Undermining Burma’s Freedom Fighters: Debunking Harmful Conspiracy Theories

Antonio Graceffo Reporting from the Burma border

In the heart of Burma, where tens of thousands have sacrificed their lives, and millions have been displaced by the ruthless attacks of the junta forces, ethnic resistance armies, and people’s self-defense forces fight to establish a federal democracy with equal rights for the 135 ethnic minorities.

Sadly, misguided conspiracy theories about the 2021 elections and the ensuing military coup have cast a shadow over the noble efforts of those fighting for democracy. These groundless allegations have unfortunately led many Americans to mistakenly perceive the pro-democracy camp as villains, falsely accusing them of attempting to steal the election. Such misconceptions not only undermine the legitimate struggles of pro-democracy forces but also deter Americans from supporting the rebels or taking a more proactive stance against the junta.

On November 8, 2020, Myanmar witnessed its second consecutive democratic election. In a landslide victory, the pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), secured re-election.

However, in February 2021, the military staged a coup, annulling the elections and detaining Aung San Suu Kyi along with prominent members of the party, including parliamentarians.

The most prominent conspiracy theory suggests that Burma utilized Dominion voting machines, alleging that Aung San Suu Kyi manipulated the machines to secure her victory. Some conspiracy theorists have even linked the Burmese election to the U.S. election, portraying the junta as the “good guys” in this narrative.

Firstly, Myanmar did not employ Dominion voting machines. Instead, they relied on paper ballots placed in wooden boxes, with approximately 80% of polling stations lacking electricity, let alone internet access. Secondly, aside from several very small ethnic minority parties that garnered minimal votes beyond their local regions, the election featured only two major parties: the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), backed by the military.

The people held a deep disdain for the army and harbored great admiration for Aung San Suu Kyi. It defies logic to suggest that after enduring a decades-long civil war to overthrow the army, they would then elect the very institution they sought to depose.

In 2021, following her arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi faced a range of charges leveled by the military junta. These accusations included illegally importing walkie-talkies, violating COVID-19 restrictions during the 2020 elections, and breaching a natural disaster law. The junta, albeit belatedly, asserted irregularities in the electoral process. However, international observers confirmed that while certain issues arose, such as ethnic minorities being denied voting rights due to lack of identification, there was no evidence of fraud. Furthermore, those unable to cast their votes would likely have supported Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. These charges were widely perceived as politically motivated and aimed at undermining her and her party.

A broader conspiracy alleges that Aung San Suu Kyi was involved in a nefarious alliance, purportedly collaborating with figures such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The conspiracy extends to suggest that American Democrats stood to gain from Aung San Suu Kyi’s victory, with the term “deep state” frequently invoked in this narrative. Such claims border on absolute madness. In my interviews with numerous rebel soldiers, leaders, and civilians displaced by the junta, none were aware of any deep-state connections or the notion that they were somehow working for the Clintons. Their common sentiment revolved around their disdain for the junta’s violence and torture, all while longing for a democratically elected government.

Regarding the connection with Hillary Clinton, it’s important to note that the American Secretary of State regularly undertakes visits to numerous countries, with one of their key responsibilities being to advocate for democracy and monitor elections worldwide. Consequently, the Department of State releases reports evaluating the integrity of elections in various nations and the overall status of democracy globally. In this context, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi before the 2015 elections holds significance, marking Myanmar’s inaugural democratic election, which saw Suu Kyi’s party secure a significant victory. Similarly, following Suu Kyi’s decisive win in the 2020 elections, then-Secretary Pompeo promptly issued a congratulatory message to Myanmar, acknowledging it as a pivotal moment in the country’s democratic progression.

Some of the more informed conspiracy theorists assert that Aung San Suu Kyi’s popularity waned between the two elections, pointing to the Rohingya genocide as evidence of her mismanagement of the country.

What actually occurred is that, prior to the 2015 election, the generals revised the constitution, allocating certain parliamentary seats as appointed positions. While the NLD secured the majority of democratically elected seats, the military maintained veto authority. Consequently, Aung San Suu Kyi found herself unable to pass any legislation without the army’s approval.

When news of the Rohingya genocide received sudden coverage in the international press, many Americans pointed fingers at Aung San Suu Kyi. To be fair, she did make controversial statements at the International Court of Justice, deflecting blame from the government. Some interpreted this as a shrewd political move to steer clear of conflict with the military, enabling her to stay in power and aid the country. While external observers often viewed this as complicity, she retained her popularity in Burma.

What I personally observed was a transition from unwavering support for Aung San Suu Kyi to a more pragmatic stance of choosing the better of two options. Many ethnic minorities, who previously revered “The Lady,” began to view her as preferable to military rule but recognized her imperfections. However, the crucial constant remained: nobody was willing to vote for the army.

The genocides targeting numerous ethnic groups have persisted long before Aung San Suu Kyi’s electoral victory and continue even as she remains imprisoned. Over one million Rohingya still languish in internally displaced people’s camps (IDP) within Burma and in dire refugee camps in Bangladesh. Neither Aung San Suu Kyi, Dominion, Hillary, Barry, nor Dizzy Joe played any part in the Rohingya genocide.

The people of Burma have been sacrificing their lives for 70 years to overthrow the military regime and establish a federal democracy. They are not affiliated with the deep state, nor are they in collusion with the Clintons or any external forces. They are simply individuals who seek an end to the government’s violence and the destruction of their villages. Moreover, they yearn for peace and the fundamental right to vote.

The post Undermining Burma’s Freedom Fighters: Debunking Harmful Conspiracy Theories appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

LGBTQ Rules Are Still Confusing to Many

There are no anti-LGBTQ rules or policies in schools, and no anti-LGBTQ laws at the state or federal level.

What activists label as “anti-LGBTQ” are rules and laws that say “everyone” or “every student” must adhere to certain requirements or prohibitions.

President Biden and Vice President Harris have touted their pro-LGBTQ rights stance. The issue with discussions about LGBTQ rights, or other minority rights, is that LGBTQ and other minorities already possess full rights under the law. Consequently, enacting legislation or policies that specifically name LGBTQ or other groups is extending them additional rights while restricting the rights of people not named in the legislation.

In a report titled “20 states passed anti-LGBTQ legislation,” the Point Foundation, a foundation dedicated to empowering LGBTQ students, published a list of anti-LGBTQ laws identified by the American Civil Liberties Union. An examining the list, however, suggests that none of these laws or rules prevent LGBTQ students from participating in education, sports, or activities.

One example of allegedly anti-LGBTQ rules identified in the list is “11 bills include language prohibiting transgender and nonbinary or other gender-diverse students from joining sports teams that align with their gender identity.” These rules do not prevent LGBTQ students from participating in sports. They only stipulate that girls play sports with girls and boys with boys. A boy who identifies as a girl and changes his name to Sally would be allowed to play sports with other boys.

“Nine bills allow staff at schools to deadname and use the wrong pronouns for students.” This is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. Students at schools are called by their legal names. And this is true for all students, regardless of orientation. If a boy named Tyler wants to be called Loretta, he will need to change his name legally. And if the teacher accidentally calls him Tyler, the student can remind the teacher that his legal name is Loretta now. If it really gets to be a problem, a complaint can be filed. But current legislation addresses all of this.

Forcing people to use specific pronouns is a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against forced speech.

“Six bills specifically prohibit students from using bathrooms that align with students’ gender identities.” Correct, all students have to use the bathroom according to their birth gender. It is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. It applies to everyone.

“Two bills allow parents to remove any materials they personally deem inappropriate from classrooms or schools.” In addition to not mentioning LGBTQ, this statement accurately describes how parents have the right to influence their children’s education. In the US, there is no federal curriculum and there are very few federal requirements in schools. For the most part, each state has its own Department of Education responsible for setting education standards, curriculum frameworks, and assessment policies. School districts, which are typically organized at the county or municipal level, have considerable autonomy in determining curriculum, instructional materials, and educational programs. Local school boards, composed of elected representatives, usually parents, make decisions on behalf of the community regarding school policies and practices.

“Two laws forbid staff and administrators from addressing sexuality or gender in schools.” Once again, there is no mention of LGBTQ. Apparently, parents in those districts do not want sex taught in school. That is their choice, and parents are allowed, under US law, to influence what is taught in local schools.

“Two laws require staff and administrators to out their students’ sexuality.” This is an exaggeration. Some districts have rules requiring school staff to inform parents if a child is identifying as trans. This is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. It just says that parents have a right to know what is happening with their children.

“One law specifies that no speech, including anti-LGBTQ hate speech, is restricted on campuses.” This rule is not anti-LGBTQ. It is pro-free speech.

“A law that removes funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, which commonly supports LGBTQ students.” This law is not anti-LGBTQ. It is anti-DEI programming.

From the list provided by the Point Foundation, it seems there are no laws or rules that are anti-LGBTQ. Examining problems faced by LGBTQ students in the GLSEN National School Climate survey on LGBTQ students, it appears the chief complaint among LGBTQ students is that other students do not accept them. And this is something that legislation cannot change. Additionally, the list of harassment and bullying complaints did not demonstrate that LGBTQ students were harassed or bullied at a greater rate than other students.

The GLSEN National School Climate survey on LGBTQ students states, “Most LGBTQ students have experienced harassment and discrimination at school.” However, this harassment does not appear to have been the result of school rules but rather fallout with classmates. The survey reports that 85 percent of LGBTQ students “experienced verbal harassment based on a personal characteristic.” And while this is unfortunate, every kid who ever attended school experienced “verbal abuse based on a personal characteristic.”

The survey doesn’t specify “verbal abuse because of being LGBTQ.” So, this includes the LGBTQ kid who was teased along with the fat kid, tall kid, awkward kid, late bloomer, early bloomer, weird kid…the kid who was too into dinosaurs or Dungeons and Dragons, or the kid who always wore a bowtie.

The survey also said that “Due to feeling unsafe or uncomfortable, nearly a third (32 percent) of LGBTQ students missed at least one day of school in the last month.” The question here is, were they actually unsafe, or did they feel that way? If they felt unsafe because of school policies requiring them to play sports in their birth gender, be called by their birth name, or parents being allowed to remove materials they found objectionable from the school, perhaps they just need some encouragement. But legislation won’t help.

The post LGBTQ Rules Are Still Confusing to Many appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Narcan and Liberal Drug Policies Worsening Drug Crisis

Liberal drug laws and government-funded interventions to make drug use safer normalize drug use and fuel the drug crisis.

Last year, 112,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, and American taxpayers are funding the crisis. Millions of dollars in Biden’s $1.9 Trillion pandemic Relief Bill went towards funding so-called “harm reduction” programs, which help people use drugs more safely but do not encourage them to stop using. This year, Biden-Harris allocated $39.4 million toward the President’s Unity Agenda, which includes harm reduction programs.

Meanwhile, a congressional committee discovered that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been subsidizing the companies that provide the precursor chemicals to Mexican drug cartels, who manufacture fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other drugs, which they smuggle through the Southern border. So, American taxpayers are not only funding the drug crisis but also funding China.

A backlash among liberals against the “war on drugs,” which they consider a racist failure, has caused a number of jurisdictions to take the opposite approach, liberalizing or decriminalizing drug use. Some have intentionally increased access to alcohol by allowing to-go sales and lowering taxes. Tax revenue has been one of the arguments Democrats use when trying to convince Republicans to legalize and tax marijuana, which is now legal in at least 37 states. But now, even those taxes are being removed because they were preventing some people from obtaining drugs.

Rather than trying to convince people that sobriety is the better way, liberal drug and alcohol programs have shifted their focus toward “harm reduction,” which seeks to mitigate the public health risks of drug use without stigmatizing users or requiring them to stop. By definition, removing the stigma means normalizing. It also nullifies the deterrent effect for first-time users who will believe that they can use drugs and still be a productive member of society, despite the evidence to the contrary.

As part of harm reduction, there has been increased funding for the distribution of Narcan and other overdose reversal medications, as well as programs that provide sterile drug paraphernalia and teach people how to use drugs safely “without requiring them to stop or reduce their use.”

Narcan is now available without a prescription, and last year, approximately 22 million doses were distributed in the US and Canada, at taxpayer expense. Narcan and other interventions only decrease the number of deaths, not the number of overdoses, which is many times higher.

