Malala Yousafzai most certainly has a lot of light. At the young age of 11, she began advocating for education for girls after the Taliban took over her district of Swat in Pakistan. About three years later, she—alongside two other girls—was shot in the head on a bus for her passionate, outspoken views.She survived and went on to address the United Nations about the importance of education. According to her nonprofit's website: "The U.N. recognized July 12 as Malala Day, in honour of her courageous advocacy and to highlight the global struggle for education. With her father, her ally and inspiration, she established Malala Fund, an organisation dedicated to giving every girl the opportunity to learn and choose her own future." See on Instagram Just one year later, she became the youngest-ever recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. She has received numerous awards, been honored by Time Magazine, and continues to inspire people around the world.Recently, one of her younger brothers, Khushal Yousafzai, was speaking at the Oxford Scholars Program when he was asked whether he ever felt "overshadowed" by his sister's accomplishments. His answer was vulnerable, heartfelt, and lovely:"My sister nearly died. Forget her winning the Nobel Prize. Forget her getting the limelight. I would give up my life for you to have a life. Death puts things into perspective like nothing else does." See on Instagram He pauses, then says, "Why would her success take anything away from me? I'm not in my sister's shadow. I'm in my sister's light. And Rumi has this beautiful quote: 'A candle doesn't lose its light when it lights up another candle.' Actually makes the world a brighter place. It lights up the whole room."He continues with a message about supporting the people you love:"So guys, uplift each other. If you see your friend, uplift them. Because guess what? We all are gonna die someday. And your friends, I'm sure they mean a lot to you. And at times, there is that feeling of jealousy. You don't want to be going to their funeral and telling their parents how amazing they were. Because guess what? It's too late. So tell them while they're still alive. You don't want to live with that, so uplift people while they're still here."Khushal speaks frequently to students about his journey. He is also a fierce advocate for education and finding the fuel to live life to its fullest. According to a biography he shared with Upworthy: "Through his educational platform, Yousafzai Academy, he mentors students about personal and academic growth, learning from setbacks, and leadership."Many commenters on Instagram expressed heartfelt support and said they were deeply touched by his words."So beautiful to see his immense love for his sister shared so honestly, vulnerably, and without any hint of shame or resentment," one commenter said. "And the Rumi quote is just so perfect. ❤" See on Instagram Another notes that his wisdom isn't surprising, considering his whole family is involved in activism: "This family has got all the right things going on! What a gift to the world."This person was moved by his words, especially by the idea of uplifting people while there's still time: "Wisdom. Beautiful. Fabulous. What a family! Uplift your friends. Uplift people while they are still here. Yes!"And this commenter deduces that the trauma his family has been through has created a thoughtful empath: "You have a high level of empathy

I’ll start this off by wishing everybody a very, ummm, satisfactory Lenten season. For those of you who are Catholics, you’re welcome to post in the comments what you’re giving up until Easter. I myself am using this time to break a personal addiction of sorts, as I’ve gotten to the point where I cannot stop eating dark chocolate-covered almonds. Something about those has flipped a switch for me, and the cravings have reached a point where they need controlling, so it’s cold turkey for the next six weeks or so. We’ll see how that works. There are other things we as a society need to give up for Lent, if not forever… 1. Bad Faith, All of the Time I did a radio segment on Thursday on Chicago’s Morning Answer show, as I often do. My friend John Anthony was sitting in for the usual host, Dan Proft, and we were talking about a couple of the most recent columns on this page — yesterday’s piece on the Randy Fine-Muslims vs. Dogs controversy, and last week’s item about the Amelia meme in the U.K. and what it says about elite control and celebrity. (RELATED: Randy Is Just Fine, Say Dogs and Most Americans) Here was the segment. I’m posting it for a reason beyond self-promotion as a radio and podcast guest, I promise; there’s something John and I were talking about that I wanted to pick apart further… Political discourse in America has devolved into what one commentator describes as a “food fight,” with little room left for good-faith debate and increasing overlap among culture, technology, and public policy. That was the assessment of Scott McKay, publisher of @TheHayride and… pic.twitter.com/yn438HMI5n — Morning Answer (@MorningAnswer) February 19, 2026 If you’ve paid much attention to the quality of argumentation extant in modern America, you might have noticed the abrupt about-face we’re seeing in the very nature of arguments, particularly those made about politics. The classical interpretation is that you have these arguments because both sides are trying to get to the truth, and a good-faith argument will produce items of consensus along the way as the sides make their points. Along the way, the argument gets narrower and narrower until some sort of consensus is forged. And in that process, mutual respect and even sympathy are found. But we don’t do any of that anymore. When people make arguments now, it’s not an effort at truth and rationality. We’re not trying to understand the other side’s position so that we can distill the real source of the disagreement. And often that can’t even be done because the disagreement doesn’t spring from rationality at all. And what’s becoming more and more clear is so many people — not just trolls on the internet but politicians and others who are supposed to be good at this stuff — are actively trying not to understand the other side’s position, but rather, they’re playing dumb in order to fool bystanders into thinking things which aren’t true. Randy Fine is a good example. One reason Fine is so hated by many on the Left was that he was shown a picture of a dead kid in Gaza and asked, as a Jew who supports Israel, how he could sleep at