🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸

Husband | paralegal | bulldogs | Jets fan | proud Levinite | intellectual introspection | conservative disposition | healthy skepticism | moral objectivism

[Aimen Dean @AimenDean]

There is a growing blind spot in Washington’s understanding of Iran - one Israelis and Gulf Arabs grasp more clearly than many in the Trump camp or Europe.

This is not just about missiles or sanctions. It is about belief: the Mahdist narrative gaining influence within the IRGC, Iran’s hardliners, and supporters of Mojtaba Khamenei.

Many inside the regime now believe Iran survived recent crises not because of diplomacy or restraint, but because of “the unseen hands of the Mahdi” protecting its divine mission.

That is the real danger.

For years, the West dismissed Iran’s apocalyptic rhetoric as symbolic. But in times of war and survival, such beliefs can morph into fanatical operational devotion!

Within IRGC circles, Mojtaba Khamenei is increasingly linked to the “Khorasani” figure from Shi’a prophecy - a leader from eastern Iran who survives foreign attacks amid regional chaos. Hardliners also cast Abdul Malik al-Houthi as the “Yamani,” destined to align with him in a wider regional struggle.

None of this proves prophecy. But movements driven by apocalyptic conviction do not need their beliefs to be true to become dangerous. They only need followers willing to act on them.

That is the risk now facing the region.

If Tehran emerges bruised but intact - convinced America ultimately backed down - the result will not be moderation. It will be vindication of the “Unseen protective hands of the Mahdi” narrative!

The IRGC will see survival as divine endorsement. Every survived strike and every Western hesitation will reinforce the belief that the regime is protected because it serves a sacred mission.

That is how political movements become messianic ones.

The Middle East has seen this before. Al-Qaeda mythologized bin Laden’s survival. ISIS turned Baghdadi into an apocalyptic symbol. In both cases, symbolism mattered as much as military strength.

Once a movement becomes eschatological, deterrence weakens. Sacrifice becomes sacred, and endless conflict becomes a path to redemption.

That is why unfinished wars carry risks.

If America retreats ambiguously while Iran grows more convinced of its divine mission, the result may not be a weaker Iran, but a more radicalized and dangerous revolutionary axis stretching across the region and seeking nuclear weapons, not for deterrent, but for intimidation!

The danger is not simply that the Islamic Republic survives.

The danger is that it believes God/Mahdi ensured its survival.

And once states begin viewing geopolitics as divine destiny, the region enters a far darker phase.

[Just Facts @realjustfacts]

Murphy claims that “our elections in this country are wildly clean.”

IN FACT, scientific surveys of non-citizens combined with voter registration records in 2008, 2012, and 2022 found that roughly 10% to 27% of non-citizens in the U.S. are illegally registered to vote, and about half of these people turned out to vote.

Attempts to dispute those facts by the New York Times, NPR, the BBC, PolitiFact, Snopes, the Cato Institute, and others suffer from these fatal flaws:

• They fail to account for the reality that identity fraud is rampant among illegal immigrants, and California Senate Leader Kevin De Leon (D) confessed that “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification,” such as “a false Social Security card,” “a false driver’s license,” or “a false green card.”

• They assert that the non-citizen voters in the surveys were actually citizens who mistakenly identified themselves as non-citizens, but in reality, this claim never had merit and was recently demolished by a verifying survey question that found “an error rate of 0.”

• They invoke the authority of “over 200 political scientists” who said that the survey results are unreliable when, in reality, their argument was based entirely on the discredited claim that citizen voters misidentified themselves as non-citizens.

• They employ mathematically illiterate arguments, like assuming that the main driver of survey statistical power is numerators when, in reality, it is denominators.

• They falsely refer to straightforward applications of survey data as “extrapolations” while routinely citing similar figures without tagging them with that misleading label.

• They declare that the surveys don’t “constitute a representative sample” of non-citizens when, in reality, the evidence suggests they do.

• They allege that convictions for voter fraud are the only firm evidence on this issue when, in reality, convictions are a highly incomplete measure because the laws are frequently unenforced, and there are large loopholes to avoid them.

• They downplay the academic credentials of scholars who conduct studies that find significant rates of illegal voter registration while ignoring the political donations of scholars who contest them.

• They purge hyperlinks when quoting key statements from research on this issue, thus misportraying thoroughly documented facts as unsupported assertions.

• They cite narrow, warped, and futile measures that grossly underestimate the rate of non-citizen voter registration without disclosing the fallacies, assumptions, and limitations that underlie these measures.

Every illegal vote cast by a non-citizen nullifies the legal vote of a citizen, thereby subverting their Constitutional right to vote.

Based on the latest available data, roughly 1.0 million to 2.7 million non-citizens illegally voted in the 2024 national elections.

