Reports of China harvesting the organs of prisoners and slaves lends more significance to a hot mic moment between Presidents Xi and Putin. They were caught talking about extending lifespans with organ transplants. The two 72 year olds were ascending the Tiananmen rostrum for the massive World War II military propaganda parade when the mics […] The post Xi & Putin Chat About Organ Harvesting on Hot Mic appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

'Secretary of War'

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told members of Congress that there are “thousands” of examples of federal bureaucrats covering up scientific data that contradicted the government’s preferred narrative.   Kennedy’s remarks came in a Senate Finance Committee hearing Thursday, where he was called on to explain his actions as HHS chief—including the August layoff of over 600 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Kennedy defended his “shake-up” as an effort to counter what he called longstanding corruption and politicization at HHS and the CDC—prompting Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., to ask him to “talk about the corruption of science that you’re trying to deal with and trying to correct.”   In response, Kennedy pointed to a 2002 CDC study in Fulton County, Georgia, that compared children who got the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at the CDC-recommended age to those who got them later.  “The data from that study showed that black boys who got the vaccine on time had a 260% greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited,” Kennedy said.  But the chief scientist on that study, Dr. William Thompson, was called into an office by the head of the Immunization Safety Branch of the CDC “in order to destroy that data.”   “Then, they published it without that fact,” Kennedy said.?  Thompson’s account surfaced in 2014, when he provided whistleblower information to then-Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., that he said proved the CDC “intentionally withheld controversial findings” about the connection between the measles vaccine and autism.   Kennedy said, “I could sit here and point to thousands” of similar examples of agency cover-ups.  “It happens all the time,” he concluded. “We are being lied to by these agencies, and we’re going to change that right now.”  The post ‘We Are Being Lied To’: RFK Calls Out CDC Cover-Ups appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The following are remarks as prepared by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., on Sept. 4 at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C. It is always such a pleasure to be with you. In a city characterized by much talk, much of it frivolous (I mean, have you been to the Senate recently?), the National Conservatism Conference has become known as a place for serious conversation about the most important political institution we share: the republic. I want to attempt my own small contribution to that conversation this morning, and I thought I might start with a story, an old one, maybe one you remember from your school days—the epic of Gilgamesh, the mythical King of Uruk. His adventures are among the oldest writings we have, recorded on twelve tablets of clay dating from approximately 2100 BC. The first few tablets rehearse Gilgamesh’s exploits as a builder and warrior and introduce us to a number of themes that become recurring hits in later mythology. He spurns a marriage proposal arranged by the goddess of love, for example, and then loses a friend in the inevitable revenge tour. But by the ninth and tenth tablets, Gilgamesh has developed a new fear—death, and a new obsession—escaping it. He embarks on a mighty quest to find a survivor of the Great Flood (a sort of stand-in for Noah), with the purpose of asking him how to cheat mortality. The answer, he learns by tablet 11, is a plant that renews youth—forever. A veritable tree of life. Armed with this knowledge, Gilgamesh makes a diligent search and eventually finds it—only to watch the plant be consumed, in the last instant, by a serpent, that anti-human symbol of chaos and evil. So, Gilgamesh must return to Uruk, still mortal—but still human. For ancient auditors, the moral was plain: our humanity is joined to our mortality. Our dignity is bound up with our frailty. Our human lives—as finite as they may be—are worth living. Or to put it in the resonant language of the Bible that has formed so much of our tradition, we are creatures, not deities—and that is no failing. “We have these treasures in jars of clay,” the Apostle Paul said. The glory of the creature is to display, in all his frailty, the wonder of the Creator. It is not to be a god. That lesson has not been learned, apparently, by some of America’s leading citizens. There is nothing new under the sun, as the Bible also says, and the quest of Gilgamesh to cheat death may be the hottest thing going among the most powerful people in America today: the tech barons of Silicon Valley. Not content with addicting our kids to their gizmos or amassing fortunes the size of lesser European states, our tech elite has turned with rabid enthusiasm to artificial intelligence. They hail it as the greatest breakthrough for humanity since the Industrial Revolution, maybe