night. Fine’s response was, essentially, that he had no trouble at all. Ever since, he’s been reviled. But of course, the dead kid met his end as an end result of actions taken presumably in the kid’s interests — meaning, Hamas launched a stupid and destructive war against Israel, largely by attacking Israeli kids, some at a music festival of all places, and then Hamas uses Gazan kids as human shields against the Israelis who are trying to kill terrorists. Fine understood that, and he also understood that the people trying to guilt him with that picture were not acting in good faith, so he steamrolled them by playing the part of the ogre. Which isn’t illegitimate. They’re going to call you horrific names anyway; might as well get your money’s worth. The downside being that we are no closer to consensus. If you want that war to end — we’re hoping the current armistice holds, but it’s anything but guaranteed the Israelis and Palestinians won’t be trading punches again by the time you read this — it’s going to require everybody coming together around key principles like Dead Kids Are A Terrible Thing, and We Should All Agree Not To Do Things Which Produce Dead Kids. But that isn’t where we are. We’re far away from that sort of understanding. When the opening gambit is The Other Side Wants Dead Kids, there is no road to consensus. Civil war is a lot more likely. And once you notice the shift away from truth-seeking and effort at consensus and toward gotcha moments and demonization, you can’t unsee it. It’s pretty much all there is now. Just consider the debate on the SAVE Act, and you’ll understand what I’m talking about. (RELATED: Save the SAVE Act: Sunset the Filibuster) 2. Some Help for AOC She utterly botched that question on the China-Taiwan conflict in that discussion in Munich last weekend, and it’s fair to wonder if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can be fixed as a foreign policy expert. But I thought I’d throw something into the mix on this anyway, because it’s an interesting scenario if nothing else. (RELATED: AOC’s Big Comedy Show in Europe) The thing is, China is unlikely to try to take Taiwan. They’re very likely to rattle sabers with an eye toward spooking the Taiwanese into giving lots of concessions, but an all-out invasion is a very dicey thing for a Chinese political elite not prone to taking big risks. Why do I say this? You might have heard of Casey Jones, a civil engineer and YouTuber. He’s got a decent following of about 70,000 people, but he’s done a couple of videos of late that touched on a key vulnerability of China’s. Here’s one. He’s talking about the Three Gorges Dam. There’s a bit of debate as to whether Taiwan has enough hardware to take that dam out. But that’s the point — it’s debatable. What’s not debatable is whether a full-on missile strike would do enough damage to create a very serious problem for China. It would. You don’t need a full collapse of the dam in order to get massive, catastrophic flooding. Simply blowing out several gates would be plenty enough to flood big chunks of the Yangtze River valley, including much if not most of Wuhan. So if you’re AOC and you get asked this question, an easy answer is “I’m not sure the Chinese really think this is a risk worth taking.” It’s not a crackpot theory. Engineers and others have been kicking this around for 20 years. It’s a pretty well-known vulnerability. 3. Is It Sarcasm? (Answer: Yes) The internet is destroying our national sense of humor. For example, this was quite well done, but Good Lord, the ratio… These poor black folk have gathered in the White House to celebrate black history month, and nobody told them the President is a white supremacist. They cheered him continuously, and a few even yelled, “we love you!” Imagine how embarrassing that must be for them. Someone… pic.twitter.com/QIY2opz6DB — Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) February 18, 2026 Now, admittedly, some of the responders aren’t so much dense as they’re pretending to be, per our first item in this post. Nevertheless, when the sarcasm is just dripping off something, even on Facebook or X, it’s your duty to perceive it. 4. Will Quentin Deranque’s Death Lead to the Death of the French Regime? I could probably have done an entire column on this, but a truly horrific murder in France has that country roiled in the kind of way that might not be reparable. The victim was a 23-year-old college student and Catholic activist who’s been described as “far-right.” Whether that’s true or not, Quentin Deranque was on hand to provide security for a protest in Lyon by a group known as Nemesis Collective, which is a group of women opposed to Islamic penetration of French culture and politics. For his trouble, Deranque was set upon by 11 Antifa leftists and beaten to death. It turns out that two of the Antifa thugs who killed Deranque were legislative aides for a politician named Rafael Arnault, who is with a party called La France Insourmise (France Unbowed), a hard-leftist/communist outfit which is part of the coalition formed to keep Marine Le Pen’s party out of power. Generally speaking, people will get a little alarmed when people are slaughtered on the streets over politics. And in France, they’re pretty alarmed. So what does the French government do? Well… An autopsy found that Deranque suffered a fractured skull and fatal brain injuries, according to Lyon’s prosecutor, Thierry Dran. He launched the police investigation for homicide and other potential criminal charges. Dran’s office said police detained a man and a woman on Wednesday morning, with nine other people taken into custody on Tuesday night. … Deranque’s death triggered a storm of recriminations, mostly targeting France Unbowed. The party is led by veteran hard-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a former Trotskyist who stood for the presidency in 2012, 2017 and 2022 and failed to advance to the decisive run-off round. And… The first wave of arrests was announced late on Tuesday, as Dran said nine suspects had been arrested. Those detained included people who were suspected of having participated in the violence and others who had provided support to them, sources told Agence France-Presse. Hours later, two more suspects were arrested: a man who the prosecutor said was suspected of being directly linked to the violence as well as his partner, who was suspected of trying to help him evade justice. The LFI politician Raphael Arnault confirmed that his parliamentary assistant was among those detained, adding