Overdosing has been made “safer” by these drugs. They do not resolve the drug crisis. Even worse, by decreasing the number of deaths, the interventions allow the problem to disappear from the front page. Deaths remain on people’s minds; addiction doesn’t. Removing the lethality also removes the deterrent for young people.

The Democrats are disinterested in stopping drug use, so by legalizing drugs, they can claim to have reduced crime. In many American cities, irrespective of the law, progressive prosecutors refuse to prosecute what they consider low-level drug crimes.

A good example is the state of Oregon, which voted in 2020 to liberalize drug laws, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of even hard drugs. The measures were passed by the Democrat-led legislature, and the police stopped arresting offenders. Instead, officers gave users a ticket and a slip of paper with a phone number they could call to get into a treatment program. Records show that Portland police handed out 7,000 of these slips, but only a few hundred users ever made the call.

Marijuana was already legal in Oregon, so tax money from marijuana was put towards treatment programs. Three years later, the drug crisis in Oregon was worse.

Advocates for liberal drug policies argue, “the criminal justice system didn’t effectively treat addiction.” They also said it disproportionately harmed people of color. By ceasing drug arrests, they hoped to be able to decrease the racial disparity among prisoners. Decriminalization also brought down the crime rate by no longer counting drug offenses. However, other forms of crime increased, perpetrated by people trying to get money for drugs.

Before decriminalization, Portland’s violent crime rate was below the national average. By 2022, Portland saw a record number of homicides. This dropped off a bit in 2023, and there were claims that other crimes dropped as well, but traffic fatalities increased to record levels, while shoplifting arrests increased by 88%. Portland’s property crime rate is higher than the national average and rose steadily until 2023, when it came down slightly. But it is still higher than pre-drug legalization. And most predictably, from 2019 to 2022, the rate of opioid deaths increased by 241%.

While many sources claim that overall crime rates have dropped in cities that legalized drugs, the statistic is misleading. This is evidenced not only by Oregon, but also by other municipalities that decriminalized drugs or liberalized enforcement and have seen an increase in drug use, overdoses, and certain kinds of crime. This has been true in Seattle, where the claim was that overall crime was down, but there was an increase in homicides and auto thefts.

San Francisco has seen an increase in drug-related crimes, as well as the prevalence of dealers and violence. Crime is up in New York, where the liberal governor wants to deploy the National Guard to keep order in the subways. Philadelphia is now known as the capital of the Xylazine zombie drug crisis, and Los Angeles is a fentanyl hub, experiencing rampant shoplifting, theft, and an increase in property crime.

One way that the statistics are being misrepresented is that many of these cities are claiming a decrease in violent crime in 2023, and this may be true, but only because 2022 experienced a severe spike in crime. This may have been the final effects of lockdowns and COVID restrictions which, in some cases, were not completely eliminated until the middle or end of the year. However, in most cases, the 2023 numbers are not lower than 2020 or pre-drug-liberalization figures.

No matter how they try to spin it, drug usage and deaths are up. In 2020, 27 million Americans reported being drug users, including marijuana, opioids, or amphetamines. Last year, the number climbed to 37.3 million. About 10% of Americans now have problems with alcohol abuse, and 6% are drug addicts. Most heartbreaking, nationwide, 22 teens are dying each week of drug overdoses.

The post Narcan and Liberal Drug Policies Worsening Drug Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

365 Days Without a Murder: Why Liberals Hate El Salvador’s President

The man who transformed El Salvador from one of the most dangerous countries in the world to one of the safest, President Nayib Bukele, is despised by liberals.

When he won reelection in a landslide, liberal media outlets ran headlines stating that democracy had ended in El Salvador and that the country had become a one-party state. However, El Salvador is not Cuba.

Bukele did not eradicate opposition parties, nor did he imprison them or seize control of the press. Instead, he delivered on his promises. He made the country safe by locking up criminals.

President Bukele claimed that his country went 365 days without a murder. And while the exact number has been called into question, it is an indisputable fact that the country now has the lowest murder rate it has seen in 30 years, plummeting by 70%, and now stands at only 2.4 per 100,000 in 2023, making it the second lowest in the Americas, just behind Canada.

In 2022, after a gang war resulted in the deaths of 87 people over a period of just three days, Bukele took action against crime. He constructed the country’s largest prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or CECOT), with a capacity for 40,000 gang members. And he began filling it.

Out of gratitude for restoring peace in the country, voters reelected him with 85% of the vote. Human rights groups, who live in safe, wealthy Western nations, have criticized Bukele for violations of the rights of suspects.

But the logic is flawless. Only gang members have gang tattoos. If anyone else gets a gang tattoo, they will be killed by the gang. The same is true for tattoo artists.

They would be killed for giving gang tattoos to non-gang members. Additionally, part of the initiation to joining a gang is to commit a serious crime, often murder. Once they become a member, their full-time job is to commit crimes. So, logically, anyone with a gang tattoo is a gang member and has committed crimes.

In the U.S., it is not a crime to be affiliated with an organization, even a criminal one. To secure a conviction, there would need to be proof that the person committed a specific crime.

However, that system, while acceptable for a high-trust society, was being exploited in El Salvador, where repeat offenders and murderers were being set free by crooked judges and jailers.

So, Bukele decided to let logic prevail, arrest the gang members, and put them in prison. He was more concerned about the rights of street vendors, business owners, school children, working people, and ordinary citizens than he was about the rights of violent criminals.

The state of emergency he declared in 2022, and has renewed several times since, suspends the constitutional rights of the gang members and bypasses the corrupt courts and justice system, which had allowed the criminals to reign for decades. Since then, 75,000 gang members have been arrested, and 7,000 have been released.

According to reported data from human rights groups, since 2022, there have been 78,000 arbitrary detentions. This is likely because they consider nearly all of the arrests to be arbitrary detentions.

The rights groups are also upset that “approximately 102,000 people are now deprived of their freedom in the country,” disregarding the fact that these people are criminals.

Additionally, they are upset that the prisons are overcrowded by 148%, which is absolutely true. The prisons are not pleasant, and a sane person would avoid going there by not committing crimes.

They also lost sleep over 235 deaths in state custody. There is no mention of how many of these deaths represented prisoners being killed by other prisoners, nor have they stopped to consider that five times that number of innocent people would have died during the same time period if these gang members were not in prison.

Rights groups have claimed that Bukele’s New Ideas party winning 58 of 60 seats in the country’s legislature has turned the country into a one-party state, with a “dangerous” concentration of power.

They are missing the point that the country had a fair election and the people were free to vote for the horrible system they had before, or law and order, which is now making their lives livable again. And they chose the latter.

According to Gabriela Santos, director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Central America (IDHUCA), “Bukele’s popularity underlines how some Central American countries have struggled to launch sustainable democratic models.”

Again, there appears to be no flaw in El Salvador’s democracy. The critics just do not like the way the vote turned out. Santos went on to say that countries never recovered their democratic principles “in the aftermath of civil conflicts between left-wing guerrillas and U.S.-backed right-wing authoritarian regimes.”

There is no indication that the people voting for Bukele had any connection to the US or to right-wing regimes.

Liberals are claiming that there is a frightening move toward fascism in Latin America because 2 of 32 countries now have a president who is not a socialist. The other bright spot is President Javier Milei in Argentina, whom the liberals also hate.

He is cutting the government down to size, waging a war on debt and waste. He told school children that abortion is murder. He is pro-gun and is considering deploying the military to take on the gangs.

The shocking lesson we can all learn from El Salvador is that if you arrest all of the bad guys and keep them in jail, and if those who remain free are made to believe that crime has consequences and jails are horrible places, the streets become safer, and people can live their lives.

The other takeaway here is that if a president is tough on crime and wants to cut government spending and improve the lives of citizens, the liberals attack him.

It is also incredibly condescending that liberals in Europe or the US or elsewhere believe that 85% of Salvadorians do not know what is best for their country and voted for the wrong person.

The post 365 Days Without a Murder: Why Liberals Hate El Salvador’s President appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Subsidizing the Fentanyl Crisis

The investigation by the Select Committee on The CCP’s Role in the Fentanyl Crisis reveals that the CCP subsidizes PRC companies producing fentanyl precursor chemicals for export, thus knowingly exacerbating the US drug crisis.

In his State of the Union Address on March 7, 2024, President Biden acknowledged Fentanyl as one of the most significant threats confronting the United States.  The president’s assertion aligns with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Annual Threat Assessment for 2024, which identifies fentanyl as the second-largest threat, following terrorism. The report also states that DHS expects “illegal drugs produced in Mexico and sold in the United States will continue to kill more Americans than any other threat.”

According to a DHS Fact Sheet regarding the State of the Union Address, the fentanyl crisis “originates with China-based entities that manufacture and distribute the chemicals used to produce the fentanyl fueling American overdose deaths.” The CCP manufactures 98% of the global supply of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl. The select committee not only uncovered CCP subsidies for fentanyl but also for numerous other synthetic and illicit drugs.

The DHS Fact Sheet provides additional details, stating that “DHS participated in the development of a new Counternarcotics Working Group with China to disrupt the manufacture and flow of illicit synthetic drugs.” Given the emerging evidence of CCP’s direct involvement in the fentanyl crisis, this initiative appears ironic and likely ineffective in halting its spread.

In 2023, the US House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act, which amends the Fentanyl Sanctions Act. The latter calls for sanctions against Chinese entities as “foreign opioid traffickers” if they produce, sell, finance, or transport synthetic opioids or precursors.” It is evident that numerous government agencies, along with Congress and the White House, recognize fentanyl as one of the most pressing issues facing the US, responsible for the most American fatalities. They all acknowledge China as the source. Despite this consensus, the president continues to pursue efforts to ‘work with’ Beijing rather than directly holding the CCP accountable.

US law enforcement entities have reported informing their Chinese government contacts about the companies manufacturing and exporting fentanyl, yet the CCP has not taken any action. The Bill specifies that Chinese entities could face sanctions if they “fail to take credible steps to prevent opioid trafficking, including through cooperation with U.S. counternarcotics efforts and know-your-customer procedures.” It appears that the CCP is now subject to sanctions, given its lack of cooperation with US law enforcement and failure to halt the fentanyl flow.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a warning in 2017-2018 through a report titled ‘TACKLING FENTANYL: THE CHINA CONNECTION,’ identifying China as the source of the fentanyl crisis. However, to date, the White House has not held the CCP accountable.

The CCP denies any knowledge of or culpability in the problem. Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the PRC embassy in Washington D.C., stated in an email, “It is very clear that there is no fentanyl problem in China, and the fentanyl crisis in the United States is not caused by the Chinese side, and blindly blaming China cannot solve the U.S. own problem.” These are not the words of a government willing to cooperate. It is astounding that this statement came from an official CCP source, just weeks after the President’s State of the Union Address where he claimed his administration was working closely with the CCP on this issue.

The PRC Embassy’s statement underscores the folly of the Biden administration’s continued belief that they can work with the CCP to stop fentanyl and to fix a number of other global issues caused by the CCP, everything from China trade cheating to threats against Taiwan and the Philippines, to Beijing’s support of Russia in Ukraine, and ongoing support for Iran and the legitimization of Hamas. Given the CCP’s active involvement in these activities, it’s evident that Xi Jinping is aware of and likely orchestrating them, suggesting they won’t simply stop.

The CCP: An Enemy, Not a Competitor or Partner

The US Intelligence Community (IC), in its Annual Threat Assessment, and the Department of Defense (DoD) in its China Military Power report, both identify China as the primary threat to the US. Both reports from the IC and DoD elaborate on how the CCP’s strategy involves a whole-of-government approach known as Military Civil Fusion (MCF), which utilizes for-profit private entities across various industries and fields to further the state’s policy objectives. Evidently, this strategy extends to the chemical industry, which is being exploited to harm Americans and undermine American society through the distribution of deadly and illicit drugs.

Given that US intelligence and defense authorities are unequivocal about the CCP’s intent to supplant the United States, it is illogical to believe that the two countries can cooperate or that the CCP will take steps to improve America’s position.