Instead of reporting these facts or mitigating this threat to every citizen’s right to vote, major media outlets, “fact checkers,” certain scholars, and leading Democrats are denying this problem exists.

Hyperlinks to the sources of all the facts above are available at https://t.co/i6GuxjTt4m

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

Ultimately, punitive tools designed to isolate or punish adversaries by making their exports prohibitively expensive cuts to the heart of trade as power politics: if we're okay with crippling true enemies (say, via expanded Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 tariffs) economically, let's call it war and face the consequences squarely. Without that, it's shadowboxing—economic pain without accountability.

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

Historically, several countries have been invaded or conquered despite—or sometimes because of—their adoption of neutrality or non-interventionist policies, which aggressors often viewed as opportunities for unopposed expansion, resource seizure, or strategic positioning. Primarily, from the 20th century, these countries would include:

1) Belgium and Luxembourg, during World War I.

2) Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Iceland, Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Iran, Yugoslavia, Monaco and San Marino, during World War II.

3) Qing China (19th Century) (weakened it against British invasions during the Opium Wars (1839–1842, 1856–1860), leading to territorial concessions though not full conquest).

During the classical era (800BC to 500 AD), Melos (Greece). When Melos appealed to its non-interventionist stance, Athens besieged and conquered it, executing adult males and enslaving the rest. Melos' isolation left it without allies, making it an easy target for Athenian imperialism.

During the dark ages/early middle ages (500-1000 AD), post-Roman Britain (lack of centralized authority or external alliances facilitated gradual takeover) and Visigothic Kingdom (Iberian Peninsula) (Non-intervention by potential allies and internal fractures played key roles in this vulnerability).

During the high and late middle ages (1000–1500), Kievan Rus' (Eastern Europe) (lack of unified intervention, rooted in princely autonomy, mirrored isolationism by prioritizing separation over joint action, enabling total subjugation under the Golden Horde) and Ireland (absence of cohesive defense against opportunistic invaders).

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

Something Doesn’t Add Up in New Jersey’s Election Results — and Pollsters Know It https://t.co/7sWlWX1WyS

[Just Facts @realjustfacts]

Democrats, Republicans, and “fact checkers” are all misleading the public about taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants and the government shutdown.

Here’s an overview of the actual facts of this matter, which are rigorously documented in the article linked below:

• Contrary to Democrats and certain “fact checkers,” Senate Democrats are demanding significant amounts of taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants in exchange for opening the government for merely one month.

• Contrary to Republicans, healthcare for illegal immigrants, even under the broadest definition of that term, accounts for less than 13% of the Democrat bill that would enact their demands.

• Contrary to the figures quoted by nearly everyone, the Democrat bill would cost multiples of what is commonly reported. This is because it creates permanent welfare benefits, but politicians and journalists are only citing the cost estimates for the next 10 years.

Abraham Lincoln said that we can “meet any national crisis” if we have “real facts.”

Unlike the shallow, false media coverage of this issue, Just Facts has conducted painstaking research of the pertinent laws, bills, regulations, agency reports, court rulings, and government data to bring you the real facts.

Read the article at: https://t.co/IrF3rOMhTG

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

@LJCenter SCOTUS positioned itself as the final authority on Federal law and the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. Implied as to the exercise of Article III power, rather than delegated by the Article I and II political branches, during the Jefferson Administration.

[Just Facts @realjustfacts]

IN FACT, the foundational document of the U.S. declares that our “unalienable Rights” come from our “Creator,” and the purpose of government is to “secure these rights.” In contrast, “separation of church and state” is a doctrine that leftists use to trample these rights:

• The Constitution of the Soviet Union, a regime that viciously repressed freedom of religion and all other rights, requires that the “church” be “separated from the state.”

• Vladimir Lenin, the primary founder and first leader of the Soviet Union, stated that “we reject ethics” based on “God’s commandments” and “our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests” of advancing Communism.

• Another Soviet leader stated, “There is neither soil nor sap on which religion can feed in the USSR” because “the Church is separated from the state — and the schools are in the hands of the state.”

• The Fascist Manifesto demands “rigidly secular” schools.

• The U.S. Constitution forbids government from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but it doesn’t call for “separation of church and state,” and it doesn’t require that all laws be based on atheistic morals.

• Leftists claim that the Constitution requires “separation of church and state,” because this phrase appears in a reply by Thomas Jefferson to a church association that wrote to Jefferson about the State of Connecticut flouting their freedom of religion.

• Jefferson’s reply says nothing about religious morals being excluded from government but that government can’t impose religious doctrines on the church.

• The same leftists disregard Jefferson’s explicit statement in the Declaration of Independence that “unalienable Rights” come from our “Creator.”

• The same leftists disregard Jefferson’s explicit statement about the Constitution forbidding the federal government from enacting social programs, which now comprise most federal government spending.