the aide had “ceased all parliamentary work.” On Wednesday, as news of the arrests spread, the LFI said it had been forced to evacuate its national headquarters. “The national headquarters of LFI have just been evacuated following a bomb threat,” the party’s coordinator, Manuel Bompard, said on social media. “Police services are on site. All employees and activists are safe.” That bomb threat is quite likely to have been a hoax, but it’s enough that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who leads this murderous band of thugs disguised as a political party, is now calling for the disbandment of the Nemesis Collective. This being the Nemesis Collective… This is ridiculous, Islamic supremacy is out of control in France, the far left are murdering people & the government are scared of a few women who use their voices to oppose the downfall of their once great nation. Rise France rise , patriots across the world support you,… https://t.co/7aXHxQtR4O — Tommy Robinson

Dr. Ashley Alford advertises herself as the “highest-volume vaginoplasty surgeon in New England.” That means she performs surgeries on male genitalia in an attempt to make her patients appear to be female. Yet Alford, prolific in performing “robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasties,” has suddenly canceled all of her surgeries. The reason could be as simple as a family emergency or sickness, but the hospital she works at, UMass Memorial, has yet to provide an explanation despite repeated prompting from patients. That has led people to speculate that Alford could be facing some sort of legal trouble related to her surgeries or that she could be facing pressure to no longer perform transgender surgeries. One patient said Tuesday that the hospital is now describing Alford as being on personal leave. GBH reported last week that it had spoken with six of Alford’s patients, all of whom told the same story of their surgeries or appointments being suddenly canceled. One patient who previously had “bottom surgery” and had a revision surgery scheduled with Alford, Hannah Garceau, told GBH that his appointment to discuss the surgery with Alford was suddenly canceled. Garceau said that when he tried to reschedule the appointment, he was told by the hospital that the appointment could not be rescheduled at that time. He reported that a hospital staffer had told him, “I think there’s been some changes. So I’m not sure exactly what’s going on.” Another patient who did not give his name said that he was “crushed” that his surgery was canceled and that he couldn’t stop crying. “This surgery was life-changing because it finally gives me the body that’s right for me,” he said. “It has been ripped away with no explanation or follow-up plan.” This may very well be a simple case of a surgeon going on leave for personal reasons, but people are wondering if it could be connected to the threat of lawsuits facing doctors performing transgender procedures. In January, a jury awarded a woman, Fox Varian, millions of dollars after her doctors were found to have engaged in medical malpractice by approving and performing a double mastectomy on her when she was just 16 years old. There are currently 28 lawsuits that have been filed by detransitioners, according to Mark Trammell, general counsel at Center for American Liberty. In an event hosted by the Federalist Society Wednesday titled “Who is Liable in Detransition Cases?” experts explained that so-called “gender-affirming care” remains quite profitable, causing it to continue in spite of growing public opinion against it. “We seem to have the weight of public opinion in constraining some of the expansion of gender identitarianism, but we see gender-affirming care continue to proliferate,” said Sarah Perry, vice president and senior legal fellow at the organization Defending Education. (RELATED: Is This the End of Transgender Hysteria?) “Bottom surgery” can fetch up to $100,000, said Erin Hawley, senior counsel and vice president at the Alliance Defending Freedom. But what is now a $10 billion a year enterprise is beginning to face some headwinds. “Right now, we are seeing automatic insurers begin to reassess their coverage for gender clinics, and state legislators are renewing debates over the ethical and financial accountability of institutions performing these surgeries on minors,” said Perry. Of course, even as there is some reassessment of gender treatments for children, the overwhelming majority of surgeries are done on adults, and these surgeries remain largely outside of public debate. This is in spite of the fact that there are high rates of complications. (RELATED: The Med-Mal Floodgates Are Open Thanks to the Fox Varian Case, and Thank God for That) A study published last year in Annals of Surgery on “robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty,” the surgery Alford is known for performing, found that 16 percent of patients had a follow-up “bottom surgery.” Eight percent of patients reported giving up on “dilating” their “neovagina” at their last appointment, while 8 percent of patients were reported as being anorgasmic. This particular surgery has only been performed for about the past 8 years, meaning there has been minimal study of it. “There is a lack of long-term outcomes data for gender-affirming vaginoplasty to inform patient decision-making,” said the Annals of Surgery study. (RELATED: Of Lobotomies, Anorexia, and ‘Gender-Affirming Care’) Complications that can occur include wound dehiscence, superficial surgical site infection, hematoma, viscus injury, venous thromboembolism, graft expulsion, and deep surgical site infection. Perry explained that right now, we are seeing individual doctors, hospitals, and associations back off of “gender-affirming” surgeries, but that this is only being done “piecemeal.” “The polling seems to indicate that we want to slow down on gender transition, we want to slow down on a lot of these expansions. But the gender medicine juggernaut continues to churn apace,” Perry said. This, she said, results from “the profitability of so-called gender-affirming care as an industry.” It seems more likely that Dr. Alford’s surgeries have been canceled because of her own personal reasons, but in this environment, all eyes are on surgeons who perform so-called “bottom surgeries.” Will they stand strong against the growing tide of lawsuits and keep cashing in, or will they bow out in fear? READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s Feminist Meltdown Is Gretchen Whitmer Back In? The