The manufacture and distribution of chemicals in China is regarded as a sensitive domain, tightly regulated by the CCP, requiring permits and government approval for manufacturing or exporting. This implies that the CCP was aware of the production and export of fentanyl precursor chemicals. Now that the Select Committee has uncovered not only the CCP’s awareness but also its subsidization of the manufacture and export of fentanyl precursors, it becomes evident that the CCP is endorsing this activity and actively contributing to the deaths of Americans. With two hundred Americans dying of fentanyl overdoses every day, the CCP is killing as many Americans as the 9/11 terrorists, every two weeks.

Up to this point, the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act of 2023 has only cleared the House and has not been signed into law. Should it become law, it appears that the entire CCP would be deemed in violation. Regrettably, although the media, the public, and some congressional representatives express outrage over the recent revelations, it seems improbable that the Biden administration will undertake meaningful action against the CCP.

The post Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Subsidizing the Fentanyl Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Illegal Immigrants Do Jobs Americans Collecting Benefits Won’t Do

The California economy should serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the nation, showcasing the negative impact of illegal immigration combined with liberal social welfare programs that discourage citizens from working.

The ‘Californication’ of the United States would exacerbate illegal immigration, depress market-driven labor rates, expand welfare rolls, significantly raise taxes on those employed, and prompt the government to address the diminished standard of living by imposing an exorbitant minimum wage.

Increasing the labor pool through illegal immigration drives down wages. The most basic law of economics, supply and demand, states that when supply increases and demand remains the same, price goes down.

You need water to live, but water is cheap because there is a large supply. Gold and diamonds are less of a necessity for maintaining life, but they are expensive because there is a large demand and limited supply. If tomorrow a new goldmine was discovered which quadrupled the supply of gold, the price of gold would go down.

Illegal immigrants increase the supply of workers, which brings down the price of labor, i.e., the wage. And although it is true that illegal immigrants are concentrated in certain industries, the decline in wages affects all industries.

The industries with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants are construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and agricultural occupations. The Americans who were displaced from those industries went to work in other industries, increasing the quantity of labor and driving down wages.

Using California as an example of what some people want to do to the entire country: illegal immigrants comprise 9% of the population. The market wage for workers was low because of the large pool of immigrants.

The Democratic legislation addressed this issue by imposing a draconian minimum wage of $16 an hour for all workers and $20 for those working in fast food.

The state also has liberal unemployment and welfare rules. As market wages drop and unemployment or welfare benefits increase, people are disincentivized to continue working.

In many Democrat-led states, workers can earn more on benefits than they can working. And a minimum wage of $20 an hour will not fix this problem. Jobs like landscaping and construction used to pay more than $20 an hour.

And jobs in maintenance and janitorial services, while not the highest paid, used to have job security and benefits when they were done on the books, by legal workers.

The Americans who lost those career jobs to illegals cannot make up the lost income by flipping burgers. Removing the illegal immigrants from the labor force will cause the natural rate of wages in landscaping, construction, and maintenance to increase, motivating people to go back to work.

Not surprisingly, as a result of its socialist policies, California has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is considered (the supplemental poverty measure).

The high taxes, high minimum wage, and lack of law enforcement have caused a steady exodus of companies, resulting in rising unemployment. However, the minimum wage only applies to legal workers, not illegals, so many of the unemployed citizens were replaced by illegal immigrants.

And now, the taxpayers are paying for it in the form of unemployment or welfare benefits. However, the illegals do not pay taxes. So, the tax burden on each legal worker is increasing, which then disincentivizes people from working. And the circle goes on and on, spiraling steadily downward.

At the national level, Democrats in favor of illegal immigration claim that low unemployment rates in the US are proof that “we need illegal immigrants” to fill those jobs. However, this claim ignores the labor force participation rate, which took a nosedive in 2020 and has never returned to pre-pandemic levels.

The labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of the working-age population (usually defined as individuals aged 16 and older) who are either employed or actively seeking employment.

People who are on unemployment are still counted as being part of the labor force because they are allegedly looking for a job. Only those who give up or go on permanent welfare or benefits are no longer counted.

There are two important points here. By liberalizing unemployment benefits, increasing the amount and the duration of the payments, the Biden Administration gets to count these people as part of the labor force.

And yet, the labor force participation rate is declining. This brings us to the second point. The federal government spent $1.3 trillion on welfare programs in 2023. If social benefits were not plentiful, more people would remain in the workforce.

In California, the labor force participation rate has been trending steadily downward since 1989. Currently, only 62% of legal adults are part of California’s labor force. Meanwhile, California has one of the highest incidences of tax in the country.

It also has 28% of the total homeless population of the United States, with the number having increased by 40% over the past 5 years. In short, California is a mess of outcomes that could not happen in a free-market economy that enforced immigration laws and was tough on crime.

According to Pew Research, 87% of Democrat voters agree that illegal immigrants only do jobs Americans won’t do. This notion is completely false. The reality is, there is no job Americans won’t do if they are paid for it.

Removing the illegals and canceling the benefits programs will bring about an equilibrium between wages and labor force participation. Taxes could be cut, and the minimum wage for unskilled work could go back to a reasonable market rate.

People would be incentivized to work and to better themselves, while the burger-flipping jobs would revert to the high school and college students who previously held them.

The post Illegal Immigrants Do Jobs Americans Collecting Benefits Won’t Do appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Credit Card Defaults, Inflation, Part-Time Jobs: The Economy Is a Disaster

Biden talks up the economy’s strong growth but doesn’t address the fact that the inflation rate he’s given us surpasses the GDP growth rate. He also doesn’t mention that much of this growth was funded directly by government stimulus and other financial aid given to the public.

The White House claims the economy is roaring, and mainstream media suggests only Republicans doubt it. However, consumer sentiment is declining, albeit with a slight recent uptick, which both the White House and mainstream media quickly seized upon as a positive trend. Inflation also rose this month, but the White House contends it’s down compared to 2022 levels. It appears the White House chooses to cite macro or micro data depending on what makes them look better.

The average gas price increased by 7% this month compared to last month. However, it remains lower than the $4.90 it hit in 2022. So, I suppose the White House can chalk up another win.

The reality is, both the average American and business owner perceive the economy as dismal and lack confidence in the future. Despite high inflation, the specter of recession still looms large, suggesting stagflation may become a reality in the near future. We could easily find ourselves grappling with growing unemployment alongside escalating prices. Technically, we’ve been in a recession for some time now, but Janet Yellen’s assertion that a recession isn’t defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth was surprising to me and most university economics professors, as it contradicts the textbook definition of a recession.

Regarding stagflation, it’s defined by rising prices and growing unemployment. In the strictest sense, the White House is correct that we haven’t reached that point yet. More jobs are being created each month. However, if you’re looking for a job, the difficulty in finding one is obvious. This is largely due to the fact that 70% of the new jobs being created are part-time, while about 20% are government jobs. Depending on one’s definition of “jobs,” an argument could be made that significant numbers of new full-time private sector jobs are not being created.

The truth is, the economy has been on shaky ground throughout Biden’s entire administration. The only thing preventing a complete collapse is government stimulus and government job expansion, both of which add to the deficit and debt, merely postponing the inevitable. And that inevitable end is fast approaching.

Several US municipalities have implemented excessively high minimum wages, reaching up to $20 an hour. As a result, retailers, fast food chains, and ride-hailing apps like Lyft and Uber are exiting these markets. Grocery stores are transitioning to self-checkout systems, while fast-food establishments are introducing order kiosks. Moreover, many CVS and Walgreens drugstores have significantly reduced their floor staff, in some instances to just one employee.

Under Bidenomics, we’ve witnessed a 46% increase in gas prices, with mortgage rates inching closer to 7%. Meanwhile, the demand for new mortgages is dwindling.

Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by an average of $371. The White House’s deception on this matter lies in presenting a chart of inflation that peaked in June 2022 and has since been declining, while wages have been on the rise. At first glance, it may seem that the worst of inflation is behind us and wages now surpass inflation. However, it’s crucial to remember that prices have not decreased.

The rate at which wages are increasing, at 5%, now exceeds the rate of price increases, at 3.2%. However, over the past four years, we’ve seen cumulative inflation of nearly 20%. So, whereas you once earned a dollar, you now earn $1.05, while goods that previously cost $1.00 now cost $1.20. As a result, your real wages, adjusted for inflation, have decreased.

In short, the money you earn buys you less stuff.

Due to a decline in inflation-adjusted income, US savings rates have dropped to 3.6% from the pre-pandemic level of 6%. Credit card delinquencies and car loan defaults have reached record highs. Many Americans report borrowing money each month just to cover their cost of living.

Bidenomics is a disaster, and the White House is still considering cutting interest rates, which would cause inflation to skyrocket.

The post Credit Card Defaults, Inflation, Part-Time Jobs: The Economy Is a Disaster appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Worshiping with the Christian Insurgents in Myanmar

Antonio Graceffo reporting from inside the war zone in Burma/Myanmar.

On Easter Sunday, the Burmese army launched an airstrike against a monastery in Karen State, where an entire village had taken refuge. The bombs fell for hours, and when the smoke had cleared, numerous civilians, including women, children, and monks, were dead.

There were no soldiers in the village, so 100% of the casualties were civilians. About half of them were Christians.

Burma is predominantly Buddhist, with a significant Christian minority comprising approximately 6% of the population. Many of these Christians belong to the country’s 135 ethnic minority groups, notably including the Kachin, Chin, Karen (also known as Kayin, as featured in the movie “Rambo IV”), and the Karenni (distinct from the Karen, despite the similarity in name).

The repression against Christians and the wholesale murder of civilians have been features of the Burmese civil war, which has been ongoing for about 70 years. However, targeted attacks against churches, monasteries, Catholic, and Baptist schools have intensified since the 2021 coup, which dashed any hopes of a transition to democracy.

Previously, I had worked with the Shan ethnic group and resistance fighters. However, recently, I decided that I wanted to focus my energy on the Christian minority in Karenni State (also called Kayah State), the smallest ethnic state in Burma.

About 50% of Karenni are Christian, with the majority being Catholic and the rest Baptist. Over the past three years, roughly 80% of the Karenni people have been displaced, and 3,000 civilians have been killed, from a total Karenni population of less than 400,000 people.

Catholic priests and nuns assigned to dioceses in Burma have risked their lives to remain with their flocks, offering what help and protection they could. In November, 1,300 civilians, including Christians, Buddhists, and animists, took refuge in Christ the King Catholic Cathedral complex in Loikaw, the capital city of Karenni State.

These people were internally displaced individuals (IDPs), meaning that the Burmese army had already destroyed their villages, and they had found their way to the Cathedral, where the priests and nuns were offering them refuge.

The Burmese army threatened to bomb the complex, but the priests implored the soldiers not to attack and to allow the people, who included the aged and the infirm, to remain in safety.

However, eventually, the Burmese army attacked, using heavy weapons, fighter jets, armored vehicles, and 120 mm cannons. Many people were killed, while the rest were forced to flee into the jungle, including the Bishop of Loikaw, H.E. Celso Ba Shwe, and the priests and nuns, who were finally forced to abandon their post. After the people fled, the Burmese army took over the center and are now occupying it.

Loikaw is the site of the most intense fighting in Karenni State. According to Lt. Colonel Mei Reh, a battalion commander in the Karenni Army, the Burmese junta has laid hundreds of landmines around their positions and uses drone jammers to protect themselves from the resistance fighters.

He estimated that counting soldiers, dependents, and support personnel, Loikaw is now occupied by about 10,000 Burmese who receive resupply by air. They are also protected by helicopters and jets.

The rebels, by contrast, are on foot, carrying what small arms and rations they have, walking for weeks in some cases to reach the front lines and fight to retake their country.

When I am inside Burma, I meet with internally displaced people and soldiers, filing reports on the war. I also pray with anyone who is willing, and the reception among the Karenni is astounding. Nearly everyone I meet wants to pray together.

Over the years that I have been reporting on this conflict, I have been inspired by David Eubanks, leader of the Free Burma Rangers. The lesson that I learned from him and from his faith as a missionary/soldier is to pray not for victory, but to pray that the hearts of the Burmese army will be changed by God’s grace and that they will stop fighting.

He teaches that Christian soldiers should pray for peace and an end to the conflict, and when they kill, to kill for love. They must remember that they kill to protect their people, their land, and their country, but not out of hate.