• The same leftists disregard Martin Luther King, Jr.’s explicit statement that “a just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”

• The same leftists disregard Abraham Lincoln’s explicit statement that the only way to “know right from wrong” is the Bible.

Every law imposes someone’s morals on society, including laws about murder, civil rights, welfare, taxes, pollution, bribery, speeding, and perjury. By demanding that religious morals be excluded from government, leftists try to use the power of the state to exclusively impose their own morals on everyone else.

Hyperlinks to the sources of all the facts above are available at https://t.co/XkM7TLqM1N

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

@JunkScience @VDHanson https://t.co/r9dMpWZ1aU

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

@MCTothSTL @realDonaldTrump @southpark did not air an episode this week. South Park’s 27th season continues next Wednesday, August 20.

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

Here's the thing about being "criminally responsible & liable for" inciting others to commit genocide. The "incitement" actually must involve actions that would amount to "genocide" if they were undertaken.

Crazy concept, no? This is the problem with legal pluralism. Now every Tom, Dick & Karen with access to an internet connection & Google thinks they're an expert on international law. Judging by the circulation of this QTd post by @identitykrysis, there is no shortage of people on social media too gullible to recognize she doesn't know what she's talking about - or too blinded by ideology to care.

And how do we know Avice doesn't know what she's talking about? Let's have a closer look, shall we?

It's worth noting at the outset of the analysis that this will be a rather long post in order to address the issue fairly comprehensively. But, as an added bonus for anyone who is interested enough to make it all the way through, there is a rather amusing punchline at the end. Spoiler alert: it involves the criminal offense of defamation!

Ok, let's start with the most obvious tell that Avice doesn't know what she's talking about - a point I raised at the beginning: "incitement" to commit "genocide" must involve actually encouraging someone else to commit...wait for it...genocide! And is that what Mr. Jeremy Levi (@jerlevi) does in the post Avice quotes. Nope! Here's why.

If you check his post (pic 1), Mayor Levi is actually calling for (shall we say inciting?) @Israel to "move forward with full occupation and annexation of Gaza" while explaining his rationale for saying so. Now, this is obviously a controversial proposal, and there will predictably be strong opinions in favor of & against.

There's no need to weigh in on the advisability or even the acceptability of Levi's suggestion for present purposes. Whether one is generally for or against the full occupation & annexation of Gaza, there's one thing that is certain. Doing so would not be prima facie evidence that 🇮🇱 intends to commit "genocide" against the population in Gaza.

And how do we know that? Well, let's take a look at a provision of the Rome Statute Avice neglected to address: Article 6, Genocide!

If you're familiar with the Genocide Convention (which 🇨🇦 has also ratified), you'll notice art. 6 of the Rome Statute closely mirrors the definition of genocide established in the 1948 instrument. This is by design, as the intent of delegates in Rome during negotiations that led to adopting the founding statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 was to consolidate into a single treaty relevant aspects of int'l law that applied anyway as a matter of conventional or customary law in order to maximize the prospects of universal ratification. Even countries like 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱 that haven't ratified the Rome Statute generally agree with the substance of the treaty - though they have refrained from signing on mostly due to jurisdictional concerns that aren't necessarily relevant to the current analysis.

Ok, so pic 2 shows art. 6 (genocide) of the Rome Statute, and this definition closely resembles the one established in the Genocide Convention. For both versions, the central element is "intent to destroy, in whole or in part," a specified group "as such."

With the mental element for genocide in mind, go back & review Levi's post in pic 1. Now, there is certainly some assertive language encouraging Israel to take a new approach to the Palestinian population in Gaza. Full occupation & annexation. Act decisively. No more half-measures. Full throttle. And so on.

Notice any explicit language encouraging Israel to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as such? No, of course not. This is why his comments don't amount to incitement to commit "genocide." You would have to fill in a lot of gaps on your own & attribute much of your own judgement to his remarks - think what you will about them - to ascribe incitement to commit genocide (intent to destroy, in whole or in part, as such) to his post.

On that point, it's worth noting he begins the post with with, "If the rumours are true, then good." My understanding of "the rumors" circulating at the moment is that the intent of the plan is to move residents of Gaza to a designated area temporarily while more permanent arrangements are set up - with the ultimate goal of modifying the security posture between Israel & Gaza.

Again, opinions will certainly vary regarding the advisability & permissibility of this plan. But whatever one thinks of it, it is the exact opposite of genocide. If the intent were to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as outrageous as that sounds, that would be the plan circulating in the "rumors" to which Levi refers.

Instead, Levi is "inciting" Israel to act decisively & to change the status quo that has existed since at least disengagement in 2005. This doesn't constitute an intent to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as such. So the rumors don't amount to genocide, and Levi's encouragement to implement the rumors isn't incitement to commit genocide.