Growing Liberal Backlash Against Newsom Image licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Some people fail to see their own irony. A few of them attended the premiere of Catarina and the Beauty of Killing Fascists in Bochum, Germany, last Saturday. The play’s theme centers around a Portuguese family’s ritualistic annual murder of a fascist. If the spectre of fascism really hung over the West, then certainly one would expect the audience disruption — in Germany, no less — to come from neo-Brown Shirts. These creatures, however, more densely populate the imaginations of those behind Catarina and the Beauty of Killing Fascists than they do our actual world. Instead, audience members suffering from the ideological hallucination that fascism threatens a global takeover saw the actor who played the character of the sacrificial fascist as an actual fascist and attacked him as he delivered a monologue. It started with attempts to shout down the actor, then somebody threw an orange at him, and, finally, a few people rushed the stage to attack. “I was astonished by the stupidity, really,” Mateja Koležnik, the show’s director, reacted. “I never, ever thought — nobody did — that somebody from the audience would jump on stage and try to hit the actor. I would expect this from the people we are voting against, but not from the people who should be on our side.” The event generally evoked Lawrence Levine’s wonderful book, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Therein, Levine explores audience passivity as a marker of highbrow performances and audience participation as a marker of lowbrow performances. Singing along, dancing, and, in extreme cases, heckling, pelting with foodstuffs, and fighting on-stage villains — all vehicles of audience catharsis — characterized the entertainment for the everyman. In a more specific sense, the event evoked Levine’s discussion of Richard III, the most popular William Shakespeare play in 19th-century America. At a performance in 1856, The Sacramento Daily Union reported that, following Richard’s murder of Henry, “Cabbages, carrots, pumpkins, potatoes, a wreath of vegetables, a sack of flour and one of soot, and a dead goose, with other articles, simultaneously fell upon the stage.” Ultimately, both dead Henry and alive Richard, “his head enveloped in a halo of vegetable glory,” hastily exited the stage. This and other examples shared in Highbrow/Lowbrow illustrate that audiences in primitive times sometimes could not distinguish between fantasy and reality. Do we live in primitive times? We certainly live in delusional ones. Like Richard III, which depicts the last English king to die in battle falsely as a murderer of small children, Catarina and the Beauty of Killing Fascists comes across as a work of propaganda, even though its plot contains a few more subtleties than the brutes who rushed one of its players. Neither Portuguese dictator António de Oliveira Salazar nor his followers were fascists. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Norman Thomas, Leon Trotsky, and others who opposed Stalinism, they received this designation by Soviet Communists and their agents. Fascism is a taunt disguised as a stable political classification. It basically means: I hate you. Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, the original fascist, owed his four names to men of the left. Mussolini served as the editor of the official newspaper of the Italian Socialist Party. The term “fascist” is similarly derived not from anything to do with individualism but from a Latin word for “bundle” that in its verb form meant “to bind.” In power, the fascists implemented a new deal for Italy, later imitated in America. As Wolfgang Schivelbusch put it in Three New Deals: Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939, a “synchronicity” existed between the vast public works projects of the Nazis, New Dealers, and fascists. Fascism is a taunt disguised as a stable political classification. It basically means: I hate you. In this sense, it has become one of those unique words that tell us much about the person who says it and very little about the person to whom the label affixes. (RELATED: ‘Fascist’ Is the Dumbest Political Insult in the World Today) “Fascist,” similar to “abracadabra” and “alakazam,” acts as a magic word. It disappears the humanity of those in political disagreement and the stain from anyone who decides to harm them. It allows its user to deploy it without reference to what it really means. Indeed, so many who charge others as fascists better fit the label. The word is a permission slip to murder, as the assassination of Charlie Kirk last September gruesomely proved. (RELATED: Fascism for Dummies) Predicating a play on the idea that Salazar was a fascist is about as stupid as basing a play on the idea that Michael Dukakis was a communist. Yes, Salazar was not a civil libertarian, and Dukakis boasted of an ACLU membership. But the former does not make one a fascist and the latter does not make one a communist. Grasping historical fact from the rhetorical fictions that so often muck them up allows anyone with a brain to understand the play’s idiotic premise. Theatregoers mistaking what politically flatters for profundity predictably exhibit a greater predilection for mistaking onstage fantasy for reality. This happened in Germany a week ago. Some people were surprised. “What an embarrassment!” critic Martin Krumbholz wrote after witnessing the spectacle. “Parts of the Bochum audience, which one would almost have thought to be one of the most theatre-savvy in the republic, are apparently too stupid, one has to put it bluntly, to distinguish between fiction and reality; in doing so, they reveal the stupendous self-righteousness of a milieu that considers its own opinion to be beyond reproach from the outset.” Before the audience confused fiction and reality, the play’s creators did. Stupid and self-righteous ideas attract stupid and self-righteous people. The history of the left, from Robespierre at the guillotine through that ice ax in Trotsky’s skull, is a history of Dr. Frankensteins staring at the monsters they had created. In microcosm, this history repeated itself in Bochum. Will the real fascists please stand up? They did in a theatre in Germany — and rushed the stage, too. READ MORE from Daniel J. Flynn: Noam Chomsky, Apologist for Pol Pot, Called Jeffrey Epstein His ‘Best Friend’ The Epstein Enigma Unravels Ever-So Slightly in Bannon Interview Give It Back, Then