Amazingly, when I met Catholic soldiers, including a company commander, this is what they prayed for: to kill with love and to stop killing as soon as they could find peace and establish a democracy in their country.

The Free Burma Rangers have been spreading that message in Burma for more than 20 years, among all of the ethnic resistance armies. And now that I am working with Karenni Christians, I can say the message is getting through.

The United States is one of the few countries to ever win independence and establish a democracy by way of a bloody war. Usually, after a revolution, warlords and generals replace the previous dictator, and nothing changes.

Instilling ideals of love, compassion, and forgiveness in the soldiers and officers now will hopefully help to heal the country when the war ends, so they can avoid retribution killings and animosity that would result in a fractured state.

People back in the US ask, “How can you be a Christian and a soldier?” and the answer is, “to kill with love.” They ask me, “How can you support Burmese refugees but demand a secure southern border?”

And my answer is, the Karenni and other ethnics are not requesting to be resettled in the US or some Western country. They just want safety from the war now, and they want the war to be over so they can go home and resume their lives in their own land.

The Catholic Church in the camp where I was located had been hit by an airstrike a few months ago, so the people were afraid to go to worship there. However, the Catholic Karenni women told me that during Lent, they held prayer services in their huts every day.

On Good Friday, they decided to risk using the church building, and for the first time, they held service there. The priest could not make it to the camp because of the fighting, but two Karenni catechists trained at the seminary in Karenni State led the worship.

They did the same on Easter Sunday. These people could easily have lost their faith, being displaced by war and losing their families and their homes, but they trusted that God had a plan, and they would eventually return to their homeland in peace. Their faith should be an inspiration for all the people in wealthy countries at peace.

After the Catholic service, I attended the Baptist service on the other side of the camp. Although I am Catholic and love attending Mass, I have to admit, the Baptist service is more fun and has more singing and guitar playing.

The pastor asked me to address the congregation, and I reminded them of David and Goliath. Although the people of Burma are small and weak in comparison to the Burmese army, which is armed by Russia and China, the people have faith, and since the coup, they also have unity. As David Eubanks told me, “The army is stronger than the people. But it is not stronger than ALL the people if they work together.”

On the day before Easter, I was staying in a hut with the soldiers when a batch of new recruits arrived, and they just looked so young to me. I was 17 when I joined the military, but as we get older, young people look like children to us.

On Easter Sunday, looking out at the congregation, I saw so many bright young kids who were just about military age, many of whom would soon be joining the fight. It made me sad that they would never have a prom, never get a driver’s license, never have a part-time job at Wendy’s, and some of them would be killed, and soon.

After the Baptist service, I was walking back to the house with the soldiers, feeling I had been given an amazing blessing to have spent this most crucial religious holiday with these wonderful and resilient people. I had found a moment of happiness in war and hoped to write an inspiring article about faith and happy endings.

When I reached the house and got a cell signal, I began receiving live feeds from the Free Burma Rangers, documenting the Easter massacre of the civilians at the monastery in Karen State. David Eubanks sent a message saying that in addition to the other casualties, the head monk’s body had been torn in half.

And just like that, I had no idea how I was going to end my story. What was I meant to take away from this experience?

The words of Htay Ree, the 25-year-old assistant pastor at the Baptist church, came to mind. He said, “God is love. God is for our spiritual health, not our physical being. We can get sick or even be killed.

God only guarantees our spiritual life; if we believe in Jesus, we can get eternal life.” He went on to say that God never said it would be easy. “But people who blame God for their physical suffering just do not understand. And this is an opportunity to teach. So, for me, it is not a problem,” he concluded.

The people of Burma have lost everything — their homes, their freedom, their money, their food, their loved ones — and some even lose their faith. But the assistant preacher didn’t see any of that as a problem, just an opportunity to teach. And now I can pass that lesson along to the readers.

The post Worshiping with the Christian Insurgents in Myanmar appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Karenni Catholic Church inside the war zone in Burma/Myanmar, photo by Antonio Graceffo

Karenni Army recruits, photo by Antonio Graceffo

Karenni Catholic cross damaged by bomb blast, photo by Antonio Graceffo

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC): Terrorists Supporting Terrorism

On April 12th, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seized an Israeli ship near the Strait of Hormuz. While this represents one of the most overt and direct attacks by the IRGC against Israel, it underscores the broader support and training provided by the IRGC to groups like the

Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militias and terrorist organizations. This support contributes to the destabilization of the Middle East and poses a threat to both Israeli and U.S. interests in the region.

Established during the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stands as a formidable military force in Iran, operating directly under the authority of the Supreme Leader, presently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Guided by an ideology vehemently opposed to Western influence, particularly directed towards the United States and Israel, the IRGC is renowned for its fervent slogans such as ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel,’ emblematic of its hostility towards these nations.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is known for its support of various militias and terrorist groups across the region. Notably, it provides assistance to Hamas in Gaza, furnishing weapons, financial aid, and training to bolster the group’s military capabilities.

Additionally, the IRGC backs Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in the Gaza Strip, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq in Iraq, as well as Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthis are now active in disrupting shipping in the Red Sea.

The IRGC has been designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States. This designation is significant because the IRGC is an official government entity in Iran, making it one of the few state-backed actors to be labeled as a terrorist organization.

This raises legal questions regarding whether the Iranian government’s support for the IRGC constitutes aid to terrorist organizations, which is prohibited under international convention.

Most Americans have never forgotten nor forgiven the 1979 Islamic Revolution’s seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the subsequent hostage debacle, which went on for more than one year. Over the past decade or so, Iran-backed militias have indeed been involved in conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, where U.S. soldiers have faced combat, encountered security threats, or lost their lives.

These militias have often been supported, trained, and equipped by the Iranian government or its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), contributing to instability and violence in these countries.

In response to Iran’s aggression, the US and its allies have launched repeated strikes against Iran-backed groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Apart from supporting Israel, the US also backs numerous local partners, including the Yazidis, Kurds, Sunni Arab Tribes, Turkmen, Arab Tribal Militias, and Chaldean Christians. Consequently, it could be argued that both the US and Israel have been engaged in a proxy war with Iran for some time.

Retaliating against Iran’s proxies has done little to curb Iran’s aggressive actions. Since October 7th, there have been repeated clashes between American and allied troops against targets in Syria and Iraq, yet Iran’s aggression persists. Despite US and UK bombings in Yemen, Houthi attacks on ships persist.

At this moment, not only are Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel, and the Houthis attacking everyone else’s ships, but it also seems that Iran is threatening direct attacks on Israel. President Biden has warned Iran that the US is committed to defending Israel.

After years of limited engagement, Israel’s strategy now appears to aim for the complete elimination of Hamas, while also showing readiness to confront Hezbollah directly in Lebanon.

The proxy model has proven costly for the US, both in terms of lives and finances, yielding no tangible gains, not even peace. Furthermore, China and Russia leverage US failures in the Middle East to caution Taiwan, the Philippines, Ukraine, and Japan about the unreliability of the US as a partner.

Israel’s new strategy of directly and unequivocally destroying the bad guys is the one that no leader has dared try up until now. But it makes the most sense. And it would seem that the most logical step would be to cut the head off the snake, in a direct conflict with Iran.

Those who oppose a direct conflict with Iran often say that it would trigger a world war. But the reality is, there are only three major armies in the world capable of waging war overseas: the US, Russia, and China.

And it would not be in either Russia or China’s interests to go to war with the US over Iran. If they wanted a war with the US, there are a million other pretexts they could have come up with, but neither country has a mutual defense agreement with Iran.

If the US and Iran went to war, Russia and China would condemn the US actions. They would bring a resolution to the UN Security Council, and the US would veto it. A war would destabilize the Iranian government, nullifying its ability to support terrorist groups.

At the same time, Iran’s support for China with cheap oil, and Iran’s support for Russia with cheap drones, would also evaporate, bringing an end to the Ukraine War much closer.

The post Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC): Terrorists Supporting Terrorism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Sure, here's a proper attribution for the image:

"Photo by Mohammad Sadegh Heydari, sourced from [YPA.ir](http://www.ypa.ir/media/k2/galleries/517/02.jpg). Image depicts the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution exhibiting its main battle tanks during the Sacred Defence Week parade on September 21, 2012. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license."

Hamas Refuses to Release Hostages or Bodies of the Dead

The UN, rather than demanding the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and bodies, called for a ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. However, Hamas showed no such restraint, attacking Israel on October 7th, coinciding with the Jewish holy day that marks the transition from Shemini Atzeret, concluding the Sukkot festival, to Simchat Torah, a celebration of the completion and restarting of the annual Torah reading cycle. While the Pro-Palestine camp calls for an immediate ceasefire, Hamas is still holding hostages and refusing to release the bodies of those killed, including US citizens.

More than 250 hostages were captured or killed on October 7th. Israeli authorities have confirmed that at least 33 of the remaining 129 hostages are dead; however, there is evidence that most, if not all, have been murdered. Meanwhile, the bodies have not been returned. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) says that by withholding the bodies and refusing to confirm if hostages are alive or dead, Hamas is psychologically torturing the victims’ families.

By definition, this act of torture against innocent civilians, who in some cases do not even live in Israel, is an act of terrorism.

Both of Iris Weinstein Haggai’s parents, who were US citizens, were killed by Hamas on October 7th. However, Hamas has yet to release the bodies. Consequently, the grieving family has been unable to hold Shiva for their loved ones.

Shiva is a week-long mourning period observed by Jewish families following the death of a close relative, during which mourners gather to comfort the bereaved, recite prayers, and reflect on the deceased’s life. It has been described as “a time for spiritual and emotional healing.” Without the bodies of the deceased, holding Shiva becomes problematic, as the physical presence is a central aspect of the mourning process, providing closure and allowing for traditional funeral rites to be performed.

The family held a small gathering to honor the memory of the dead. However, the rabbi in attendance said that he was at a loss, as there was no prayer to address this horrific situation. He stated, “There’s nothing that really speaks to this. This is not normal.”

The family of Iris Weinstein is not alone in this dilemma; several other American families already know their relatives were killed by Hamas or are waiting for confirmation that those still held in captivity are dead. Without confirmation of death and without a body, the loss remains an open wound that the families cannot begin to overcome.

The inability to hold Shiva due to the absence of the bodies is deeply traumatic for the Jewish families affected. This is akin to the universal human need for a wake or ceremony in the presence of the deceased, allowing the family to come to terms with the loss before laying their loved ones to rest—a fundamental aspect across cultures worldwide.

Trying to grieve and honor the life of a deceased family member before getting the chance to bury their bodies is the wrenching position that numerous families of the hostages abducted by Hamas now find themselves in. So far, three American hostages have been confirmed dead, but Hamas is attempting to use the bodies and the hostages as bargaining chips. However, they have notified negotiators that they are unable to locate the 40 hostages they would need to release to begin a ceasefire.

One theory suggests that Hamas does not want to release the female hostages because they are pregnant, verifying irrefutably that they were raped. Another theory is that the hostages are dead, or that fewer than 40 remain living who meet the criteria of being female, aged, and wounded.

Hamas had already been granted a pause in the fighting back in November, during which it had agreed to release female hostages. Later, Hamas claimed they could not find the hostages, and the ceasefire broke down when Hamas launched another attack on Israel.

A statement released by the White House after a meeting with American families of hostages taken by Hamas states, “The Vice President underscored that President Biden and she have no higher priority than reuniting the hostages with their loved ones.” However, there has been no pressure by the US to force Hamas to release the hostages. The White House has also neglected to exert pressure on China to cease its support of Iran, and has taken no action to discourage Iran from supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

The vice president’s claim of making this issue a priority was not substantiated by a White House Proclamation on U.S. Hostage and Wrongful Detainee Day, which mentioned Gaza only once and did not mention Hamas at all.

And while not enough has been done to release the hostages, almost nothing has been done to recover the bodies of the slain so that families can get closure.

The post Hamas Refuses to Release Hostages or Bodies of the Dead appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Posters of hostages taken by Hamas during the 2023 attack on Israel"  is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Image sourced from Wikimedia Commons

Biden Job Creation: Part-time, Government Jobs, and Distorted Unemployment Numbers

The Biden White House claims to have heralded “a great year for American workers” with more jobs created “during any year of the prior Administration.” However, most are part-time or government jobs, paid for by taxpayers. Additionally, the constant influx of illegal immigrants distorts the job market.