the printing press. They predict it will centuple American economic output. They insist it will defeat China. They claim it “will save the world”—that is an actual quote. Of course, it will also make them additional, ungodly sums of money. But that does not seem to explain the religious fervor of AI’s loudest advocates. There is something else going on, something more ideological. No, only the less cautious articulate the real reason, what many quietly believe: that AI will reinvent human existence. The eugenicist Julian Huxley predicted this as far back as 1957. He wrote then that “a thousand million years of evolution” would lead to a moment when man, harnessing his “modern control of physical nature” would “transcend himself”—would achieve a new state of being. Today’s technologists believe that moment is now. For Huxley, this was a religion all its own. “I believe in transhumanism,” he liked to say. And so do untold numbers of today’s tech class. That is the vision—the religion and ideology—that animates so much of the breathless race for artificial intelligence … and for artificial general intelligence … and super-intelligence, and beyond: for the day when humans are no longer embodied beings at all but live infinitely in the cloud. The technologists have discovered Gilgamesh’s plant, they believe. The question is, can America survive their quest for immortality? Can the republic? I suggest to you the answer is no, and for one simple reason. America is a nation founded on the idea of the common man. The American republic is premised on his worth and his liberty. But the transhumanist ideal rejects the common man’s worth. And artificial intelligence threatens the common man’s liberty. To state it in the clearest terms, then: Americanism and the transhumanist revolution cannot coexist. And it is our job to see that Americanism wins. When it comes to transhumanist ideology, it does seem easy to dismiss at one level. All those ultra-billionaires sleeping in pressure-controlled chambers and applying their youth serums, taking a hundred supplement pills a day and monitoring their every bodily function—the picture is fairly absurd. And anyway, if the friendly neighborhood billionaire wants to spend his fortune trying to live forever, why should I care? Do as you please. But there is a more sinister aspect to the transhumanist ideal, one that Julian Huxley, the eugenicist, inadvertently captured. When he wrote, back in 1957, about the new kind of human existence science would make possible, he was all too clear about just who would be leading humanity to this exalted state. “The universe is becoming conscious of itself,” he said, “in a few of us human beings.” In a few of us. There is the clue. Huxley could wax eloquent about the universe appointing man “director of the biggest business of all, the business of evolution”—much as today’s transhumanists rhapsodize about living to the twenty-fifth century and curing every known disease for the sake of mankind. But Huxley didn’t mean it and neither do his successors. When Huxley said Nature or the Universe or whatever had given “man” the opportunity to redirect human evolution, he did not mean all men, anymore than today’s transhumanists believe their billion-dollar health regimens will be accessible to all people. Huxley meant some men. He meant “a few of us.” The better sort. The anointed. The elite. And transhumanism is, when you think about it, an elite project by definition. It is all about overcoming the common and ordinary experiences of mankind: common limits, common weaknesses, common lives … even common loves. The goal is to replace “the common” with something else. Which means replacing common people. Consider: The farmer, the assembly-line man, the construction worker with his hard hat and hammer: all these men live by their bodies, by their labor. There is no place for them in the transhumanist utopia, where all is silicon. They are precisely what must be transcended. Huxley was explicit about this. The “quality of people, not mere quantity, is what we must aim at,” he said. Science must deliver the right sort, who live the right kind of lives. “Ugly [and] depressing towns are immoral,” was another of his pronouncements. After all, beauty and aesthetics were what mattered. Not people, not working people—for what could common men know of that refined excellence only a rare mind like Huxley’s could confect. And here transhumanism shows its true ethic. The disdain for what they call human feebleness and infirmity turns out to be a disdain for humanity itself. Transhumanists disparage the body because it gives way. They dislike the limits of mind that prevent omniscience. They deprecate frailty and need and any aspect of human life that might make them dependent on another in any way—anything, in short, that suggests they are creatures, rather than gods. Like Gilgamesh, they seek the flower of immortality. But in consuming it, or attempting to, they become serpents instead. For make no mistake, at the heart of all this ambition is the will to power. The common man’s dignity? Please. The transhumanist types have nothing but contempt for the common man because they want to rule in his place. Forever. Which brings me to that second strand of the American experiment, the common man’s