Gaza, Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, into a rallying cry against the supposed Israeli policy of starvation. But the outlets did not report that the boy was born with a muscular disorder, which helped explain his sickly appearance, and they did not print part of a photo that showed his healthy-looking brother beside him. Days after the deception was exposed, the New York Times, which ran the photo on the front page, quietly updated the story, but only after the original photo had been spread around the world....Trump, who is clearly growing frustrated and angry about the conditions in Gaza, has been right to forcefully speak out against moves to reward Hamas by recognizing a Palestinian state, and to point the finger where it belongs. On Thursday morning, with his envoy Steve Witkoff in Israel for talks about a cease-fire and the situation in Gaza, Trump posted on Truth Social: “The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES!!!” If the rest of the world were to echo this statement, rather than attacking Israel, there’d be a better chance for a deal to end the war and allow more aid to reach the people of Gaza.
First up, why would you want to hurt anyone? Not physically, I mean, but verbally. Why?
Well, of course, the answer is you might want to hurt someone when you're in an argument and you're losing. The standard line then is to use ad hominem. That is to attack the person, not the argument.
If you're on the Left and you're losing an argument to someone on the Right, you might use one of these old favourites:
And so on. And on, and on...
But I reckon the one that's a real arrow to the heart of your conservative interlocutor (hereinafter, m'lud, known as "the enemy"), before you blow them right off, before you leave the field of battle, before you ghost them on FB and cancel them from your life, is this one:
"You're just captured by your YouTube feed"
[Or Facebook or Instagram, or Tik Tok, or whatever]
Sure, this one looks feeble compared to the others above. But consider this:
First, it is of course ad hominem. It says nothing at all about argument being made by your enemy.
Second, it demeans your enemy. It condescends to them. It tells them they are foolish and naive. That they don't have the brain to discriminate, that they can't sort the wheat from the chaff. That they are subject to the craziest of conspiracy theories on the internet. That they believe anything they read and see. In short, That they can't think for themselves.
My counters are these:
Most people are not engaged with politics. They get on with their lives without worrying about any of the stuff that some of us do and that I do in the posts of this blog. It's perhaps only around 30% of the population that has enough of a deep interest in these topics to get to the stage of having to need a killer counter. This varies by age, with older folks more interested than younger. In the US, only 9% of 18-29 year olds are interested.
Of that 10 to 30% everyone is biased. Everyone. As I discussed here, years ago.
Most of us never go the the battle front, or to famine areas, or enter halls of Congress. Even those that do are not unbiased. They'll be affected by what they se and experience. We know from many war memoirs, for example, that the same battle, let alone the same war, will be seen so differently by everyone writing about it.
The challenge then is to try to understand as many facets of an issue as you can.
And here we have interesting data: those on the Left tend to read and watch only media on the left. Those on the Right tend to read both Left and Right media. Even if the conservatives did not do so, they are swimming in a sea of media, of government, of academia that leans heavily Left. So those on the Right have a default setting of being more aware of the other side's arguments than vice versa.
As for social media "capture", I can only speak about YouTube, as I don't do FB or Instagram. I'm on X mainly to see what important people of the world are saying.
Does YT "capture" folks? Does it "grab" people on the Right, to drive them down rabbit holes of disinformation, delusion and conspiracy? For sure there are some. But there are also people on the Left who are lured down rabbit holes. We learn in David Harsanyi's "The Rise of Blue Anon" about the conspiracy theories on the Left. Including the Grand-daddy of them all, the one that like a Zombie just wll not die -- the Russia collusion hoax.
YouTube has its downsides and dangers (for some). But overall I consider it a wonderful tool for humanity. We are blessed and privileged to have it. Never before in the history of humankind have we been able, at the press of a button, to see the speeches of world leaders, to watch debates in real time, to participate in Town Hall meetings, to listen to long-form podcasts with people of high intellect.
Am I "captured" by these? By only one side of the debate? Do I seek only confirmation bias via YouTube videos?
I won't say mea culpa. Because I'm not guilty, m'lord. Non mea culpa. Non ego felum. I am not to blame!
On YouTube I subscribe to a decent number of left-leaning sites. The likes of Pod Save America, the Daily and Charlamagne Tha God. On X, née Twitter, I follow about 300 people and I've made it personal policy to have half and half on each side of the aisle. So that I see posts even by the egregious Robert Reich. (Who has said, this Titan of the Left, "The Republican Party wants to turn American into a theocracy". Yeah, right Rob...).
So, yeah, I would find it pretty offensive to be told "you're just captured by your YouTube feed".