The March jobs report shows 303,000 new jobs added. However, most of the jobs were part-time. Meanwhile, year-over-year creation of full-time positions has been in recession territory since December. Even these part-time jobs are largely going to immigrants, including illegal immigrants. Consequently, considering both part-time and full-time employment, there have been almost no jobs created for citizens.

Nearly one-quarter of the new jobs are government jobs, paid for by taxpayers. This percentage is about double the norm for government job creation, which typically falls between 10 and 12 percent. In addition to the fact that government jobs drain taxpayer funds, they also do not represent an investment in the future. Jobs created by a private company today, if successful, will grow and create more jobs in the future. Private companies develop new industries, products, and services that facilitate investment and the development of other private companies. This is why the US economy is much more robust than the economy of a centrally planned, communist country.

Even in communist China, the rapid economic growth of the past few decades was led by the private sector, not the public sector. Another problem with a growing public sector is that it draws talent away from the private sector. People who might otherwise have been inventive or innovative, creating something new in the private sector, will be absorbed into government jobs that produce nothing.

In addition to there not being enough full-time jobs, the job market is also plagued by swings and fluctuations. Inflation is a constant feature of the Biden economy, making markets more susceptible to speculation regarding Fed policy. Usually, as election time nears, the sitting president, running for reelection, will decide that the level of inflation is too low and will cut interest rates to induce an illusory job boom. Signals from the White House and the Fed suggest that they are mulling over such a destructive move now, despite the fact that the US still faces high inflation and has suffered cumulative inflation of over 18% since Biden took office.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is an example of a shortsighted policy that will give people the illusion of a better economy. People who will have thousands of dollars’ worth of debt wiped clean will feel instant relief and forget that every product they buy is more expensive than under Trump. As a populist move, those wishing to have their current or future college debts erased will also vote for Biden.

Like any other government transfer, the student loan forgiveness program is transferring money from taxpayers—who may or may not have been able to afford college—to people who borrowed money, attended college, and will now enjoy the economic benefits of an education at the expense of others. The trillions Biden is giving away through this and other programs, which began during COVID, are driving up the deficit, increasing the debt, and eroding the dollar’s buying power.

There are areas where job creation and real economic growth could be fostered, such as by increasing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports. The energy industry creates highly paid, full-time jobs for non-college graduates, which is something this country is running short of. However, Biden caved to the climate crowd and has halted approvals for export certifications for LNG, a commodity whose price has nearly tripled since sanctions on Russian energy exports reduced the supply to Europe and the world.

Cutting these LNG jobs and revenues is considered a victory for climate activists. However, the Energy and Commerce Committee, along with more than 150 House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are working to reverse Biden’s ban on LNG. They argue that demand will remain the same, while Biden is effectively cutting the supply, thus driving up prices. Expanding US LNG exports would bring down prices, create jobs, increase the size of the US economy, and afford the US diplomatic advantages, bringing the US closer to its European allies.

If the Biden economy is considered good, perhaps we should revert to the supposedly bad economy under Trump, where inflation was low, unemployment was low, gas prices were low, illegal immigration was being addressed, and Russia dared not invade Ukraine.

The post Biden Job Creation: Part-time, Government Jobs, and Distorted Unemployment Numbers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

bec, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Finishing Hamas: The Only Way the War Can End

A proportional response means it will happen again and again until Israel is destroyed.

The liberals want Israel to “show restraint.” The most unthinking are those calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. As long as Hamas continues to exist, this war can never end. A ceasefire would be followed by countless billions in developmental aid flowing from the globalist establishment into Gaza. It would be a huge win for Hamas. Terrorist attacks against Israel would continue. And if Israel reacted again in the future, they would immediately be attacked by the globalists. Both Hezbollah and Hamas will continue to attack Israel, provoking, wounding, occasionally killing, and the world will continue telling Israel to restrain itself.

The Covenant of Hamas clearly states Hamas’s goal of killing all of the Jews and eliminating Israel. “HAMAS” is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. The movement issued the Covenant of HAMAS on August 18, 1988. Hamas, an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization, has been designated a terrorist organization by the US and many Western powers. The group was elected as the official authority in Gaza in 2006.

Hamas operates with the expressed intent of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad (Islamic Holy War). The HAMAS Covenant states: ‘The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.’ (Article 6). This suggests that not only does Hamas seek to eradicate Israel in Gaza, but also in the territory currently known as Israel, as well as the West Bank, where Hamas holds no authority.

Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant is interpreted as a call for genocide against Jews: “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 Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”

There is no way to negotiate with a group whose aim is genocide. Liberals calling for compromise are actually just calling for Israel’s capitulation. What compromise would be possible? Hamas wants to kill 100% of the Jews. Should the two parties haggle and agree for Hamas to kill 40% instead? Given Hamas’s genocidal intent, there is no way that the two sides can coexist.

The two-state solution is complete nonsense. Gaza and the West Bank are not contiguous; they cannot be a single country. It would be impossible for Israel to ensure its security because they would be pressured by globalists to not impede Palestinians passing through Israel from one state to the other.

The liberals keep stressing that Gazaa and the Palestinians are not Hamas. However, there appears to be no anti-Hamas movement in Gaza. There is no anti-Hamas resistance. The Gazans looked very happy when they were celebrating after the October 7^th attack on Israel. So, it is unclear how the liberals see Hamas as distinct from Gaza. And if they are distinct, why have the liberals not condemned Hamas? There don’t seem to be protests in the US or Europe stating “We support Gaza, but condemn Hamas.”

Even the liberals, even the Queers for Palestine are refusing to condemn Hamas. If they do not differentiate between Hamas and Gaza, then why should everyone else?

Iran and Qatar must also be held accountable for their support of Hamas and other militias. Qatar has provided financial and political support to Hamas, and Hamas’s political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was based in Qatar for a period. Additionally, Qatar has hosted a Hamas office, which serves as a political bureau and facilitates communication and coordination with the international community. This office has been involved in diplomatic efforts and media relations on behalf of Hamas.

Right now, the Houthis, an Iran-backed militia, are disrupting global shipping. Hezbollah is also ratcheting up their harassment of Israel, firing missiles into Israeli territory and trying to instigate a war. Given Israel’s current posture of seeking a military solution to finally end these insurgencies, Hezbollah may get the war they are asking for.

The world must not just sit on the sidelines, but should take an active role in targeting Iran, destroying the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) preventing China from supporting Iran economically, and disabling Iran’s ability to fund and train regional militias. This would decrease China and Russia’s access to oil and drones, respectively, which would help the US achieve foreign policy objectives in Asia, as well as in Ukraine.

One way to alleviate the burden on American taxpayers funding Ukraine would be to end the war. If China’s support for Russia were cut, the end would come much sooner. If Russia did not have Iranian drones, that would also help level the field and bring the end nearer.

Attacks on Iran would also serve to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The only way that Israel can survive is to eliminate Hamas. The only way for the region to be stabilized is for Iran’s destabilizing force to be eliminated.

The post Finishing Hamas: The Only Way the War Can End appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Smoke and flames billow after Israeli forces struck a high-rise tower in Gaza City, October 7, 2023. Palestinian militants have begun a "war" against Israel which they infiltrated by air, sea and land from the blockaded Gaza Strip, Israeli officials said, a major escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Photo by Ali Hamad  apaimages

Capitalism, Not Socialism, Makes Us Richer and Freer

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” – JFK

Capitalism and free markets are the primary drivers of wealth creation while also protecting personal freedoms. Socialism and government intervention tend to erode personal freedoms and produce only temporary prosperity, addressing specific issues for certain groups while impoverishing others and overlooking the underlying causes of problems.

Biden’s American Rescue Plan was a good example of how ineffective socialism is at solving economic problems. By sending a $1,500 check to every poor person, he claimed, incorrectly, to have done more to reduce poverty than any other president.

Firstly, the American Rescue Plan drove up the US debt and pushed inflation to levels not seen in decades. Additionally, the $1,500 did not reduce poverty. The poverty threshold for a family of 3 is $25,820 per year. So, unless these families fell short by exactly $1,500, he did not bring them above the threshold that year. And unless he planned to send checks to all 37.9 million Americans living below the poverty line every year, forever, he has not eliminated poverty.

The only way for these people to rise out of poverty is to get a better job with a higher salary. So, the solution is free markets, not socialism.

The US ranks among the most capitalist countries in the world. In a capitalist society, the means of production are controlled by private businesses and private citizens, not the government. The economy runs according to the market, not central planning. Prices, wages, quantities, and types of production are determined by the market, with information transmitted from buyers to sellers millions of times per day.

In a capitalist society, a fast-food restaurant has the right to make a fish and peanut butter milkshake, but by refusing to buy that product, citizens signal that they do not want it, and the producer will either stop selling it or go out of business.

On average, the more government intervention there is in the economy, the lower the standard of living will be. As a hypothetical example, if the peanut butter and fish milkshake company had a government subsidy, it could remain in business, even though no one wants that product. The money the government spends supporting the unwanted fish and peanut butter milkshake company could have been spent on border security, which is one of the only purviews of government in capitalism.

In a true capitalist society, the government only has three responsibilities: maintaining courts and public security for protecting personal property rights, building infrastructure, and protecting the border. The further the government deviates from these limited mandates, the more money is wasted.

This report will compare four countries: the US, which has an economic freedom score calculated by Freedom House of 8.22, and the more socialist countries, Germany with an economic freedom score of 7.85, China with a score of 6.2, and Venezuela with a score of 3.34.

Standard of living can be quantified in the Quality of Life Index, which ranks countries based on the level of wealth, comfort, necessities, and material goods available to citizens. It also examines physical and mental health and wellness. Germany, with a score of 91.26, ranks slightly higher than the US at 89.11, but this is probably because of obesity and obesity-related illnesses, which decrease the health indicator in the US. But on some level, obesity is a positive sign of wealth. China, at 82.80, and Venezuela, at 71.66, rank worse off, with a lower standard of living.

While socialist countries offer free or heavily subsidized higher education, the United States boasts a diverse array of prestigious universities and colleges, many of which are privately funded. This competitive landscape fosters innovation and excellence in education, attracting students from around the world. The US has 3,100 universities, with 53 ranked in the top 100 globally. China has 2,495 universities, with 6 ranked in the top 100; Germany has 461 universities, with only 1 ranked in the top 100; and Venezuela has 73 universities, with 0 ranked in the top 100.

In terms of the average number of years of education citizens have, in Germany and the US, most adults have had 14 years of education, while in China, the average is 8 years, and in Venezuela, it’s 6.6 years.

For infrastructure, China is always touted as the leader in transportation because they have high-speed rail. However, the US has a much broader transportation infrastructure than any country in the world. The US has 148,553 kilometers of railroad, China has 10,767 kilometers (with a population four times the size of the US), Germany has 33,401 kilometers, and Venezuela has 682 kilometers.

Socialist countries usually have a government-owned national flagship airline, such as Air China or Conviasa in Venezuela. In the US, the airlines are private, and the US has more flights, with more Americans flying each year than citizens in any other country. Furthermore, Americans can afford to buy cars. Cars per capita in the US are 860 out of 1000, in Germany it’s 627 out of 1000, in China it’s 223 out of 1000, and in Venezuela it’s 149 out of 1000.

The US does not have a government sovereign wealth fund. Our outbound investment is private, and yet, the US is the largest source of outbound investment on the planet.

In socialist countries, citizens depend on the government to create jobs. The US, with a relatively free market for jobs, has a low unemployment rate of 3.6%, while in socialist China it is 5.1%, and in Venezuela, it is 7.5%. However, in China, youth unemployment had reached 21.3% last year before Beijing stopped reporting and then changed the definition of youth unemployment to make the number smaller. This is another example of the benefits of a free-market society. We have private institutions, NGOs, and associations that collect and publish data, so there is greater transparency.

The salaries between the US and socialist countries are vastly different. The average American earns about $75,269 per year, while the average German only earns $48,845. In China, it’s $12,598, and in Venezuela, it’s $3,910.

And the final kicker in a socialist country is income tax. In both China and Germany, the top income tax rate is 45%. In the US, it is 37%, and in Venezuela, it is 34%. So, Americans earn dramatically more than people in socialist countries and get to keep a larger percentage of their salary compared to most socialist countries.