That addresses the substance of Avice's post. Let's take a look at some procedural aspects that further reveal she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Notice in the QTd post that Avice suggests Mayor Levi "appears to qualify as criminally responsible and liable" for inciting others to commit genocide? And that she refers only to the Rome Statute in support of that allegation (while conveniently including a screenshot of the incitement provision of the Rome Statute, but of course neglecting the genocide provision)?

So, here's the problem. Like many (but not all) countries globally, 🇨🇦 requires domestic implementation legislation to activate most int'l legal obligations domestically. Persons subject to Canadian jurisdiction, then, can't "qualify as CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE and LIABLE" by reference to the Rome Statute alone - even though 🇨🇦 has ratified the treaty.

The intuitive first place to look in domestic legislation to determine whether a person is criminally liable for an offense reflected in the Rome Statute is the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24).

Ah, but we have a slight problem regarding the offense of incitement to commit genocide. Even though this is reflected in the Rome Statute (as Avice so insightfully points out), this violation isn't directly incorporated by the CaH&WC Act. The term "genocide" is (pic 3), as is the offense of committing genocide. But incitement isn't incorporated directly here (this Act refers to applicable conventional or customary law, which could be a basis for incorporating incitement here - but read on for a more explicit basis for domestic prosecution of incitement to commit genocide).

But no need to despair. Just because incitement to commit genocide isn't incorporated by the CaH&WC Act, there are other aspects of domestic criminal law that might apply.

And what do you know? Sec. 318 (1) of Canada's Criminal Code establishes: "Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years" (pic 4).

So, the terminology of the domestic code ("advocates or promotes") doesn't exactly match that found in the Rome Statute ("directly and publicly incites others to commit"). BUT, both versions do require advocating or promoting (domestic) or inciting (Rome Statute) someone to commit...you guessed it...genocide!

And does Mayor Levi's post advocate or promote genocide? No, no it does not. See directly above in this post for further explanation why that is - icymi.

Okay, how can we be so sure Avice does not, in fact, know what she's talking about? Well, she forgets the "genocide" part of incitement to commit genocide, and she merely refers to the Rome Statute, without addressing domestic implementation legislation, to support the allegation that Mayor Levi "appears to qualify as criminally responsible and liable for" inciting (actually, advocating or promoting) genocide.

This means I don't have to know a thing about her professional background to detect that she has no clue what she's talking about. An actual lawyer, especially one who specializes in public international law, wouldn't (at least, shouldn't) make these simple mistakes. And if she did graduate from law school at some point? Well, the analysis above indicates she should seriously consider demanding a refund, because...damn.

One last substantive point before we get to the punchline at the end. If you've made it this far, you might be wondering what all this has to do with the term "legal pluralism" to which I referred at the outset.

Legal pluralism is a phenomenon that has been going on for quite a while - it's more popular now than ever before, in fact - even though most of us probably don't realize what it is or its practical effects. This is the big picture pov we should all consider when we encounter someone like Avice who clearly has no clue about which she is speaking (involving int'l law) but can still seem so confident & convincing nonetheless.

In short, legal pluralism is a movement intended to expand as much as possible the collection of people who have apparent authority to interpret, and even create, international law. If you scroll a bit down from the top of my TL right now, you'll notice a number of posts challenging perspectives on int'l law involving armed conflict expressed from people who are generally regarded in public discourse as "experts" on this subject.

And the broader that collection of "experts" becomes, the more convincing they appear in the forum of public opinion because they're all saying pretty much the same thing. Sound familiar?

Like I said, this has been going on for a long time. But the widespread effects of legal pluralism have really only become blatantly apparent in the wake of Oct 7. There are so many "experts" out there who don't know what they're talking about (which is bad enough) or do but are willing to distort int'l law to manipulate public opinion in a manner that supports their own preferred sociopolitical agenda anyway (which is way worse) that this "pluralistic" message ends up convincing increasingly more people to believe that it's actually legitimate & accurate.

And this, in turn, gives people like Avice who have no apparent personal or professional qualifications to publicly accuse an elected official of appearing "to qualify as criminally responsible and liable" for inciting genocide. I mean, if all these "experts" are out there spinning (bullshit) narratives about Israel committing genocide, why not accuse a mayor of a small town in Quebec of inciting the same?

Alright, so that is the substantive analysis demonstrating Avice doesn't know what she's talking about and the connection between her ignorance and legal pluralism. Remember I promised a punchline at the end for anyone who makes it this far? Here it is!

If you click on Avice's post I'm quoting here then navigate to her second reply to that post, you'll notice she took a screenshot of Mayor Levi's post she's quoting with her initial tweet & included the message: "For posterity, when he ends up deleting."

Wow. Imagine how confident you have to be in your accusation that someone appears "to qualify as criminally responsible and liable" for an offense - maybe even one of the worst imaginable pursuant to int'l law - to publicly muse that you want to preserve the proof of his malfeasance for later when the apparent offender tries to destroy the evidence of his own wrongdoing. Pretty confident, right?