liberty. Well, how has that been going over the last, say, twenty years? Think about it. Every so-called innovation the tech class has delivered in recent decades operates as a power transfer, and all of it one-way: from us to them. Smartphones that addict our children. Social media platforms that monitor and record our every click, every pause, every purchase, every preference. Algorithms to turn our attention into a commodity and sell it, over and again. There is virtually nothing you know about yourself that Big Tech does not also know—and profit from. And entirely without your consent. They are in charge, not you. They control the information, much of the news—and entertainment. They decide who can speak and who not. Now, does that sound like liberty to you? And the problem with the AI “revolution” as it’s currently going is that it only entrenches the power of the people … who are already the most powerful in the world. Imagine a future—a not too-distant future—where AI is deployed across the economy, across the country. We are well on the way to this future now. And we are told by AI boosters of the remarkable efficiencies it will bring. The papers written in seconds. The contracts drafted instantly. The algorithms that write themselves. Productivity like we’ve never seen. But here’s the flip side: millions of Americans out of work. That’s not any conspiracy theory, by the way. That’s what the tech titans openly tell us. One CEO recently predicted half of entry-level, white-collar jobs could be gone in the next five years. Half. Think about this: There are 3.5 million truckers in this country, the real backbone of our commercial economy. And twice as many more earn money driving for outfits like Uber—and even more are taxi drivers and delivery drivers. Self-driving vehicles will put them all out of work—near instantly. The earthquake will reach manufacturing next: AI-enabled robots that will automate entire sections of the U.S. economy. And then the service sector, which I mentioned a moment ago. Those entry-level jobs at Wendy’s or McDonald’s? Gone. Bank jobs, customer-service jobs: gone. The AI enthusiasts rush to say all these losses will be replaced—and more! But with what, exactly? Sweeping floors at a data center? Here is my point. AI is fulfilling transhumanist goals whatever its boosters may believe. And if it proceeds undirected, the tech barons will be more powerful than ever. That much is obvious. But we will also find ourselves contending with a caste system of a new and cruel type. Genetically modified ‘perfect’ humans ruling over ‘imperfect’ ones—all with the help of the most powerful technology yet known to man. Whatever else that is, it is not liberty. Thus far, the AI revolution is proceeding on transhumanist lines. It is working against the working man, his liberty and his worth. It is operating to install a rich and powerful elite. It is undermining our most cherished ideals. And insofar as that keeps on, AI works to undermine America. But this is only one possible future; not the future. We can achieve something different. It is time to change the game: to make AI work for people, and not the other way around; to enhance our liberty, not destroy it; to protect our livelihoods, not dismantle them. But to conform this new technology to our oldest principles will require action, and it will require action now. I suggest efforts along the following lines. First, we must guarantee the right of every American to pursue a vocation. And a vocation is something more than sweeping the floor of a data center. It means meaningful work by which a man can provide for himself as his family. A good job is not an ornament to a life well-lived; it is the heart of it. A man who cannot work—for whom there is no work to do—cannot support a wife or children, cannot provide for his future, cannot enjoy any measure of independence or the satisfaction that comes from earning something for himself. This is a man who is not free. And we must not allow that to be the fate of men and women in America. When God created Adam and Eve, he gave them purposeful work: vocations. We must commit ourselves now, as a society, to seeing that meaningful work is available for every able-bodied American. AI can be used to make workers more productive, to encourage and multiply their labor—but it should not be used simply to replace them. Most jobs should be reserved for humans. Only humans should drive cars and trucks. Only humans should enter into contracts. Only humans should advise on critical medical treatments or act as legal agents. I say again, AI should serve human beings, not the other way around. Second, I believe Americans should have the ability to defend their human data, and their rights to that data, against the largest copyright theft in the history of the world. Millions of Americans have spent the past two decades speaking and engaging online. Many of you here today have online profiles and writings and creative productions that you care deeply about. And rightly so. It’s your work. It’s you. What if I told you that AI models have already been trained on enough copyrighted works to fill the Library of Congress 22 times over? For me, that makes it very simple: We need a legal mechanism that allows Americans to freely defend those creations. I