Apart from failing to deliver in terms of economic well-being, socialism also falls short of its claim to offer greater freedom. Economic freedom, as already discussed, is higher in the U.S. In general, personal freedoms are also higher. According to the Human Freedom Index, which evaluates countries across the following criteria: Rule of law, Security and safety, Movement, Religion, Association, assembly, and civil society, Expression and information, public health, and a number of other factors, Germany ranked higher than the US at 18th. But this was largely because of the lack of social welfare in the US and because of the higher crime rate. The US ranked as the 23rd most free country in the world, China 152, and Venezuela 163.

As a result of capitalism, Americans earn more, keep more of their salary, and have greater freedom than in socialist countries. Let’s vote to keep it that way.

The post Capitalism, Not Socialism, Makes Us Richer and Freer appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Charles “Chuck” Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., look on as Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks on the American Rescue Plan Friday, March 12, 2021, in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

The Case for US Withdrawing from the UN

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize the United Nations. It is ineffective, expensive, threatens U.S. sovereignty, and impedes U.S. foreign policy objectives. But mostly, it is completely ineffective.

Earlier this month, North Korea tested a hypersonic weapon. Kim Jong Un is obsessed with developing nuclear missiles capable of striking South Korea, Japan, and the US. The United Nations expressed grave concern over the North Korean nuclear program but has been unable to slow it, much less stop it.

During COVID, China influenced the UN’s health body, the World Health Organization (WHO), to advocate for masks, lockdowns, school closures, and vaccines. The global economy still has not recovered, while children all over the world lost roughly two years of schooling. Teachers in the US are reporting that not only are children behind academically, but truancy has doubled compared to pre-COVID times, and classes are unruly.

Last December, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) introduced a bill to Congress calling for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations. The bill, titled the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act, proposes withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO), ceasing participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations, including providing funding, personnel, and equipment. Additionally, it would revoke diplomatic immunity in the U.S.

Among Senator Lee’s objections were the loss of sovereignty and the ongoing funding for the UN, which comes at the expense of US taxpayers. The US is the single largest funder of the UN, accounting for about one-third of the organization’s budget. In 2022, the US contributed $18 billion.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) supported the bill, citing corruption within the UN and the UN’s protection of Hamas in the current conflict with Israel. A further complaint was that China, a country the US has sanctioned for committing numerous human rights violations, particularly genocide against the Uyghur ethnic minority in Xinjiang, sat on the Human Rights Council.

Republicans have been criticizing the UN for years. Regarding a US pullout from the Human Rights Council, Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said, “When organizations undermine our national interests and our allies, we will not be complicit.” He was attacked by Democrats, liberals, and the mainstream media, who apparently value globalism over the national interests of the United States. When the Council was first formed in 2006, then-President George W. Bush refused to join.

At that time, Representative Tom Lantos of California, the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said, “This is a major retrenchment in America’s long struggle to advance the cause of human rights around the world, and it is a profound signal of U.S. isolation at a time when we need to work cooperatively with our Security Council partners.” The point Rep. Lantos is missing is that the US can be committed to human rights without joining the UNHRC.

The Brookings Institute said, “This telling remark illustrates that this administration’s North Star is toward a nostalgic past in which states had greater independence from international laws and multilateral diplomacy.” Countries, particularly the United States, having autonomy to join or not to join, to act without joining, is not a matter of nostalgia. It is a matter of choice. Throughout the decades, American Republicans have chosen for the U.S. to be independent and autonomous. Furthermore, there is the very real issue that when Washington joins these multinational organizations, the U.S. winds up footing the bill.

In 2018, Brookings said that US participation in the UNHCR was crucial, “investigating and condemning human rights abuses by some of the worst violators of human rights—Syria, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Cambodia, Belarus, Burundi, and Eritrea, to name a few.”

Looking at this list, 18 years later, it is obvious how ineffective the UNHCR is. Syria remains a basket case of instability, Iran is the single most disruptive force in the Middle East, the Myanmar junta has bombed more civilians in the last two years than Russia has in Ukraine, Sudan is still facing civil war. Hun Sen, who ran Cambodia as his own pocketbook for 30 years, retired, transferring power to his son, Hun Manet. Belarus is a pariah state, one of Russia’s closest allies, and Eritrea is on the brink of war with Ethiopia, again. Burundi only has limited rebel activity now, with only 20 people killed in December. They also have border disputes with Rwanda, but have not declared war. So, maybe the globalists count that as a success.

Supporters of globalism cite the importance of the UNHCR in protecting LGBTQ and women’s rights. Meanwhile, about 30% of UN member countries are Muslim-majority countries where LGBTQ may be illegal, and where women have very few rights.

Ironically, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and Venezuela have all sat on the UNHCR despite being some of the most oppressive countries that regularly repress human rights. The UNHCR has done nothing to change the world’s worst regimes, guilty of gross human rights abuses: Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Gaza, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. Additionally, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have sat on The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The UN Security Council is similarly useless and farcical. China and Russia sit on the council and have veto power to stop UN actions against genocide or against China or Russia, two of the world’s biggest violators.

Trump tore up the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Iran nuclear deal. He even threatened to withdraw the US from the UN and NATO. While these may seem extreme actions, why is it so wrong for the US to act in the best interest of the US? Furthermore, why should the US continue to pay money and lives for institutions that fail to prevent wars or mitigate crises but which can infringe on US autonomy?

The post The Case for US Withdrawing from the UN appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Nigerian physicians being trained by the World Health Organization (WHO) on how to put on and remove personal protective equipment (PPE) to treat Ebola patients. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Woke Body Positive and Anti-Diet Movements Normalizing Obesity

“Fat is fine” is the new mantra of those who want fat people to be accepted in spite of how they look and despite health problems associated with obesity. “Body positivity” is defined as “a movement where people whose bodies may not be seen as acceptable by society feel good about themselves and their looks.” The body positive movement, along with a related “anti-diet” movement and “health at every size,” are normalizing fat, which is discouraging people from losing weight or getting fit. The New York Times decried social media, such as Instagram, where influencers are pushing the notion that boys should be muscular or girls should be slim.

Obesity in the US has reached epidemic proportions, affecting 34% of adults and 15-20% of children, according to data from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Additionally, 17% of children and 68% of adults qualify as overweight, marking the first step toward obesity.

America leads the world not only in terms of obesity rates but also in athletic people, fat foods, and diet foods. So, food manufacturers, weight loss companies, and fitness equipment manufacturers can make money whether people lose weight or not. The food companies can even make people fat and then sell them the cure.

WebMD said, “People who are overweight can be considered healthy if their waist size is less than 35 inches for women or 40 inches for men, and if they do not have two or more of the following conditions: High blood pressure, high blood sugar, and high cholesterol.” It goes on to recommend that overweight people not gain additional weight and that they should “lose a few pounds.” However, a 40-inch waist for a man would suggest that he needs to lose a lot more than a few pounds.

Even the standards of research are being changed. WebMD stated, “Obesity and its related diseases claim many lives each year. The annual figure was initially estimated at 400,000, but was recently revised to 112,000, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.” It seems a bit odd that established research needed such a broad adjustment. Additionally, if roughly 51% of the population is obese, then there are over 173 million obese people in America. If only 112,000 of them die of obesity, it doesn’t seem like as much of a threat. And this is consistent with findings of a study cited by WebMD: “One thing that came as a huge surprise was that the study found no increased risk of death for overweight people.”

At the same time that articles are telling people that they can be fat and healthy, and WebMD claims that fat people do not run a higher risk of death, the University of Chicago Medicine reports that “Thirteen types of cancer and 200 other health conditions are related to obesity.”

It seems counterintuitive that being fat is healthy, and it is a bit suspicious that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States NIH both declared obesity an epidemic, but WebMD and other sources are claiming that there is little or no connection between fat and poor health. The recent rise of “wokeism” has also infiltrated the obesity issue, using the term “fat shaming.” According to The Washington Post, doctors can be guilty of fat shaming, and “fatphobia persists in medicine.”

This bizarre movement of not being able to say things that are true but offensive is at such an extreme that a morbidly obese fashion model named Tess Holliday, who weighs 260 pounds and wears a size 22, told the media that she identifies as anorexic. The news story was edited on YouTube because the word “anorexic” cannot pass the censors. Now, we aren’t even allowed to say the names of health problems or identify them as health problems.

A quick Google search reveals any number of articles with titles like “There’s No Such Thing as ‘Junk Food‘” and “Why There’s No Such Thing as ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ Foods.” There have been allegations that fast food companies have been funding researchers and influencers to promote the anti-diet and body-positive image.

It is well-documented that fifty years ago, sugar companies paid researchers to promote the notion that dietary fat, not sugar, was the cause of obesity and ill health. More recently, The Washington Post reported that General Mills, the company which makes Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms cereals, has been pushing the anti-diet movement. The company sponsored a campaign citing anti-diet research and condemning “food shaming.” They offered giveaways and sponsorship to registered dietitians who tagged their cereal endorsements with the hashtag #DerailTheShame. General Mills went so far as to pay lobbyists to influence federal policies to keep health information off food labels.

The profit incentive of fast-food companies, combined with the rejection of reality often associated with the “Woke” movement and the notion that no one should ever be held accountable for their actions, is contributing to the demise of an entire generation by encouraging them to be overweight.

Often, analogies are made between smoking and obesity. The cigarette companies tried to push scientific studies that claimed cigarettes did not cause cancer. Fortunately, the government was not convinced and launched anti-smoking campaigns, stressing the health threat of smoking, eventually leading to a reduction in the percentage of adults who smoked. In 1965, 42% of adults smoked. In 2021, it was only 11.5%.

By pushing a narrative that fat is healthy, the exact opposite is going to happen. The percentage of obese Americans will increase. Fortunately, the fast food companies can fund new research, adjusting the statistics to reduce the number of deaths.

The post Woke Body Positive and Anti-Diet Movements Normalizing Obesity appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Male abdominal obesity" by Lymantria, licensed under CC BY 3.0. Original image source: [Picasa Web Albums](https://picasaweb.google.com/105432035598159259077/SeychellesIslands2007#5308347760697849058), reviewed by Lymantria on 14 September 2011.

Myanmar: Only Bad Guys Can Have Guns

Reporting from the war zone in Burma/Myanmar

The UN and the global community have failed to enforce an arms embargo against the Myanmar junta, which receives weapons from Russia and China, while private donors are prohibited from supplying weapons to the rebels.

Late in the afternoon on Easter Sunday, the Burmese army launched airstrikes against a Buddhist temple in Karen State, where civilians from the nearby village had taken refuge. Five-hundred-pound bombs rained down for more than 10 hours. There were no soldiers in the village, so the strike had no military objective. In the end, women and children were among the dead, as was the head monk, whose body was torn in half. The villagers will likely join the ranks of the roughly 2 million internally displaced people (IDPs) in Burma.

The IDPs have no UN protection and remain prime targets for the Burmese military. They also have little or no support from outside. Humanitarian aid given by the US, EU, and UN goes directly to the junta. These donations end up funding the war, displacing and killing the very civilians the outside world mistakenly believed they were helping.

Airstrikes and artillery barrages are now killing more civilians in Burma/Myanmar than anywhere else on Earth, including Ukraine.

Since the 2021 coup, the United Nations, US, EU, and most developed countries have agreed not to sell arms to the Myanmar junta. However, a binding arms embargo has been stymied by China and Russia, both members of the Security Council. In 2022, when the UK drafted a statement of concern about the crisis, China and Russia vetoed it.

The Burmese army receives economic support from China and purchases attack helicopters and fighter jets from both Russia and China. The fuel for the jets is provided by China and Russia, and possibly India, though India denies it. The Burmese army also receives small arms, artillery, armor, and training from both Russia and China.

An example of how ineffective the UN is: the Burmese junta is one of the most sanctioned pariah states on the planet, yet they have no shortage of weapons, and the UN is powerless to stop them.

The ethnic resistance armies, by contrast, have no heavy weapons, no aircraft, and no means of detecting or defending against airstrikes. They engage in combat with a mix of homemade weapons, Vietnam-era US weapons, shotguns, hunting rifles, muskets, crossbows, cheap Burmese and Chinese copies of quality weapons, and even bicycle pump guns (Yes, you read that correctly).