Toppling a fanatically genocidal regime armed with sophisticated weapons has never been an easy task. But America’s current overwhelming air superiority, combined with Israel’s extensive intelligence penetration of Iran, could break the power of its murderous Mullahs and help control the ensuing chaos if launched on time before a probable rearming by China. (RELATED: Iran and the New Domino Theory) The two weeks given by Iran to present a “final proposal” at peace talks in Geneva may be a ploy by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to gain time for Chinese deliveries of new air defense systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft, and AI-powered drones that could threaten U.S. warships. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have informed President Trump of China’s expected reinforcement of Iran’s air defenses at urgent White House talks last week, in which he reportedly urged the U.S. administration to strike soon. (RELATED: US–Iran Talks Only Lead to Uncertainty) Meanwhile, the largest U.S. military buildup since the 1991 Gulf War continues in the Persian Gulf with a second aircraft carrier strike group arriving this week, along with additional U.S. Air Force fighters, including 50 F-35s and a squadron of top-performance F-22 Raptors. (RELATED: Two Regimes, One Reality) A fleet of midair refueling tankers seen parked at U.S. bases in the region also indicates plans for a long-term air campaign. Giant C-17 and Galaxy transports keep landing regularly at airfields in Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, and Jordan, unloading tons of military equipment, including special operations Chinooks and MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. Pentagon plans for a massive air blitz to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, remaining nuclear sites, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps would be conducted in multiple waves of precision strikes that could stretch out for weeks. Saturation bombings could be followed by limited special forces raids to secure key strategic objectives with the aid of clandestine Israeli Mossad teams that are already on the ground, providing crucial support and intelligence. Taking out Iran’s ballistic and cruise missiles prior to launch would be the main objective at the initial stages of an air campaign to protect Israel and U.S. bases from Iranian retaliation. Long-range Fattah missiles, which caused severe damage to Israeli cities and struck a U.S. base in Qatar during last July’s twelve-day war, have been enhanced with advanced Chinese and Russian precision and stealth technology, according to Israeli intelligence reports. Chinese cargo flights landing in Tehran in recent weeks could be delivering components to assemble an upgraded air-defense network… Chinese cargo flights landing in Tehran in recent weeks could be delivering components to assemble an upgraded air-defense network of YLC-8B and HQ-9B radars capable of detecting stealth aircraft. Iran’s current air defenses largely consist of Russian S-300 systems that were instantly neutralized by U.S. electronic jamming during Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela for the capture of Nicolás Maduro. Iran’s domestically produced Bavar-73 SAMs based on S-300 technology that failed to intercept any of 150 U.S. aircraft controlling the skies of Venezuela on the night of January 3 would be similarly vulnerable to U.S. Growler electronic warfare fighters, unleashing HARM anti-radiation missiles to open air corridors for precision strikes by F-35 Stealth fighters, F-18 Super Hornets, F-15 Eagles, and the newly arrived Raptors as well as Tomahawks launched by destroyers offshore. The large number of KC-135 and KC-46 air tankers on station in the Gulf indicates provisions for midair refueling of hundreds of fighters needing to gas up fast for continuous bombing runs. Hidden mobile missile launchers emerging unexpectedly together with Iran’s ample supply of Shahed kamikaze drones, many of which are now jet-powered and whose launch sites are easier to conceal, would remain a threat. As the air campaign moves on to targeting the IRGC and Basij militias to degrade the regime’s capacity for internal repression, popular revolts might erupt, organized by Mossad cells, which may be arming anti-regime groups with drones and other precision weapons to conduct assassinations and take out key installations. Despite recent mass killings of protestors, flash manifestations continue as an organized, clandestine opposition movement takes shape inside Iran. Explosions and sudden fires at regime-linked installations in Tehran and other parts of the country reported recently seem to be acts of sabotage or strikes by easily assembled quadropler drones launched internally. Dozens of Iranian air force and IRGC commanders were systematically assassinated during last year’s twelve-day war in operations attributed to Mossad agents working with locally recruited resistance cells. They might now be activated for even more intense guerrilla attacks to wrest control of some parts of the country, aided by U.S. air strikes targeting IRGC headquarters, transport, and communication systems. In an interview for the British newspaper The Sun, retired U.S. Special Forces Colonel Ron MacCammon, with extensive experience in Central Asia, said that it might be “highly feasible” at advanced stages of the air war for Special Forces to establish “air heads” at certain locations around nuclear sites such as “Pickaxe Mountain” under construction in the Zagros mountains where nuclear material has been moved recently from installations struck last year. “They could control the area at least for long enough to make sure everything there is obliterated,” he said. But he warns that “Iran is a beast which won’t be easy to kill. They believe in martyrdom. A regime willing to slaughter thousands of its people to remain in power is capable of anything.” B-2-delivered GBU-57 deep penetration bombs may be ultimately required to take out Khamenei in his multilayered underground command bunker. Even after that, remnants of the IRGC and Basij militias numbering in the hundreds of thousands may cling on to key parts of Tehran and other areas of the country. A Syrian-type civil war scenario may evolve in which rebel forces take control of regions bordering Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, where ethnic minorities long opposed to the Islamic regime could be supported by American Special Forces, infiltrating arms and other assistance from U.S. bases in the