I'd rather be called a "racist" if it's a choice of slurs. I don't think I've ever been called a racist, TBH. Nor a "xenophobe". The closest call came in an encounter in our local supermarket. I was in line to pay and was idly eavesdropping on a young couple, mainlanders chatting in Mandarin. I guessed they were now living in California, as when they spoke to any other gweilo in the queue, they spoke in fluent SoCal. Then, something weird. The guy up and tried to push in front of me. I remonstrated. "Hey buddy, I'm in line here!". He went back to his wife and said to her, huffily, in Chinese Bai Pi Zhu, "White Skin Pig". Which is pretty racist I thought. I considered a stinging retort in Chinese -- was working on one -- but then was my turn to pay and I left without saying anything. I felt fine about that, because as with any of these racist issues, it's the person making the comment who's the dickhead. The bigot. They're the one fault, not you.
Just as I'm not the one at fault for wanting to read widely, on all sides of the aisle, and watch widely as well, on the wonder of modern technology called YouTube. Where I am not captured. No, not at all.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| Click above for video. |
 |
| We sat right here, in the water, by the steps |
She's from Long Island, in New York, over here seeing her grandkids and enjoying the balmy pool with them.
I lived on Long Island, I say. "Well, right opposite Long Island" I correct. In New Rochelle in the early 1960s. I went to New Rochelle Primary School. "Which was still there when I went back in 2008", I tell her, gratuitously. "Oh, right", she feigns interest.
Turns out that we're both the same age, THL and I. Mid seventies.
We both recall the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy Debate. We sat there in 1960 New York City -- she in Long Island, me in Manhattan, in our temporary digs before we moved to New Rochelle -- in front of our creaky, our cranky, black & white television sets, glued to the spectacle. [*]
THL recalls that her family were the first on their block with a television set so they had all their neighbours around to watch the debate. They were all Nixon supporters, she told me. "But me, I loved Kennedy", she said. "Only nine years old, but for some reason I loved him!". I think I knew the reason.... JFK, the Charmer.
I was also for Kennedy I told her. Me, the ten-year old. Loved the looks! Could I possibly have had any view of his policies, as a ten-year old?
THL asked me why I was in New York. "My dad worked at the United Nations", I said. "He was a junior Australian representative to the General Assembly." "Oh", she says, impressed.
Nothing to be impressed by, I now think. The UN is a corrupt organisation and was even then as my father was to find out. But that's another story, which I didn't want to share with THL. What I did share with her was: "My dad came home from work one day and said 'guess what Kruschev did today? He took his shoe off and banged it on the table!'". She giggles and remembers. "That was famous", she says.
At some stage THL let's rip against Trump, something about not being able to be proud of the US, of being American, not even worth becoming an American citizen, until "we've changed to a better president". I don't say much other than that the younger generation, Millenials and Gen Z, especially the men, are trending Rep supporting, as are Latinos and even parts of the Black community. We Boomers, I note, are mostly Dems, but I changed along the way. Have become a non-American who supports Trump.
THL is shocked. Shakes her head, sadly.
She says she used to think that maybe Trump was generally authentic if crude, but now she thinks he is an out-and-out liar. "He lies about everything", she says, "every single thing".
"Like what?" I ask. Just tell me. I'm interested to know.
She comes up with four things. All lies. She says.
I'll summarise them here:
1. He has claimed that America's international reputation has improved. That's a lie. The world now despises America. (She says)
2. He says he's never been to Epstein Island. That's a lie. (She says)
3. He says he negotiated peace between India and Pakistan. That's a lie. (She says)
4. He says he negotiated peace between the Congo and Rwanda. Again, that's a lie. (She says)
I didn't respond to these allegations at the time. I haven't paid much attention to any of these issues. I've only read the headlines. So I muttered something along those lines, and then moved on. THL then said she had to organise the kids and move on. I said, a bit cheekily: "you aren't cutting me off, are you? Now that you know I'm a Trump supporter?". "Oh, no", she says, "I'm sure we'll see each other again!". Well, hehe...
So, now let me look a bit more closely at these alleged lies of Trump's.
This one, it seems to me, is not a matter of truth or lie. It's more a matter of perception. THL believes that the world sees the US more negatively. I don't think so. I can remember Trump term 1 (T45) when the German delegation to the UN openly giggled and mocked Trump's claim that relying on Russian gas would be a disaster (as it indeed turned out to be). And I recall the ways he was treated in Europe in his first term visits. By contrast, in his second term visits as T47, like to the NATO summit and recently to Scotland, the body language of leaders towards him was much more respectful and even obsequious.