What’s more, the rebels have no aircraft for resupply or troop transport. Consequently, the soldiers must travel on foot, carrying all of their equipment. Currently, one of the largest battles in Karenni State is taking place at the city of Loikaw. It takes approximately three weeks to walk there from the military base. The average Karenni soldier weighs about 121 lbs (55 kg). Carrying a Burmese MA-1 assault rifle, which weighs 4 KG, along with a backpack, uncooked rice, crew-served weapons like mortar rounds and ammunition, the gear quickly adds up, nearing their body weight. By the time they reach the front lines, they are hungry, weak, and ill-equipped.

The rebels now control most of the jungle and rural areas, but across the country, the Burmese army still holds the cities and towns. They are entrenched and have surrounded their positions with landmines. The rebels cannot launch direct attacks due to the presence of landmines and the fear of airstrikes. Drones have proven successful, but the rebels lack an adequate supply of drones, and the junta now possesses drone jammers provided by Russia.

Private donors attempt to transfer weapons to the rebels, but transiting weapons through Thailand violates Thai law. Meanwhile, the junta is fine to receive airplane and shiploads of weapons at its air and sea ports, in violation of international sanctions.

Outrage expressed in a UN letter has not halted the flow of weapons to the junta.

Last week, two Myanmar nationals were arrested in Thailand attempting to deliver an anti-drone jammer to an address in Burma. They were arrested under Thailand’s Arms Control Act, which prohibits the transit of weapons through Thailand without a permit.

Thai authorities are capable of intercepting weapons passing through Thailand, but most of those are destined for the rebels. The UN and the international community are unable to prevent weapons and fuel from reaching the junta, despite the junta being sanctioned and recognized as “the bad guys” by everyone except China and Russia.

The law can prevent the good guys from having guns, but not the bad guys. This echoes the old saying: “In a world where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

The post Myanmar: Only Bad Guys Can Have Guns appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Karenni bicycle pump gun, Myanmar/Burma photo by Antonio Graceffo

Burmese assault rifles Myanmar/Burma photo by Antonio Graceffo

Climate Change and Low Wages Not Grounds for Asylum

Two of the biggest reasons the Democrats give as to why illegals are coming and why they should be granted asylum are climate change and “the chance at a better life“; essentially, because they want higher wages.

In the past, neither of those qualified you for asylum. You pretty much had to prove that you had been singled out for execution by a despotic government or had to be fleeing a real, verifiable crisis, not a made-up climate crisis.

If we allow everyone in who wants to earn more money, that would encompass most of the world’s population.

The US has the 8th highest GDP per capita in the world, behind some very small but rich countries: Luxembourg, Singapore, Ireland, Norway, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland, which have a combined population of 37,600,000 people.

So basically, if wanting better economic opportunities was a legitimate reason to be granted asylum, all but 0.5% of the world’s population could claim that they would be richer living in the U.S. That means that over seven and a half billion people would qualify to come to the US if the criteria were that they could earn more money.

As for climate change, they are now using the term “climate migrants.” And to be fair, the climate probably is changing, but that doesn’t mean everyone should be applying for asylum. Ostensibly, the climate is changing everywhere, including the US, so coming to the U.S. wouldn’t help anyone escape climate change.

According to UN data, there has been a 1.8°C increase in temperature since 1951. Are people actually aware of such a small change? And why would it make them leave their home?

NASA data shows that sea level rises by 3.4 mm per year. To put that number in perspective, New York City streets are roughly 400 feet above sea level. At the current rate of sea-level rise, it will take 35,882.35 years for the sea to reach Broadway.

Of course, the climate crowd tells us that the rise is accelerating. It has doubled over the past thirty years. Assuming it doubles again over the next thirty, it will then be rising at a frightening rate of 6.8 mm per year. And it will reach Times Square in less than 17,941 years.

My goodness, won’t someone please think of the children’s great, great… 718 generations, great-grandchildren!

Illegal immigration has doubled over the past four years. Ostensibly, if climate change is the cause, then the effects must also have doubled or dramatically increased during that time.

One reason that is given is that Central America has been increasingly affected by natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts, which have displaced populations and prompted migration to the United States.

Doing some digging, it turns out that there have always been hurricanes, floods, and droughts in Latin America. Hurricanes occur every year between June 1 through November 30.

In fact, in 1899, Hurricane San Ciriaco hit Puerto Rico, and it was the most destructive hurricane in the history of the Caribbean, with heavy rains lasting for 28 days. Of course, the title of the most destructive or strongest hurricane is debatable. Some experts say the Great Hurricane of 1780 was the most powerful.

And there are other hurricanes over the past two hundred years that qualify with the most rainfall, highest barometric pressure, most wind, most deaths, but the bottom line is, hurricanes have always happened. So, they cannot be the cause of illegal migration over the past four years.

Looking into drought, I found an article with scary pictures of dry, parched earth. And the text read, “Already this year, Mato Grosso do Sul and São Paulo reported their lowest levels of rainfall in 20 years during the November-to-March rainy season.”

This confirms that 21 years ago, there was a worse drought. Checking to see if it is actually raining less, I found this from the EPA: “Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade.”

Therefore, we have established that there is more water and more heat. So, I wanted to check if there was also more food. And yes, crop yields across the globe, including in Latin America, have been trending steadily upward. So, claims that hunger caused by climate change drove illegal immigration over the past four years are illogical.

According to the UNHCR, “By 2050, climate change could force more than an estimated 216 million people to evacuate their homes, leaving their present lives and livelihoods behind, and move to safer areas.”

Here is the answer: People are fleeing their homes today, despite higher rainfall and increased agricultural yields, because they know that by 2050, every place on Earth that is not the United States will become uninhabitable.

There are two possible reasons why illegal immigration has doubled over the past four years. One possibility is that more people became aware of the fact that outside of the United States, the whole world will be uninhabitable.

The other possibility is that there are TikTok and other social media accounts telling people, “If you say climate change, they will let you in.”

The post Climate Change and Low Wages Not Grounds for Asylum appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Racaille1950, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Biden Is Ignoring Intelligence Agencies and DHS Reports

White Christians Not a Threat, Border Not Secure

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claims, “The border is secure,” and President Joe Biden said, “The most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy.” Not only are they both lying, but they are also ignoring the reports produced by the US Intelligence Community, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DoD).

Biden appointees, including the president himself, have claimed that the border is secure and that white Christian nationalists are the greatest threats to national security. These statements weaken our ability to address real threats. If the border is secure, then funding for additional security would be unjustified. And if Biden starts wasting public funds and security resources to hunt down white Christians, he will be leaving the country open to attacks from the real threats: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Islamic extremists.

President Trump said he would deport illegal aliens. Kamala Harris went on TV and said that she would “fight for their rights.” This statement presumes that illegal aliens have a right to stay in the United States. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas actually said, “From day one, this Administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer.” And certainly, no wall is needed if you do not wish to keep people out.

While the Biden White House and many of his appointees are misrepresenting reality, the intelligence agencies, Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), apart from Mayorkas, are doing their duty by identifying the real threats. The Annual Threat Assessment of the United States Intelligence Community identifies the greatest national security threats as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The term “white supremacy” is mentioned only once, on page 30. By contrast, the word China appears 91 times and has its own entry in the table of contents. White Supremacy is listed as one of many racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVE). The report does not say that it is a primary threat. In fact, it reports that, across the entire globe, only 27 people, most of whom were not American, were killed by RMVE since 2022.

The Department of Defense (DoD) National Defense Strategy Report similarly recognizes China and Russia as the two largest threats, followed by North Korea and Iran. The report does not mention white supremacy at all.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recognizes terrorism, both foreign and domestic, as the primary threat. This includes radicalization by foreign entities and the rebuilding of al-Qa’ida and ISIS. After terrorism, DHS expects “illegal drugs produced in Mexico and sold in the United States will continue to kill more Americans than any other threat.” Last year, there was a record number of encounters with migrants at the southern border, including “a growing number of individuals in the Terrorist Screening Data Set (TSDS), also known as the ‘watchlist.'”

This brings us to the false claim that the border is secure.

Trump was attacked for allegedly saying that migrants are not human. What he was actually saying was that with open borders, we are allowing gang members to enter the country, and the gang members have committed such atrocities that they are not human. He was also attacked for saying that Mexico is not sending us their best and their brightest; they are sending us drug dealers and rapists. He did not claim that all migrants were criminals. He said that some were good people. But he was 100% correct in saying that some are gang members, drug dealers, and criminals.

The US permits about 770,000 immigrants to be naturalized each year, which is more than the rest of the world combined. By definition, those who do not qualify to be admitted legally are not the best and the brightest. Trump’s claims are not only supported by logic but also by the reports of U.S. authorities, including DHS, the Intelligence Community, local media along the border, and The Office of Justice Programs, among others.

FBI Director Wray confirmed that the border crisis is a national security threat. The DEA reported that “Fentanyl is the greatest threat facing Americans today.” Fentanyl is manufactured in Mexico by cartels, using chemicals from China. It is then smuggled over the border by illegal aliens and distributed through street gangs with ties to the cartel. Often, these gangs have members who are illegal aliens and have been trafficked to the United States to work in illicit businesses such as drug dealing, prostitution, and even murder.

The Annual Threat Assessment of the United States Intelligence Community states that Mexico-based Transnational Crime Organizations (TCOs) “are the dominant producers and suppliers of illicit drugs to the U.S. market, including fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and South American-sourced cocaine.”

The Office of Justice Programs issued a report outlining the danger posed by cross-border gangs operating through the southern border. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wrote, “Transnational criminal street gangs such as MS-13 represent a significant threat to public safety.” A report by the Air Command and Staff College Air University stated, “Mexican Cartels along our Southern border pose a serious threat to our national safety and public health.” Furthermore, the report explained why the cartel threat is increasing: “As their influence and sophistication grow and the connection between them and terrorist organizations increases, the cartels become a larger threat to our national security.”

In conclusion, apart from Biden, neither the intelligence community, DEA, DHS, FBI, ICE, nor the DoD identified white supremacists as the greatest threat to national security. Additionally, no one other than Mayorkas claimed that the border was secure. By ignoring the reports of our intelligence and security agencies, the administration is increasing the threat to our national security.

The post Biden Is Ignoring Intelligence Agencies and DHS Reports appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

By U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - http://www.ice.gov/images/news/releases/2010/100304atlanta_lg.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12186985

Javier Milei Austrian Economist, Champion of Anti-Globalism

Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, is disliked by liberal globalists due to the threat he poses to their global agenda, much like Trump.

While Trump vowed to “drain the swamp,” Javier Milei wielded a chainsaw during his campaign, symbolizing his commitment to drastically reducing the size of government.

Most mainstream media label Javier Milei as either a Libertarian or a far-right extremist, a term they now apply to anyone who is less than 100% on board with every single aspect of globalism. However, Milei is also an economics professor and a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics. The Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, serves as a hub for Austrian economics. Its name originates from the Austrian heritage of the school’s early pioneers, including Carl Menger, Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and Friedrich Hayek.

Austrian economics aligns closely with conservative values. It emphasizes personal property rights, limited government intervention, free markets, low taxes, inflation, and debt, and voluntary exchange. Milei’s policies prioritize reducing government involvement, debt, and the welfare rolls while fostering entrepreneurship and protecting property rights. He rightly suggests that by cutting 70,000 government jobs, not only can government size be reduced, but also the deficit and Argentina’s debt problem can be addressed.

Regarding globalism, Austrian economists typically support free trade and international cooperation through voluntary exchange and economic interactions among nations. However, they oppose involvement in supranational organizations that impose policies on sovereign nations, citing conflicts with principles of individual liberty, national sovereignty, and limited government.

The mainstream media characterize Argentina’s Javier Mileii, America’s Donald Trump, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, and Chile’s José Antonio Kast as the new hard right, sharing three commonalities: fierce opposition to abortion, and gay and women’s rights. However, mainstream media misrepresents their stance on gay and women’s rights. They are only against policies that grant specific groups privileges. Affirmative action, quotas, or preferences in hiring, promotion, or school acceptance based on race, gender, or orientation would be banned.