neighboring states that include NATO ally Turkey. It may not be an endearing prospect for MAGA isolationists imagining a return to some idyllic past of American noninterventionism that never existed. The U.S. has been conducting worldwide military operations since President Thomas Jefferson landed Marines in Tripoli, and America’s westward expansion was secured through war with Mexico in subsequent decades. Possibly violent opposition can be expected from the far left, which courts radical Islam and stages riots in support of Hamas. Many Trump advisors may naturally balk at the specter of an “endless war,” especially in an election year. But the alternative is a stronger Iran with an annihilated opposition and nuclear weapons. The Mullahs would show off some half-baked diplomatic “deal” on nukes to gain influence internationally while China rearms them with fifth-generation weaponry, which may even include JL-20 stealth fighters, whose model China’s military attaché in Tehran symbolically displayed at a recent public event. A resurgent Iran under Chinese control would seal the fate of Israel and diminish U.S. leverage in the Middle East and Central Asia at a moment when America has been making great strides in the strategically critical region. “The time to hit Iran is now,” says Washington Institute for the Study of War director, General Jack Keane, “before it’s too late.” READ MORE from Martin Arostegui: Slow Walking in Venezuela Time May No Longer Be on Putin’s Side America SOARs at Night

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is sinking its claws deeper into the governance of the Palestinians, and not in a good way. Gaza’s technocratic committee, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, recently replaced its logo with the PA’s logo. According to the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Egypt is planning to train 5,000 Gazan police officers who will be paid by the PA, while the EU will train an additional 3,000 PA police officers in Judea and Samaria to then be deployed to Gaza. While the above developments seem innocuous, the PA’s newly released draft constitution shows its true colors. Rather than serving as a bridge for peace and enlightened governance, the draft is bogged down with old hat ideas that oppose American foreign policy and doom Gaza to a continuing, forever war against Israel. (RELATED: The Day Arafat Invented the Palestinians) The draft constitution clearly enshrines the “pay to slay” model, where the PA financially rewards terrorists and their families for killing Jews. First, the draft constitution clearly enshrines the “pay to slay” model, where the PA financially rewards terrorists and their families for killing Jews. In an attempt to prevent the PA from doing this, President Trump signed into law the Taylor Force Act in March 2018, which prohibited U.S. funding of the PA until the PA stopped making such payments. But the PA missed that memo and instead chose to continue “pay to slay” despite U.S. law. Article 24 of the PA’s draft constitution states that the PA will “…work to provide protection and care for the families of martyrs, wounded, and prisoners, and those released from the occupation prisons…” Article 44 calls for the PA to provide “…comprehensive care for the families of the martyrs, wounded, and prisoners, and those released [from prison], in preservation of their national dignity and their humanitarian and living needs.” Despite PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas claiming in February 2025 that the PA ended “pay to slay,” last September, Secretary of State Marco Rubio protested that the policy was still in force. And the PA handed out an estimated $315 million to at least 23,500 terrorists in 2025 alone, according to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). PMW further claims that the PA added at least 6,000 additional recipients to the “pay to slay” dole in 2026 so far. Recently, the PA sent a notice through its prison affairs commission that terrorists released in the past need to prove proof of life to continue to receive life-long salaries, and that those released in 2025 deals with Israel need to provide banking information to begin receiving salaries. Additionally, a Syrian journalist recently disclosed on PA TV that “we all know” that Palestinian families orchestrate their children being injured in conflict with Israel in order to collect such payments. Second, the draft constitution undermines U.S. policy on Jerusalem. In December 2017, the Trump administration “recognized Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jewish people, as the capital of the State of Israel,” and in May 2018, moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. On this as well, the PA chooses to live in an alternative universe. In Article 3, the new draft constitution calls Jerusalem the “capital of the State of Palestine, and its political, spiritual, cultural, and educational center, as well as its national symbol.” It also states that the Palestinian Authority “…is committed to preserving [Jerusalem’s] religious character, and protecting its Islamic and Christian sanctities… [author’s emphasis].” The draft constitution thus not only ignores U.S. policy on Jerusalem, but fails to recognize the long history of Jewish rights, archeology, sovereignty, and semi-sovereignty there. (RELATED: ‘Mamdani the Hater’ Slanders Jews and Judaism) Palestinian leadership even mocks U.S. policy on Jerusalem outright; the PA called Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s and Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s visit to the Western Wall last fall an “invasion” and that the Western Wall is “an inseparable part of the blessed Al Aqsa Mosque” and a “purely Islamic site.” The PA’s stance on this subject tracks back to at least 1998, when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem denied that Solomon’s Temple was in Jerusalem. Such revisionist history has significant consequences in Jerusalem and beyond; Arab leadership and terrorists have been invading, defiling and destroying various heritage sites in the modern period, including but not limited to the Mount of Olives and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, and Rachel’s Tomb and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Third, the draft constitution puts the viability of religious tolerance under the PA on shaky ground: it contains merely a veneer of religious tolerance for Christians, and not even that for Jews. In Article 4, the draft constitution