Whenever I spend 1 minute looking into the facts, the truth always turns out to be totally different than what anti-Israel obsessives imply.
The headline is painting a narrative that Israel has perhaps intentionally sabotaged Trump's negotiations by attacking Iran.
Israel—boo! They're controlling us!
But I found it odd that the headline didn't say Israel attacked Iran, but merely began a "fresh bombing campaign." Smells like potential narrative manipulation by omission.
Turns out that my intuition was correct. Israel did not bomb Iran, they bombed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And they did it because Hezbollah launched dozens of rockets and drones at Israel on May 30-31. So it makes total sense why Israel began a "fresh bombing campaign."
In other words, the Daily Mail manipulated a story about Israel responding to attacks by Iran's terror proxy into a headline designed to make people believe Israel purposefully decided to sabotage Trump’s diplomacy with Iran by attacking them unprovoked.
It's a perfect example of how a headline can be factually correct in a very narrow sense by omitting context to serve as reality-inverting propaganda.
"Oh," you fell for a psyop that takes 1 minute to debunk?
Congratulations.
How do I know the media is brainwashing people?
Obama's ICE Chief received the Presidential Award for Distinguished Service for removing over 900,000 illegal aliens.
Trump's ICE Chief is called a Nazi.
It is the same person.....Tom Homan....
The only difference? The narrative.
You’ve given us no criminal referrals for anyone identified in the files. The documents you cite were redacted to protect victims. Your hysterical outrage on this issue is manufactured and you are using victims as political pawns. Repulsive.
@piersmorgan Reminder! Uk banned all of this people from entering the UK to speak at the Tommy Robinsson protests! You didn’t or the radical left didn’t mention anything eather!
Making a ruckus over introducing stupid bills that’ll never pass is all Bernie does. In all his time in Congress Bernie’s only successfully passed 3 bills into law, 2 of which were for renaming post office branches in Vermont
The last successful bill he introduced was in 2013
@Fair_and_Biased It is funny how these handful of anti-Israel podcasters have sufficiently alienated themselves such that they are now only able to interview each other.
@MAGAMichelleS69@PolymarketSport You think Spurs fans are limited to San Antonio? Of course many, many, many Spurs fans voted for Abbott. To pretend otherwise is… dumb.
Magnificent detail. God is clearly straining to reach Adam with every fiber. Adam's hand is extended toward him, but it doesn't mirror God's urgency at all. Adam need only lift his finger to make contact, and yet he doesn't.
The implication: to find God, we must reach toward him as vigorously as he reaches toward us…
Don’t forget it’s one of the few careers left with a pension benefit, in addition to a cush schedule.
Work ~70% as much as many other professions, earn enough for a comfortable lifestyle, plus a taxpayer funded pension until you die.
Do these people know how much non-pensioners have to save while working in order to kick off a guaranteed monthly payment equivalent in a 401K?
Teachers are important but I don’t know why we have to pretend they’re more than they are.
“Survival in the market requires recognizing mistakes and changing course before you go bankrupt. But survival in politics requires denying mistakes and sticking with the policies you advocated, while blaming others for the bad results.”
— Thomas Sowell
Bret, you're falling for a lot of very obvious, sensational, anti-Israel headlines in knee-jerk fashion.
You owe it to your audience (and truth itself) to slow down, read the text of the bill, and ask yourself basic questions about whether this is a totally basic kind of agreement we make with many countries, or a uniquely insidious bill that essentially relinquishes control of our military to Israel for the purposed of "synchronizing" our militaries, as Massey implies it does.
It doesn't. You're being manipulated.
If you haven't done your due diligence investigating the issue, you should probably refrain from posting your hot takes. There are a lot of people who trust your judgement, and you're failing them badly.
@MattWalshBlog “None of them will admit they were wrong” implies they were/ are wrong and it is settled. Different opinions still exist, your opinion is no more correct than anyone else’s at this point. Will you admit you were wrong?
The Carroll case rested on a sequence of legal maneuvers with no precedent in American civil litigation. Democratic legislators passed a retroactive temporary law eliminating the statute of limitations for decades-old accusations that could not be dated, located, or defended with alibis. The day the temporary law took effect, Carroll filed her pre-prepared lawsuit, the first in the state to do so.
A Democratic mega-donor secretly funded the plaintiff’s legal costs through a nonprofit. The arrangement stayed hidden until one of Trump’s lawyers discovered it. A Clinton-appointed judge then sealed all records so the jury never learned the billionaire backer had publicly committed to Trump’s political destruction. Every participant in the legislative, funding, and judicial steps operated inside the same political network, and each decision produced the same cumulative result.
The jury explicitly checked “no” on the verdict form’s specific rape question. The judge ruled rape proven anyway, claiming the jury had used a common rather than statutory definition… an impossibility, since their rejection under the common definition precludes rape by any standard. Trump’s team was barred from arguing innocence before a second jury, which awarded $83.3 million ($65 million punitive) on the rape finding the first jury had rejected.
A defendant was sued for defamation over denying an accusation, prevented from asserting that denial as a defense, tried before a judge who concealed the plaintiff’s political funding, and hit with a nine-figure verdict built on facts the jury itself refused to find.
No comparable sequence exists in recorded U.S. civil litigation history.