Indeed, they oppose abortion, but in Argentina, America, Brazil, El Salvador, and Chile, murder is already illegal. These men advocate for extending legal protection to unborn babies.

Interestingly, although most Austrian economists adhere to Christian or Jewish beliefs and operate within a framework of Judeo-Christian values, they oppose abortion for various reasons of economic philosophy. These reasons include principles of individual liberty and property rights, which encompass the rights of unborn individuals. The notion is that our life is your property, and no one has the right to steal it. Furthermore, Austrian economists assert that abortion disrupts incentives and undermines the essence of voluntary exchange and societal cooperation by tampering with the natural consequences of individual actions.

Given their emphasis on property rights and the consequences of individual actions, it’s not surprising that Austrian economists take a tough stance on crime. President Bukele waged war on El Salvador’s drug gangs and successfully brought down the crime rate by arresting 76,000 villains and locking them up in a specially designed prison, where the guards rule, not the cons.

While Austrians typically reject the industrial military complex as a means of expanding government size and fostering opportunities for patronage, they strongly advocate for the use of force to protect property rights. President Milei is contemplating deploying the armed forces to take on the gangs in his country. Additionally, he has relaxed regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officers.

Just like President Trump, who always speaks his mind, Milei recently stirred up an international controversy when he insulted Colombia and Mexico, both of which are effective narco-states. He even warned that Colombia was on the brink of becoming the next Venezuela or Cuba. He referred to Venezuela as a “prison island” full of carnage. Of course, he was correct on all counts, but in this era of enforced globalism, identifying a genuine problem and attempting to solve it is not typically encouraged.

Of course, the mainstream media are labeling Javier Milei as a threat to human rights and attempting to vilify him, just as they did with Bukele for substantially reducing crime, as they did with Trump, and with Bolsonaro, who is now facing potential arrest in Brazil over allegations of using a fake vaccine passport two years ago.

Personally, I find the Milei show nearly as entertaining as the Trump show, observing how the globalists lose their minds over anyone daring to reject their agenda. However, I genuinely fear that Milei may be assassinated.

The post Javier Milei Austrian Economist, Champion of Anti-Globalism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), CC BY 2.5 AR <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/deed.en>, via Wikimedia Commons

UN Aid Funds Terrorists and Tyrants

At the urging of the United Nations, aid is being sent to Gaza, where it will be received and distributed by Hamas, the authority in Gaza. Designated as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) by the U.S. government in 1997, Hamas imposes taxes on all imports and exports, including aid, which has contributed to Gaza’s initial poverty. Now, with the humanitarian crisis caused by Hamas’s October 7th attack on Israel, the United Nations and the global community are providing funding to Hamas.

Aid given by sovereign nations comes from taxes; therefore, U.S. taxpayers are now funding Hamas. Under U.S. law, providing material support to designated terrorist organizations is a federal offense. President Trump has urged that all support for Palestine and Gaza be halted because the money is supporting terrorism, but the UN, the Biden administration, and globalists and liberals have criticized him. Additionally, the UN has refused to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization.

In Myanmar/Burma, roughly two million people have fled their villages and are taking shelter in the jungle because of attacks by the military junta, which seized power in a 2021 coup. While these people are running out of food and water and lack proper shelter and clothing, the UN is providing humanitarian aid to the junta. Ostensibly, the junta has promised to ensure that the aid reaches the people the army is trying to kill; however, having been in the jungle in Burma with displaced people, I can assure you that the only things the government is dropping into the camps are bombs and artillery shells.

Private aid organizations would like to assist the internally displaced people in Burma. However, it is prohibited by the regulations of the UN to violate a country’s sovereignty by providing aid without permission. Consequently, small, privately funded groups, mostly Christian organizations from the U.S., such as the Free Burma Rangers (FBR), take significant risks to cross the mountains, often under cover of darkness, through minefields, and under fire, to deliver small amounts of rice and medicine to those in need. Meanwhile, the generals receive millions of dollars in aid from the UN.

According to the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, North Korea ranks approximately fourth in terms of national security threats to the US and second to the national security of Japan, our closest ally in Asia. It is also one of the poorest and most repressed countries in the world due to government mismanagement. The UN continues to provide aid to North Korea, freeing up resources for Kim Jong Un to allocate toward his rocket program.

Since the US pullout of Afghanistan, the UN has provided the country with $2.9 billion worth of aid. The Taliban remain designated as a foreign terrorist organization. With the UN aid, plus the money they are making from selling the US weapons Biden left them, they must be sitting comfortably.

The UN allegedly strives to deliver aid to those in dire need, regardless of the political situation. This is a noble goal, as civilians often suffer the most during conflicts. However, achieving this goal is difficult. Corruption, conflict, and political agendas can divert aid or make it hard to reach those who need it most.

As the list of countries where aid was diverted or stolen is quite long, the UN has implemented stricter guidelines and monitoring programs to reduce diversion. Independent Audits: The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigates allegations of misuse of funds. Currently, the People’s Republic of China, the US’ number one national security threat and the world’s most prolific trade cheat and intellectual property thief, sits on the United Nations Board of Auditors.

UN investigators or inspectors have no authority. They must obtain permission from the country they are investigating, and access may not be granted. Beijing denied access to UN investigators who were attempting to confirm the genocide against the Uygur ethnic minority in China’s Xinjiang. To this day, China remains in the lead in four UN agencies and has the ability to deny the existence of genocide at home because it has never been proven.

Even if the UN could prove violations, it has no law enforcement capabilities. It can do nothing but issue a strongly worded letter. It could cease aid, as it has in some countries with egregious violations, like they did in Eritrea, but even then, they just wind up reducing rather than completely cutting aid. Often, the aid is restored later. And any number of despots and terrorists continue to receive aid unabated.

China and Russia sit on the United Nations Security Council and have vetoed UN interventions in genocide. Cross-border relief is another major issue where despotic countries can veto. In countries like Burma and Syria, internally displaced people need help, but the government refuses to let the aid get in. The Security Council could vote to bypass the need for permission, but China and Russia hold veto power.

Iran, one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world, has held seats on the governing boards of aid organizations such as UNICEF and the UN Development Program. The list of dictators and despots that have sat on the Human Rights Council reads like a parody, including Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Cuba, Venezuela, China, among others. Since 2022, dictators have comprised 68% of the UN Human Rights Council. Additionally, Syria was elected to the WHO and Iran was elected to the top of a women’s rights body.

In summary, the UN provides funds to dictators and terrorists. The US’s top enemies, China and Russia, hold seats on the Security Council and have the power to veto the provision of aid to those who truly need it. Furthermore, a rogue’s gallery of pariah states sits on various committees, facilitating aid and preventing sanctions against some of the world’s worst actors.

Trump was right. The US needs to rethink its involvement in the United Nations.

The post UN Aid Funds Terrorists and Tyrants appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fars Media Corporation, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Biden Sending Aid, Guns, and Money Won’t Fix Haiti

“U.S. Doubles Pentagon Budget for Multinational Haiti Force,” reports The Miami Herald. And just like that, the U.S. has another war on its hands, and soon the refugees will arrive. Despite Republican opposition blocking $40 million in security aid, $10 million is already on its way to buy guns for the Haitian police.

The situation in Haiti is unwinnable, and U.S. meddling has only made things worse. More U.S. money, weapons, and diplomatic support for any of the warring factions will just perpetuate the cycle of violence, coups, assassinations, and corruption that have rendered Haiti an effectively failed state.

In 2021, the Biden Administration backed Haiti’s unpopular Prime Minister Ariel Henry, a move that many feel helped to fuel much of the current violence. James Foley, a retired career diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Haiti, remarked that the Biden Administration “rode the horse to their doom” by supporting the wrong man.

Now, the country has collapsed into chaos, with a figure known as Barbecue leading the country’s gang coalition. However, Barbecue has been excluded from a transitional governmental council established with the UN’s blessing.

Last year, under Henry’s watch, gangs killed an estimated 4,800 people. Between January and the beginning of March, an additional 1,200 were killed. The streets were littered with decomposing bodies, while gangs waged war for control.

Innocent civilians suffered; they were robbed, raped, or caught in the crossfire. Business owners were forced to pay for protection, and shortages of essential goods occurred as delivery drivers refused to risk their lives.

Kidnapping for ransom had become a mainstay industry. A humanitarian crisis exploded as doctors, nurses, and patients were afraid or unable to reach hospitals. More than 300,000 Haitians have been forced to flee their homes, while refugees have flooded into or attempted to flood into the Dominican Republic.

While Haiti burned, gangs demanded Prime Minister Henry’s resignation.

The gangs attacked police stations, raided a jail, and released 3,000 inmates. Already in control of 80% of the territory in the capital city, they laid siege to both the presidential palace and the interior ministry. The gangs were struggling to gain control of the country’s primary seaport and airport when Prime Minister Henry jumped on a plane.

He flew to Africa to meet with leaders there and also held meetings with CARICOM, the 15-nation bloc of Caribbean countries, trying to organize an international peacekeeping mission to restore order in Haiti.

However, those nations were not willing to step into the quagmire of trying to prop up an unpopular government in a country that has never had stability.

On his way back to Haiti, the situation had become so dire that it was no longer safe for him to land at the country’s main international airport. So, he attempted to find a friendly port to take refuge in.

Neighboring Dominican Republic, as well as other Caribbean nations, refused to let him in. Finally, the U.S. gave him permission to land in Puerto Rico.

Now a former police officer, Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizier, previously accused of participating in several large-scale massacres in Port-au-Prince, has emerged as the leader of a coalition of gangs attempting to negotiate the formation of a new government.

Aid groups estimate that 1.5 million people are now in need of protection and assistance. President Biden believes the aid should come from America, while many Americans hold a contrary opinion.

Haiti has never experienced stability, and the situation appears unresolvable at this point. By assuming the burden of fixing Haiti’s problems, the US would be stepping into another situation akin to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is deemed completely unwinnable due to a long history of dysfunction and numerous warring parties, all vying for control of one of the world’s poorest and least developed countries.

Between 1945 and 2023, Haiti witnessed 24 coup d’états, and six Haitian presidents were assassinated. The most recent assassination occurred in 2021 when President Jovenel Moïse was killed.

Following his assassination, Claude Joseph, who was the acting Prime Minister at the time of Moïse’s death, declared a state of siege in Haiti. However, there was a dispute over leadership, as Ariel Henry, who had been appointed as Prime Minister by Moïse just days before his assassination, claimed the right to lead the government.

Eventually, Ariel Henry was recognized as the Prime Minister by international actors, principally the United States, and took office, succeeding Claude Joseph.

On March 11, Henry finally resigned, and United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed his support for a transitional council that would appoint a successor to Henry until elections could be held.

The first problem with this plan is that Ariel Henry’s assumption of office as Prime Minister was initially intended to be temporary, with the goal of overseeing the organization of elections in Haiti.

After assuming office, Henry pledged to work towards holding elections and facilitating a peaceful transition of power. However, the situation remained tense as various factions did not accept Henry’s rule.

A systemic issue that has contributed to violence and instability is that each of the successive governments for the past 20 years or more has utilized street gangs as enforcers.

Consequently, the powerful and well-funded gangs demand a piece of the action. As soon as a government resorts to extra-governmental militias to enforce its policies, democracy is compromised.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, Biden, the UN, and other well-meaning actors mistakenly believe that a democratic transition is possible.

The transition, which the UN approves of, was agreed upon in Jamaica by the intergovernmental Caribbean Community (CARICOM), along with representatives of Haiti’s government and opposition.

When the list of political groups was released by CARICOM, some Haitian political factions were enraged because they were not represented. Some rejected the list completely, while others criticized the fact that Haiti’s political class, which had steered the country into its current crisis, were to be brought back to power.

Barbecue, for his part, threatened to kill politicians and their families who participate in the council.

The situation is completely untenable. The gangs are not going to accept the interim government, and the violence will continue unabated. Biden needs to steer the US clear of this dumpster fire. The last thing America needs is another expensive and hopeless foreign military intervention.

The post Biden Sending Aid, Guns, and Money Won’t Fix Haiti appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

FILE - A protester carries a piece of wood simulating a weapon during a protest demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Ariel Henry, in the Petion-Ville area of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Oct. 3, 2022. Source: Voice of America (VOA)