states that “Christianity has its status in Palestine, and its followers’ rights are respected.” The draft has a glaring omission of Jewish rights to pray and live in the land. This tracks with PA’s continued contempt for and incitement to violence towards Jews. Recently, a PA village council chairman stated that the Jews “provokes [sic] disgust” among the Palestinians. PA-sponsored sermons call for Allah to “strike the thieving Jews” and to “kill Jews one by one, and do not leave even one.” Of course, the nod to Christianity and its followers in the draft constitution is a fraud. The PA continues to co-opt Jesus into their narrative, maintaining that Jesus was a Muslim and a Palestinian, and the first “self-sacrificing fighter,” a term used by the PA to refer to terrorists. A recent PA sermon also described Christians as “aggressive Crusader Christians” that Allah needs to “strike” along with the “thieving Jews,” as both peoples “…have behaved arrogantly and tyrannically on earth and increased corruption on it.” And further complicating the likelihood of the PA as being religiously tolerant, in Article 4, the draft constitution calls Islam “the official religion in the State of Palestine,” and also deems that “the principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation.” This may come as a surprise to many who believe that the PA is a secular organization, and shows that the PA (like Hamas) models itself after countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Qatar. By supporting terrorism, re-imagining Jerusalem, and creating a precarious future for religious tolerance, the PA’s new draft constitution continues to show the true colors of Palestinian nationalism as opposing American foreign policy and values. Only with a government free of Hamas and PA influence will Gaza be able to move forward in a durable détente with Israel. READ MORE from Steve Postal: Iran Has Already Doomed Talks US Designates Muslim Brotherhood Branches as Terrorist Organizations While Lebanon Dithers, Israel Continues to Degrade Hezbollah

The similarities are striking. In his second and last presidential term, President Harry S. Truman set his sights on changing the world with his foreign policy agenda. Following on the heels of World War II and the defeat of Adolph Hitler and his decidedly anti-Jewish agenda, the latter carried out with the unspeakable horror of concentration camps and the murder of some six million Jews, Truman set his sights on supporting the creation of a home for the Jews. That would be Israel. Truman would go on to write of this moment: Now that the Jews were ready to proclaim the State of Israel, however, I decided to move at once and give American recognition to the new nation. …. About thirty minutes later, exactly eleven minutes after Israel had been proclaimed a state, Charlie Ross, my press secretary, handed the press the announcement of the de facto recognition by the United States of the provisional government of Israel. Over at the USA History Timeline site, there is this about Truman and the creation of the United Nations. In the aftermath of World War II, the world found itself at a crossroads. The devastation wrought by the conflict had not only altered national boundaries but also left a profound impact on global politics and human relationships. As nations grappled with the consequences of war, the idea of a united front emerged as a beacon of hope, promoting peace, security, and cooperation among countries. Central to this movement was the establishment of the United Nations, an organization envisioned to prevent future conflicts and foster international collaboration. Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States, played a pivotal role in this transformative period. His leadership and vision were crucial in shaping the policies that led to the creation of the UN. Truman’s commitment to internationalism and his belief in the necessity of a collective approach to global issues resonated during a time when the world was desperate for unity. Through his speeches and actions, he galvanized support for the United Nations, setting the stage for a new era of diplomacy and cooperation. In other words, President Truman took the bull by the horns and, in creating the United Nations, created what was decidedly a “new world order.” Now, some 80 years later, here is President Donald J. Trump coming forward with the creation of the Board of Peace. Here are a few samples of reactions to Trump’s action: From NBC: “Trump vows $10 billion from U.S. for his ‘Board of Peace,’ as he leans into global role.” From the Associated Press: “Countries that attended Trump’s first Board of Peace meeting in Washington.” From TIME magazine: “Who’s Accepted and Who’s Rejected Invites to Join Trump’s Board of Peace.” From PBS: “Trump announces pledges for Gaza reconstruction and troop commitments at first Board of Peace meeting.” From CNN: “Trump launches his ‘Board of Peace’ with billions pledged for Gaza, but many allies are wary.” On and on and on go the headlines of Trump’s creation of the Board of Peace, littering the Internet. And very much like his predecessor, Harry Truman and his role in creating the United Nations, Trump’s Board of Peace has every possibility to open a new chapter in world history. Accomplishing heretofore seemingly impossible tasks like bringing peace to Gaza and the Middle East — something Trump has a talent for, as demonstrated with his creation and organization of the “Abraham Accords.” The latter brought signed peace accords between Israel and the Arab nations of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan. So. As was true of President Truman in the aftermath of World War II,  the world, as always, keeps moving onward. With, one hopes, the potential for real peace, this time as a presidential legacy brought by President Trump’s Board of Peace. Stay tuned. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: GOP Congressman Bacon Opposes President’s Constitutional Pardon Power Three Cheers for Attorney General Pam Bondi Schumer Plays the Race Card

The Brontë sisters—Charlotte, Emily, and Anne—grew up in the remote village of Haworth, West Yorkshire, England. Their father, Patrick Brontë, was appointed as the curate of St. Michael and All Angels’ Church in 1820, leading the family to move into the adjacent parsonage. This isolated setting, surrounded by the rugged Yorkshire moors, provided a backdrop ... The post Heathcliff Come Home: 10 Dark Truths About The Brontë Sisters appeared first on History Collection.