say let’s empower human beings by protecting the very human data they create. Assign property rights to specific forms of data, create legal liability for the companies who use that data and, finally, fully repeal Section 230. Open the courtroom doors. Let the people sue those who take their rights, including those who do it using AI. Third, we must add sensible guardrails to the emergent AI economy and hold concentrated economic power to account. These giant companies have made no secret of their ambitions to radically reshape our economic life. So, we ought to require transparency and reporting each time they replace a working man with a machine. And the government should inspect all of these frontier AI systems, so we can better understand what the tech titans plan to build and deploy. Ultimately, when it comes to guardrails, protecting our children should be our lodestar. You may have seen recently how Meta green-lit its own chatbots to have sensual conversations with children—yes, you heard me right. Meta’s own internal documents permitted lurid conversations that no parent would ever contemplate. And most tragically, ChatGPT recently encouraged a troubled teenager to commit suicide—even providing detailed instructions on how to do it. We absolutely must require and enforce rigorous technical standards to bar inappropriate or harmful interactions with minors. And we should think seriously about age verification for chatbots and agents. We don’t let kids drive or drink or do a thousand other harmful things. The same standards should apply to AI. Fourth and finally, while Congress gets its act together to do all of this, we can’t kneecap our state governments from moving first. Some of you may have seen that there was a major effort in Congress to ban states from regulating AI for 10 years—and a whole decade is an eternity when it comes to AI development and deployment. This terrible policy was nearly adopted in the reconciliation bill this summer, and it could have thrown out strong anti-porn and child online safety laws, to name a few. Think about that: conservatives out to destroy the very concept of federalism that they cherish … all in the name of Big Tech. Well, we killed it on the Senate floor. And we ought to make sure that bad idea stays dead. We’ve faced technological disruption before—and we’ve acted to make technology serve us, the people. Powered flight changed travel forever, but you can’t land a plane on your driveway. Splitting the atom fundamentally changed our view of physics, but nobody expects to run a personal reactor in their basement. The internet completely recast communication and media, but YouTube will still take down your video if you violate a copyright. By the same token, we can—and we should—demand that AI empower Americans, not destroy their rights . . . or their jobs . . . or their lives. The epic of Gilgamesh is a cautionary tale. Those who try to transcend their humanity risk losing it altogether. But the story is not, for all that, a dispiriting one. We are, when all is said and done, creatures—not gods. And that is a good thing. Our frailties teach us humility. Our shortcomings instruct us in perseverance. Our suffering gives us compassion for those who suffer. Our limits make us something better than powerful. They make us good. And they keep us free. Because there is only one God, we allow no man or class of men to rule over us. We rule ourselves, together, as equals. That is—and always has been—the American way. Thank you and good day. The post HAWLEY: AI Threatens the Working Man appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I had a recent podcast that I hope you all enjoyed about the new revisionism of World War II. Specifically, I talked about an interview that a Cornell chemist, David Collum, had given with Tucker Carlson, in which I disagreed with his suggestion that not only should we have not allied with the Soviet Union, but that we might have considered allying with Hitler. He didn’t really say that specifically, but he said that would be a possibility. And I had a vehement demand for an apology from the journalist-historian Diana West. She said that I had defamed her. And I want to read the two sentences or three sentences I said because not only do I think I was correct in my assessment, but I think rather than me giving an apology, I think she needs to give me an apology to me, because she misconstrued what I said and then she put it all over the internet. Let me go back to that broadcast I gave you and read exactly, exactly what I said. “Recently, there has been more revision about World War II. Tucker Carlson had on his show the other day a chemistry professor from Cornell University, David Collum, that was sort of resonating what a prior blogger, Darryl Cooper, had said about World War II, in the vein of Diana West, Pat Buchanan, all the way back to Herbert Hoover. The gist”—let me repeat that. “The gist of it was that we should have never allied with a Soviet Union, and we should have either let Hitler and Stalin fight it out or”—emphasis here—“in the case of David Collum, he suggested that we might have wanted to fight with Hitler.” Now, I’m going to read you what her demand is, but I think if you heard what I just said, I said three things, that there was a