Okay here's the funny part. As indicated above, Avice's assertion regarding potential criminal culpability of Mayor Levi's conduct has no basis in law or fact. But, her ALLEGATION that Levi appears "to qualify as criminally responsible and liable" for inciting genocide very well may violate Canada's prohibition against defamatory libel!!

But don't just take my word for it. You can Google Canada Criminal Code sec. 298 (1) and see for yourself. If you do, you'll find that "defamatory libel" is defined as "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published" (not pictured).

Yes, you may have noticed, as did I, that Avice was careful to hedge her bets a bit by saying Levi appears to qualify for such and such. But sec. 298 (2) has an answer for that: "A defamatory liable may be expressed directly or by insinuation" (also not pictured, emphasis added).

One last thing involving defamation before we close out for now. Every time this offense comes up someone responds with some version of "truth is a defense to defamation."

If that's your reply to this post, I'll know in advance you didn't make it to the bottom - because here's my clairvoyant response to you: THE ENTIRE SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS ABOVE FROM NEAR THE BEGINNING TO THE POINT WHERE I PICK BACK UP ON LEGAL PLURALISM DEMONSTRATES THE ALLEGATION OF INCITING GENOCIDE ISN'T TRUE.

Apologies for the all caps. There's almost always at least one in every bunch who ignorantly throws out the "truth" defense without thinking it through - so when that happens now and if I decide to respond, I'll just advise them to scroll down to the all caps part at the end of this post & then to stfu (politely, of course).

So, that's the funny part of this whole exchange. Avice is so convinced that Mayor Levi may delete his post in an attempt to avoid potential criminal liability for inciting "genocide" - even though she is the only one in that exchange who potentially committed a criminal offense (for her, defamation).

And if Mayor Levi and/or the Town of Hampstead decide to pursue civil damages for defamation pursuant to art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec but Avice decides to delete her post I'm quoting now, they're welcome to message me. I took a screenshot, for posterity.

One final housekeeping matter before I click "Post." H/t & ty to @gvonfire for tagging me in a reply to Avice's post QTd below. Without the tag, I may well have missed this gem of an "incitement" allegation. Much appreciated.

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

Messy New Jersey Voter Rolls Have More Than 32,000 ‘Questionable’ Voter Records, Report Says https://t.co/uc6US8X2Hd

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

Here's the problem with claiming that "committing acts of war without our permission is a consistent libertarian and constitutionalist position." Just like progressives on the left, libertarianism is driven by ideology rather than pragmatism & reality.

For libertarians, the general ideological starting position is foreign entanglements are bad because they could lead to foreign wars. Governments are more likely to curtail civil liberties in the name of national security during an armed conflict (think USA Patriot Act as a prime example), and this is fundamentally opposed to libertarian ideology.

Maintaining a strict ideological preference as the lens for viewing public policy and/or foreign relations means adherents start at their preferred perspective then work backward from there. This is just as true for progressives on the left as it is for libertarians on the right.

So if I were a devout libertarian (which I'm not), my starting point is no foreign conflicts for reasons mentioned above. If I were a devout progressive (which I also am not), my starting point might be no foreign conflicts because increased defense spending limits spending on social welfare programs (populist socialism) or I'm strictly opposed to war (pacifists) or I tend to focus on human suffering dimension rather than balancing that with national security interests (humanitarianism & bleeding hearts).

Obviously I've just covered a broader range of political left with progressives than I did for the right with libertarians. But both ends start with their preferred ideological outcome(s) then work backward from there when evaluating policies & actual events.

At the top of the horseshoe where the far ends of the left & right are closest, factions that on paper seem they should be diametrically opposed actually end up paradoxically appearing to align on many issues. If we were to ascribe sociopolitical camps based on representative high-profile media personalities, this is why we have a seemingly paradoxical alignment on the issue of the Iran nuclear program strikes between someone like @mehdirhasan on the left & someone like @TuckerCarlson on the right.

The secret to resolving the apparent paradox is identifying the ideological starting point they take, why they take it, then working backward from there to understand their individual views on (in this case) Op Midnight Hammer.

Now with ideological & methodological issues in focus, let's return to the problem with claiming that "committing acts of war without our permission is a consistent libertarian and constitutionalist position."

Redheaded libertarian starts this QTd post by pointing out @POTUS "bombed a sovereign country without a declaration of war." This observation invokes separation of powers in 🇺🇸 Constitution since declaring war is Art I (congressional) authority & not strictly Art II (executive).

Like much of the left, the rhetorical tactic here is to find some way to ground the argument in legal language to make it seem like the preferred outcome (avoid armed conflicts no matter what) is a must (law) rather than a should (policy preference). Now we're at the top of the horseshoe where left & right are closest bc the LEFT makes the same arguments but for different ideological reasons.