  President Abraham Lincoln is remembered for many reasons within the United States and worldwide, but one of his most significant contributions to history was his legendary Gettysburg Address. While this speech was originally intended to dedicate a cemetery, it evolved into something much more diverse and powerful, a tool that Lincoln used to propel the Union cause forward. What goals did Lincoln hope to achieve when he spoke these powerful words, and how have those achievements evolved into modern history?   What Was the Gettysburg Address? President Abraham Lincoln, highlighted in red, at Gettysburg a few hours before giving his famous address. Source: Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons   Abraham Lincoln is considered by historians to be one of the most eloquent of the nation’s past presidents, known for his flowing speeches and written work that was articulate yet used simple language that appealed to the nation’s citizenry as a whole. He utilized the newspaper as a way to reach the populace in an era before mass media, and gave stunning speeches, including his annual congressional addresses and the Gettysburg Address.   The Gettysburg Address was given on November 19, 1863, in Gettysburg. The location, in Adams County, Pennsylvania, was home to a devastating battle just months prior. Over July 1-3, the Battle of Gettysburg, a turning point in the American Civil War, raged. These three days made up the bloodiest single battle of the entire war. The battle saw the Confederate troops invade the north, for only the second time—and it would be the last. The battle concluded in a Union win, ending Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s bid to take the Union army within its own territory and change the trajectory of the war, though fighting would continue for two more years. Over 51,000 soldiers were estimated to be casualties of the battle, with almost 4,000 Confederates and just over 3,100 Union soldiers perishing. Another result of the fighting was the establishment of a cemetery for the Union dead at the battle site. Though he was not the keynote speaker, President Lincoln was invited to the dedication ceremony for the cemetery and asked to make “a few appropriate remarks” to the crowd of approximately 15,000.   Union dead on the battlefield after the first day of fighting at Gettysburg in July 1863. Source: Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons   Lincoln did so in a speech that is rather short, considering its iconic reputation. Less than 275 words in length, the oration didn’t even take three minutes to share. However, within those three minutes, Lincoln managed to stretch the purpose of his narration to meet several political and fundamental goals for the Union cause.   Honoring Fallen Soldiers Battle of Gettysburg by Thure de Thulstrup, restored by Adam Cuerden. Source: Library of Congress & Adam Cuerden/Wikimedia Commons   The first and original goal of the Gettysburg Address was a nod to the dedication ceremony and the reason Lincoln had been invited to Pennsylvania. He honored the sacrifice of the soldiers who lay dead at Gettysburg and of those who continued to fight to preserve the nation. He spoke of “those who here gave their lives that the nation might live.” He said that these brave men had already consecrated their resting place and that there was little that those in attendance for the dedication could do to outweigh the honor that the soldiers had already bestowed upon the grounds.   Tying the War to the Cause of Freedom A presidential campaign ad from 1864 illustrates Abraham Lincoln as a champion of freedom for all, and his opponent, George McClellan, as siding with the Confederacy and upholding the institution of slavery. Source: Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons   However, Lincoln did more in his address than simply honor the soldiers who had given their lives and were now buried at Gettysburg. Within his speech, Lincoln reminded his audience that the reason they were there was the cause of freedom for all. The first words of the speech harken back to the Declaration of Independence, meant to preserve freedom for all Americans.   Coupled with the Emancipation Proclamation, which had been released in January of that year, Lincoln tied the Union cause with the abolition of slavery. While slavery was one of the key causes of the Civil War, for many in the American public, the focus of the war had been the preservation of the Union. Lincoln tied the two objectives together in his speech, promising that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”   Inspiring Americans to Action Lincoln is depicted giving the Gettysburg Address in this lithograph. Source: Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons   The Gettysburg Address also served as a call to action for Americans, inspiring them to continue on in the fatiguing, bloody war that had already raged for over two years. In the speech, the audience was encouraged not to let “these dead” die in vain. His espousal of American values, including freedom, helped Americans make sense of the ongoing carnage, reminding them to be hopeful and to persevere. In Lincoln’s philosophy, the soldiers at Gettysburg and beyond gave their lives for the important tenets for which the war was being fought, and it was now up to the American people to continue supporting this fight. Lincoln’s words not only served to encourage Civil War-era citizens, but would continue to inspire Americans in future military conflicts and general challenges.   Lincoln’s Legacy The Gettysburg Address inscribed in the interior south wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln remarked, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here…” However, this prediction would prove to be markedly false. The Gettysburg Address is one of the most famous speeches, not only in American history, but in world history. Within a month after the speech was given, it was being used in schools and is still utilized in education today, both as a study of this complex era of American history and as an example of effective oration.   The Gettysburg Address was referenced in Senator Charles Sumner’s eulogy on Lincoln after his assassination less than two years later, and was invoked during anniversary celebrations relating to Lincoln and the Civil War. In the decades after, the address went on to be referenced in late 19th-century politics, particularly in regard to whether the government was truly still “for the people” or for big business during the Gilded Age.   The speech was often quoted during the Civil Rights Era, where freedom was a central theme, and during the Cold War to promote pro-American sentiments on a global stage. In 1959, the State Department issued 50,000 reproductions of the Gettysburg Address, some with translations in different languages, with a preface explaining that Lincoln’s speech “will endure forever as an expression of the spirit of the United States of America.” The speech also played a starring role in a series of comic books in numerous languages that were distributed throughout Southeast Asia as an effort to cultivate pro-American feelings.   An excerpt from Lincoln’s speech was printed on postage stamps in 1948. Source: Smithsonian National Postal Museum/Wikimedia Commons   Lincoln’s oratory skills contributed to the success of the speech as well. Though what he said made the speech important, the way he said it was just as important. The keynote speaker of the day, Edward Everett, had spoken for two hours before Lincoln gave the address, and while Everett’s speech is not considered a “bad speech,” it is remembered very little today due to its length. Lincoln’s to-the-point approach and simple, yet effective, language make the speech accessible to many. Everett himself later said, “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” The concise nature of the Gettysburg Address allowed for easy reprinting in newspapers and pamphlets, disseminating the message beyond the crowd at Gettysburg that day.   Today, five surviving copies of the speech in Lincoln’s own handwriting exist, two of them produced before the speech was given, with one likely being the copy Lincoln used to refer to on the day of the dedication. The others were produced after the speech for benefit events. The copies are owned by the Library of Congress, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, the White House, and Cornell University. These copies are on display periodically and are a stark physical reminder of the address’s enduring legacy.   A political cartoon from 1943 recalls the legacy of the Gettysburg Address. Source: National Archives at College Park/Wikimedia Commons   The Gettysburg Address, though it may have started out with a singular purpose, evolved to meet numerous goals of the American president and government during one of the country’s most trying times. The impact of Lincoln’s words cannot be underestimated and is still evident decades later in its eloquent legacy.