♦️ In a statement, TPUSA spokesperson Matt Shupe said, "It's a free country. If a few protestors want to waste their weekend, shouting vile obscenities and making fools of themselves outside of an event with 3,000 young, positive, patriotic women, they can have at it. It's just further proof TPUSA is over the target."
https://t.co/LctwXECpHi
https://t.co/rh9PFJ0r5Y
Completely blown away by this.
Today I was recognised by President Zelenskyy with the Order of Merit. A profound honour.
Right now powerful people want the truth about Ukraine buried. It’s a privilege to be able to tell it. ❤️🇺🇦🔥
I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?
Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?
The editors said it was too much, they explained.
The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.
It is absolutely bizarre when your good friend’s absolutely terrible ex-boyfriend runs for Senate, and I’m proud of Lyndsey telling the NYT about the guy whose insanity is so legendary we forgot he was a real person until he wormed his way into politics.
This is inversion so callous it's hard to believe.
The Holocaust had a survival rate of about 30%. Millions of people disappeared from European cities and towns over several years. Everybody knew because it was happening all around them.
Gaza has a survival rate, despite the worst and most deadly and horrible periods of the war, of 97%.
All the dead Jews were noncombatants. A large percentage of the dead Gazans were combatants.
And the Jews of Europe, even as their millennia-old civilization was being systematically wiped out, wanted nothing from the societies that surrounded them except to be allowed to live in peace.
Gaza's leadership of religious fanatics, meanwhile, wants every last Israeli dead and gone, is willing to fight to the last Gazan to achieve that aim, has said so publicly and worked for decades to blow up every peace attempt -- and even now believes that Gaza's destruction would be a worthwhile sacrifice to lay on the altar of Israel's destruction, because their god told them so.
So Israelis can reasonably believe, given those features of the Gaza war that aren't true about any genocide ever, and were pretty much the opposite of what was happening in the Holocaust, that Gaza's suffering is a bad and painful war, but not remotely a genocide.
But the point of it all, of course, is not to analyze Gaza, but specifically to lump it together with the Holocaust -- to cast the Jews as the new Nazis.
The only reason this person would dare to make such an insanely ahistorical and immoral parallel is because this is the heart of the bigoted propaganda campaign in which he enthusiastically participates: The point of it all is to make the Jews into the Nazis.
A culture that obsessed about Jews being evil and was then shocked by the Holocaust into obsessing about dead Jews as the apotheosis of righteous victimhood is now obsessively engaged in knocking Jews off that moral pedestal they themselves put them on.
That's why they don't care one whit about Hamas massacres of Gazans, about genocidal wars in Syria or Yemen (even when they've funded and armed the sides), about flotilla activists currently held by the Libyans...literally nothing triggers a response except Jews.
They still, even after all these generations, no matter what else is happening in the world or in their own societies, can't stop thinking about Jews.
And as we Jews learned in the 1940s -- the actual, historical 1940s, not the weird fantasies conjured up by these bigots -- a whole society can be in the grip of a callous, destructive bigotry and still believe it is true and righteous.
A team of scholars is challenging the allegation that Johns Hopkins — the business titan and philanthropist who founded the university bearing his name 150 years ago — was a slaveowner.
Sydney van Morgan, director of the university's international studies program, and Ed Papenfuse, a historian who directed the state archives between 1975 and 2013, are among the researchers who spent five years investigating a bombshell claim the university itself made in December 2020 — that Hopkins, whose reputation as an abolitionist the school had long touted as basic to its identity as a progressive institution, owned one enslaved person in 1840 and four others as of 1850.
But the authors of "A Maryland Mystery: Johns Hopkins, Slavery and the Census of 1850," a scholarly article in the current issue of Maryland Historical Magazine, say the research on which the 2020 claim about Hopkins was based fails to prove the startling charge — and that the preponderance of evidence actually suggests the founder never owned enslaved people.
🎥: Lloyd Fox, @baltimoresun
@CarterElliottIV Republicans and Independents in Montgomery County are registering Democrat for the primary in order to have a voice in the County Executive race.
@ilovenaples000@RealSpitfire@sascorpio1113@nicksortor They’re work animals, mostly of the Percheron breed. Big, strong calm draft horses. Very effective, when operating as a unit, at moving crowds and breaking up static protest lines.