But the answer to BOTH progressives AND libertarians is the same. A limited strike of this nature isn't "war" - even though if things go sideways it could ESCALATE into one. Since a limited strike like this is NOT war, no declaration of war is necessary. US history is replete with examples of presidents relying on Art II commander-in-chief authority to conduct similar attacks with no declaration of war.

In reality, it's hard to imagine Op Midnight Hammer turning out any better than it did - legally, tactically or strategically. That progressives or libertarians won't acknowledge this is a matter of ideology, which functions to isolate people from reality - on both ends of the political spectrum.

[🇺🇸 Andrew 🇺🇸 @LegalBulldog67]

@JESweet2022 @Gerashchenko_en https://t.co/SuVLr1Rgof

[Chris Loesch 𝕏 @ChrisLoesch]

Constitutional Conservatives: I’m tired of “the right” label, and you should be too. It’s a trite, foreign scam that doesn’t describe us. We’re not some French aristocrats or anti-socialist suits. We’re Americans who live for the Constitution, liberty, and keeping government on a leash. It’s time we torch this “right-wing” nonsense and shout who we are: Constitutional Conservatives, unbowed and unafraid.

Let’s get the history straight. The term “the right” comes from 1789, French Revolution, when monarchists sat on one side of the room and radicals on the other. In Europe, “the right” meant defending kings or later fighting off communist pipe dreams. That’s their circus, not ours. Our fight is for the U.S. Constitution—a document that spits in the face of European statism, built to keep power with the people. We fought to get rid of a monarch! Calling us “the right” is like slapping a beret on the Lincoln Monument. It’s absurd and insulting.

Here’s why “the right” is a slap in the face:
First, it’s a European straitjacket. Our Founders were rebels, not royalists, crafting a system to protect God-given rights, not some dusty tradition. We’re their heirs, not cousins of some French duke.
Second, it lumps us with every fake “conservative”—populists, big-spenders, or fake culture-war clowns that just grift off of our genuine grievances—people who don’t really care about the Constitution or Capitalism. THAT’S NOT US! We’re about one thing: keeping government chained to the law of the land.
Third, it lets the media and their globalist cronies frame us as the “left’s” mirror image or try to put us on the team with Hitler. Wrong! We’re not their opposite; we’re a different breed completely, fighting for 1776, not some Parisian squabble over which statism was better.

The “right” label is a rhetorical trap. It’s how they dilute our principles and an attempt to turn us into members of another team that our grandfathers fought against in WWII! When some pundit or X troll calls you “right-wing,” hit ’em back: “I’m a Constitutional Conservative. I stand for liberty, not your imported labels.” We’re not here to play their game. We’re here to defend the America our Founders built—freedom, law, no nonsense. We’re done with this smear. We’re the people fighting to preserve America’s soul, and we don’t need actual leftists to define who we are anymore.

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

More dangerous & inept political messaging related to @Israel's conduct in #Gaza & compliance with int'l law - this time from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (@bundeskanzler @_FriedrichMerz). Let's take a closer look specifically at int'l law rhetoric to clarify why it is both dangerous and inept.

Focus here will be the connection between two main points. First is this: "Harming the civilian population to such an extent, as has increasingly been the case in recent days, can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism." And second is this: "When boundaries are crossed, when international humanitarian law is actually violated, then Germany, then the German Chancellor, must also comment on it."

Emphasis added to text above highlights the ineptitude of these observations. Although "harming the civilian population" & assertion that @IDF is "violating" #LOAC are connected rhetorically in these reflections, there is no doctrinal connection. Here's why.

If we use select war crimes provisions of Rome Statute as a template (pic 1), we see that we need evidence of knowledge & intent of personnel responsible for EACH attack being analyzed to determine whether a serious LOAC violation has been committed. Although 🇩🇪 has ratified Rome Statute, 🇮🇱 has not. Even so, interpretation & implementation of int'l law by 🇮🇱 is consistent with these doctrinal formulations.

If we require evidence of knowledge & intent of personnel responsible for EACH attack being analyzed, how can we determine violations have been committed because of apparently unacceptable degree of harm to civilians? The short answer is that we can't. This is a misinterpretation & fundamental mischaracterization of int'l law. "Harm" to civilians is an effects-based metric that can be caused by any number of factors. Widespread serious LOAC violations is one possibility. So, too, is engaging in armed hostilities against a transnational terrorist group that deliberately hides & fights among (its own) civilian population.

LOAC as it exists in doctrine is a process-based construct; non-doctrinal version of LOAC constructed & propagated by humanitarian activists in public discourse is an effects-based construct. Militaries & states apply the former in practice; the latter is inconsistent with actual aspects of int'l law involving armed conflict. That is why connecting "harming civilians" with "violating LOAC" rhetorically reflects sheer ineptitude.