Democrats are going to believe that the US reputation has been sullied by him, no matter what he does and no matter what the evidence. I'm going to believe what I see of his interactions with world leaders. On that basis, it seems clear to me, if not to the THL's of the world, that president Trump is now very much respected, if not admired in the world.
I forgot to mention his Middle East trip, where he was treated like a King. Of course that's the wrong metaphor for Dems, who fear an alleged Trump penchant for "king-hood", but it was clear that the leaders of the Gulf states treated him with enormous respect.
In NATO, meanwhile, Trump got them to agree to a 5% of GDP (up from 2%) spend on defence. "Of course they won't do that", says THL. But how does she know? In any case, the first step to getting an increase in defence spend by Europeans, who have been living off American largesse since WW2, is to get a commitment and that's what Trump has done. Something that no other president has been able to do, to now.
Net-net on that one: if you're a Dem, you think Trump has ruined the global brand of the US. And if you're a Rep, you think Trump has improved the global brand of the US. I think there's more evidence for the latter. But whatever, it's not a "lie". It's a perception.
Has Trump been to "Little Saint James", aka Epstein island? Trump says no. THL says he has and that he's lying.
I don't know what the truth is. THL doesn't know what the truth is. No one in that swimming pool knows what the truth is. No one in Discovery Bay, in Hong Kong, knows what the truth is.
That being the case, I don't know how THL can make a bald, bold statement like "Trump has definitely been to the island".
Apart from Trump's denials, there is no evidence in the public domain that suggests he ever visited. There is not a scrap of evidence. ZERO evidence that he has done so. None, nada, zip.
Trump never said "I negotiated peace between India and Pakistan", or anything similar.
However, according to reports, Trump's proactive engagement, supported by Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, facilitated a ceasefire. This intervention is credited with halting a conflict that risked spiraling into a broader war, potentially saving countless lives and stabilizing the region.
Pakistan's leadership, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, publicly praised Trump’s “pivotal and paramount role” in securing the ceasefire. He has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize (!) for his "strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship."
Pope Leo, and European diplomats lauded the ceasefire, and the part Trump played in it.
I'd say that counts as having played a part; at the very least. And surely gives lie to the THL assertion that Trump had nothing to do with having "achieved peace". He was clearly instrumental in doing so. Which debunks THL.
Trump never said "I negotiated peace between Congo-Rwanda", or anything similar.
He did call it a “glorious triumph” during the signing ceremony at the White House on June 27, 2025. I watched that signing ceremony. Congolese Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner called it a “remarkable milestone”.
1. The reputation of the United States has improved since Trump.2. Trump was never on Epstein island. At least as far as any public record exists.3. President Trump was instrumental in bringing peace to two world conflicts: in India-Pakistan and Congo-Rwanda, for which he has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace prize.
Somebody that hates Trump makes statements about Trump's alleged "lies", which turn out themselves to be lies.
Here endeth the lesson.
ADDED: For the avoidance of doubt: Trump has lied and does lie. So has and so does every politician in the history of the world. Does Trump do so more than others? I don't know, though perhaps. He most surely does more hyperbole than every other president in history, although I'm not sure that's a bad thing. And I do know that Joe Biden lied more, with more consequential lies than ever Trump did. And if challenged on that, I could well do another post.
Bottom line: if you're going to accuse someone of lying, especially a president and especially of "lying all the time" you better be able to back it up. THL would not be able to, at least for the specific accusations made.
=======================================
[*] ADDED: That September 1960 Nixon-Kennedy presidential debate is remembered for being the first ever presidential debate. It was said that people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won; those that watched it on TV, like THL and me, thought Kennedy had won. His good looks! His youth! Wikipedia notes:Nixon insisted on campaigning until just a few hours before the first debate started. He had not completely recovered from his stay in hospital, and thus looked pale, sickly, under-weight, and tired.[51]
His eyes moved across the room during the debate, and at various moments, sweat was visible on his face. He also refused make-up for the first debate, and as a result, his facial stubble showed prominently on black-and-white TV screens.
Furthermore, the debate set appeared darker once the paint dried up, causing Nixon's suit color to blend in with the background, reducing his stature.[51] Nixon's poor appearance on television in the first debate was reflected by the fact that his mother called him immediately following the debate to ask if he was sick.[52]
Kennedy, by contrast, rested and prepared extensively beforehand and thus appeared tanned,[f] confident, and relaxed during the debate.[54] Some estimated that 70 million viewers watched the first debate,[55] ....