Doing so is dangerous for a number of reasons. Among the most dangerous is that it encourages terror groups like #Hamas to deliberately hide & fight among civilian population as well as inflate reported casualty data. This actually elevates risk of harm to civilians in Gaza, which is counterproductive to stated goal of pressuring 🇮🇱 to exercise restraint in conduct of hostilities & thereby limit harm to civilians.

Another exceedingly dangerous characteristic of this inept, effects-based political rhetoric involving "violating" int'l law is that it limits 🇮🇱's ability to defend against threats of repeated terror attacks even if not a single actual LOAC violation is ever committed. The logic is quite simple, actually. The higher the (reported) casualty figures, the more "harm" that is (reportedly) being caused to civilians. "Harming the civilian population" is the metric expressed in these remarks by Chancellor Merz, so more (reported) harm means more political pressure on 🇮🇱. More political pressure on 🇮🇱 means less diplomatic tolerance for achieving strategic objectives of mitigating enduring security threat posed by Hamas & the return of all remaining hostages.

Strategic objectives in armed conflict are achieved by utilizing overwhelming force to destroy adversary's ability to continue fighting or, at least, to secure favorable terms to end hostilities. LOAC as it exists in doctrine is, or at least should be, the only formal constraint. Compliance with doctrinal LOAC obligations isn't measured by "harm" to civilians. Yet ignorant, inept effects-based political rhetoric is. This means 🇮🇱 is being pressured by 🇩🇪 & several other countries (predominantly, if not exclusively) in the West to stop short of its otherwise legitimate strategic objectives due to inept political rhetoric. This is dangerous for 🇮🇱 and civilian population of 🇵🇸 because it fosters conditions that may well lead to another 10/7 terror attack because Hamas is left in a position to govern in Gaza and, eventually, reconstitute militarily.

This represents yet another reason this inept, effects-based political rhetoric is dangerous. Policy-level political messaging from governments throughout the West is now, as it has for some time, promoting strategic interests of a transnational terrorist group rather than a state that was once the closest ally most Western governments had in the Middle East. This calculation is simple as well. Political leaders are responsive to political pressure. Political pressure can be created by distorting int'l law and (loudly) arguing that governments must isolate & stop supporting 🇮🇱. Diplomatic isolation & withholding of support to 🇮🇱 decreases likelihood that Hamas terrorists will be eliminated by overwhelming military power 🇮🇱 would otherwise be able to utilize in armed conflict. Fewer Hamas fighters that get eliminated, more chance Hamas has of reclaiming control of Gaza when conflict eventually ends.

I've just traced strategic objectives of Hamas from Western political leaders back to the terrorist group. This has been their calculation since long before 10/7, but in reverse order from Hamas to electorates to political leaders. Lawfare has long been a primary strategic tool of Hamas & its backers. It's what pro-Palestinian legal scholar Francis Boyle has referred to as the "legal intifada" (pic 2). As Boyle describes this strategy, Palestinians "could barely defend themselves" against 🇮🇱 due to support from Western governments - particularly 🇺🇸. So, according to Boyle, "their strong suit is international law." Generating political pressure by distorting & manipulating int'l law has been an effective strategy - these remarks from Chancellor Merz are just a latest example.

This leads to yet another reason this inept engagement with int'l law is so dangerous. Significant segments of populations throughout the West have become convinced that their governments not only should, but must, stop supporting 🇮🇱 in its fight against Hamas. Due in no small part to the fact that most gov'ts haven't fully capitulated to everything the domestic pro-Palestinian political mob demands, an increasing number of extremists are directing their anger against members of the Jewish population as a proxy for demonstrating against 🇮🇱. So even while politicians denounce antisemitism to a domestic audience, they fuel antisemitism & violence against Jews by relying on int'l law to "condemn" 🇮🇱 (to appease the mob) while attempting to find a way to continue supporting 🇮🇱 in the fight against Hamas. This spike in antisemitism & violence only escalates the longer this conflict continues. But make no mistake. Inept political messaging condemning 🇮🇱 based on observed effects from conflict in Gaza rather than int'l law as it exists in doctrine is partially responsible for putting Jewish constituents at risk even while political leaders seek to denounce escalating antisemitism.

The final danger I'll address here involves the perceived enduring viability of int'l law. Humanitarian activists have been gradually converting LOAC into an effects-based construct in the long-running effort to "humanize" int'l law. This version of "IHL" has been inconsistent with LOAC as it exists in doctrine from the outset - and deliberately so. Political leaders who are unfamiliar with the difference between doctrinal LOAC & effects-based humanitarian law tend to mirror the latter in political rhetoric because that is the most prevalent in public discourse. But it is largely inconsistent with version of int'l law their own militaries are expected to train on & apply if necessary in armed conflict. "IHL" has been constructed by advocacy groups such as @ICRC as a body of law that "seeks, for humanitarian purposes, to limit the effects of armed conflict." This is not, in fact, a primary purpose of LOAC. And yet if that becomes the public perception of its purpose, the continued legitimacy of int'l law is under threat. After all, if the purpose is to "limit the effects of armed conflict," it seems to be doing a pretty poor job in Gaza. But the same is true for any armed conflict. The continued legitimacy & viability of int'l law involving armed conflict relies on political leaders to push back against effects-based version of the law that is being constantly shaped & reshaped by humanitarian activists in public discourse. Instead, as these remarks by Chancellor Merz demonstrate, political leaders throughout the West are parroting this effects-based, humanitarian version of int'l law. This is dangerous as well.

This post has focused only on recent remarks from Chancellor Merz - but these are, of course, by no means alone. As but one similar example from several months ago now, pic 3 presents excerpts of a joint statement from then-🇨🇦 foreign minister @melaniejoly & int'l development minister @HonAhmedHussen (link in 2nd reply below). Like Chancellor Merz, this joint statement converts LOAC into an effects based doctrine. Specifically, it condemns "killing" of civilians (rather than intentionally directing attacks against civilians) & insists that no damage be inflicted on civilians (what armed conflict in human history has ever achieved that standard?). Also like Chancellor Merz, Joly & Hussen insist that 🇮🇱 must comply with LOAC - but they never express a doctrinal version of int'l law to establish the standard against which conduct by 🇮🇱 is to be measured.

In order to reverse this trend of inept & dangerous political rhetoric, elected/appointed officials need to take it upon themselves to learn LOAC as it exists in doctrine. If they can't or won't, opposition parties should do so in order to capitalize on the vulnerability created by the ineptitude of the governing party/parties. The electorate can & should become thoroughly familiar with int'l law as it exists in doctrine in order to be able to hold elected officials to account where it matters to them most - at the polls. Finally, if the free press takes seriously its perceived purpose of holding powerful to account, media professionals can & must become fluent in doctrinal version of int'l law so they know when elected officials are mischaracterizing & misrepresenting LOAC in political messaging.

The proper response to the distortions of int'l law in an effort to generate political pressure seeking to isolate 🇮🇱 is not to get pushed around by the whims of the mob. Competent politicians can push back against the mob by insisting on utilizing int'l law as it exists in doctrine to counter mounting political criticism.

Chancellor Merz is right to express caution regarding 🇩🇪 diplomatic relations with 🇮🇱 given the former's history of genocide committed against Jewish populations in Europe during WWII. Even so, inept political messaging that inadvertently advances strategic objectives of a transnational terrorist group committed to committing genocide against the population of 🇮🇱 if permitted to do so is not the solution.

Learning & utilizing LOAC as it exists in doctrine is, quite simply, the best antidote to inept political messaging that puts Israel, domestic Jewish populations, and the continued viability of int'l law involving armed conflict in avoidable & unnecessary danger.

[Bourbon & Karalyn's Craft Shack @bourbon_karalyn]

We are just to heartbroken💔 to respond to messages today but thank you all for loving our girl so much. You all made her life so special. Dog Twitter is amazing & the people we have met here are the best people, we love you 🥰 Thank you for being her friend ❤️

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

The huberis of the people dismissing Mark Levin as a neocon because they disagree with his stance on Iran just goes to show you that ego makes people stupid.

Mark Levin was advancing the conservative agenda when these people were eating paste in their sandbox.

He is one of the most brilliant conservative minds we have and he has been a champion for President Trump.

He fought to get President Trump’s nominees through, he provided invaluable information to counter the actual globalist necon crap in the media about tariffs. Listening to his show has taught me so much about what’s wrong with these district court judges, with SCOTUS.

You can disagree with people. You can debate. The reason you attack and smear people is because you can either back up the smears or because you can’t beat their logic.

Karl Rove is a neocon.

Mark Levin is not a neocon. Those calling him a neocon are exposing the fact that they don’t actually pay attention to what’s going on in the day-to-day fights for President Trumps agenda and they don’t even care about the agenda just the right agit prop for clicks. They expose themselves as people who have their own agenda and are willing to do anything they can to shove it down everybody’s throat. Because why the hell would you attack Mark Levin and pretend like he’s not a humongous supporter and defender of President Trump unless when anyone who listens to 10 min of his show knows otherwise.

The lack of humility. The lack of desire to actually understand things and figure out the truth is disheartening for me.

Anybody can parrot slogans.

But if you can actually move the needle on advancing a conservative agenda?

President Trump can.

Mark Levin can.

Karl Rove cannot.

Learn to spot the difference and some grace and humility would go a long way in helping with that task.