school of people who had been revisionists about World War II, and I mentioned two interviewees of Tucker Carlson, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Collum, and then I mentioned people in the past who had been World War II revisionists, including Diana West and Pat Buchanan and Herbert Hoover. And then I said, as I just quoted, that the gist of it was they thought that we should not have allied ourselves with the Soviet Union in World War II after the German invasion of June 22, 1941. And then I said, in one particular case, and again, I want to say that, in the case of David Collum—so I was talking about David Collum alone, not Darryl Cooper, not Diana West, not Patrick Buchanan, not Herbert Hoover—he suggested we might have wanted to fight with Hitler. OK? So, I did not suggest that Diana West said that I had said that she wanted us to have fought with Hitler. She never said that. Let me make clear: She never wrote that, and I never said she did. Let me read you, now, this long letter very quickly, asking for an apology. “To Victor Davis Hanson and The Daily Signal.” Now, she’s copied on her demand Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders, Frank Gaffney, Richard Viguerie, Michael Waller, Ruth King, Andrew Bossom, and many others. That’s unfortunate because she misspoke about me and misrepresented me, and then she sent it all over the internet, and here’s what she says: “I’m writing to demand the retraction of a remark Victor Hanson made about me during his recent Daily Signal podcast and column concerning World War II history (August 29th, 2025). Below, verbatim, is Mr. Hanson’s remark in which he pairs the noxious Hitlerian provocation promoted by podcaster Darryl Cooper with my name, Diana West, referencing my book ‘American Betrayal.’” I paired her with Darryl Cooper only in the connection that both of them questioned why we allied ourselves with the Soviet Union and wished we had not. Let me continue. “Mr. Hanson has actually expanded on the original smear, which first appeared last month in an interview with Dave Collum on ‘The Tucker Carlson Show,’ by adding my photograph to a montage of images of Tucker Carlson, David Collum and Darryl Cooper—as if we were all of us intellectual or political allies!” Ms. West, I don’t know about the photography or the photo that you’re referring to. I never created any photo, I never published it on my own, I have no knowledge of it, never have. When I do a Daily Signal or my own podcast, thousands of images appear. Some are people who platform, they want to add to it without my knowledge or consent, some are just AI-generated. But I have no control over it. If there was a picture that circulated on the internet, maybe from The Daily Signal, maybe from somewhere else, I had nothing to do with it. My permission was not asked, nor was I given, and I really resent the accusation that you think that I did it when you had no proof that I did, and I did not. In addition, “Cooper and the lesser-known Collum in some kind of neo-Bundist network, as conjured by The Daily Signal’s lurid headline, ‘WW II Revisionists Went Too Far With “We Should Have Sided With Hitler” Claim.’” I guess she’s objecting to the plural World War II revisionists. She has a legitimate complaint there because I only specified one revisionist, David Collum, who actually advocated for an alliance with Hitler. The other revisionists, as I said, the gist of their arguments was that the United States should not have allied ourselves with the Soviet. That’s two different things. I have no control over the title that the editors or anybody uses when I issue my video. The video is produced each day for The Daily Signal, and then they package it, they entitle it, they publish it. My job and my contractual obligations are to send them a five-minute video every day, and that’s exactly what I did. For her to insinuate that I made the title, again, is about as fallacious as I circulated a photo with her picture, along with these other revisionists. “Both the remark and the headline are utterly unjust and quite injurious to my work and reputation.” And they are to mine, to accuse me of that, Ms. West. Nor have I ever made “a ‘Hitler Claim,’ and the proof is in all my widely published books, columns, blogs, and interviews. On the contrary, my work has nothing to do with these men; and, further, I have published numerous articles, statements and made podcasts making my criticism and opposition to the corrosive agendas they (Tucker Carlson being the most influential) promote loud and clear.” I have no doubt you’re doing that. I never suggested that you did not. “Nevertheless, here is what Victor Hanson publicly and recklessly stated about me.” And then she quoted that. But again, “publicly and recklessly,” when all I said is that you were a revisionist about World War II, the gist of which you suggested that we should not ally ourselves with the Soviet Union. If you want to take this occasion and say that I misspoke and that you really did want us to ally with the Soviet Union, then I will apologize, but that’s not what I read, and I did read your book, that is not the impression that I got and which that you intended to give. And of course, I never said, as I said earlier, that you wanted to ally with Hitler. Had you read very carefully before you shot off this demand for an apology, it would’ve said I specified one person, David Collum, and in the case of David Collum. “I demand a retraction from Mr. Hanson on his podcast, social media and in his Daily Signal column, and alerts to Hanson’s retraction by The Daily Signal on its website and social media, [alongside a] Daily Signal correction for having erroneously included me under the lurid ‘Hitler Claim’ headline, (‘World War II Revisionists Went Too Far With’ [“We Should’ve Sided With Hitler” Claim’)]. The reason for this demand is as simple as it urgent: ‘What … Darryl Cooper has said about World War II’ is NOT NOT NOT ‘in the vein of Diana West.’ Nor have I ever advocated ‘[siding] with Hitler.’” You’ve never advocated siding with Hitler, and I’ve said that very specifically. I said David Collum did, not you. But, like other revisionists, you have suggested that the alliance with the Soviet Union was disastrous or should have never taken place. Now, I can see why you would’ve said that there. And I read your book. I thought the part about Soviet espionage was very telling. The Venona Project, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, they all had influence with the Roosevelt administration, they all wanted closer ties with the Soviet Union. They were all strong advocates for Lend-Lease. They all may have been determinative in the decision of the Roosevelt administration to begin giving quite important materials to the Soviet Union. And you made that clear in your book. And you also made clear, as I remember, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you questioned the wisdom of the D-Day campaign. You thought it might’ve been better to invade up the underbelly of Europe, according to [Winston] Churchill. My disagreement with you is not about whether there were communists—there were—that associated with [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt. And I agree with you entirely, they had influence on his policy, the Soviet Union. My argument is a military one. On June 22, 1941, and before, we had very little influence on the war. We were unprepared. Europe was all overrun. Every capital in the EU or NATO today was either under Nazi occupation, actively a Nazi ally, or a pro-Nazi neutral. Britain alone was standing there. And when Hitler blew it, made a big, I think his most colossal error, invaded the Soviet Union, we made a decision to supply, along with Britain, about 20% to 23% or 24% of their war material. The result of that was that the Soviet Union grew to over 500 divisions, it became a colossal juggernaut, and it killed approximately three out of four German soldiers on the Eastern Front in the entire war. Let me say that again. On the Western Front, they killed the equivalent of three out of four German soldiers who were killed in the war. In other words, all the other theaters killed just 25% of the German soldiers. In the process, they lost—either to their incompetence, to their disastrous earlier alliance under the Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance with Hitler, and through the fighting against Hitler, and to the efforts of Hitler to slaughter and starve Russian civilians—about 20 million people. We lost about 450,000, depending on how you count combat fatalities. In other words, we fought World War II and won the war, and we came away with losing very few soldiers. At the end of the war, the Soviet Union had no intention, I agree with you entirely, of honoring their commitments made both at Yalta and then before the Japanese theater had ended at Potsdam. But nevertheless, when the war was over, the United States was the preeminent power in the world—except for Britain—had lost fewer combatants than any of the major three allies, Britain, the United States, Russia, and China as well, and had lost fewer than Japan and Germany. So, we fought that war very economically by giving material aid to the Soviet Union, who used their manpower and lost 20 million people to kill three out of every four German soldiers. That’s not an argument that you like the Soviet Union. I detest the Soviet Union. But it’s an argument that in the ability of the United States to defeat Germany in 1941, it was a wise military strategy to use a third party to kill the German army, kill it off, and that’s what happened, it was a success. After the Cold War started, there were naivete that you pointed out very, I think, adroitly. And we were unprepared for the betrayal of the Soviet Union. The Cold War ensued. But the idea that World War II was not worth it or had been fought under false auspices, I don’t think is correct. I’m not suggesting you said it, but other people have. And all in all, World War II was a brilliant work of American strategy, productivity, and courage and sacrifice. And the result was we destroyed the greatest threat to mankind, and we did it as economically as we could in American cost and lives. And then you also say, and I don’t want to read quotes from you, perhaps Mr. Hanson is somehow [unfamiliar] with my 2013 “American Betrayal.” No, I’m very familiar with it. In fact, I was asked to comment, and I think by the late David Horowitz. I passed on that because I felt that people were actually ganging up on you. And you had made some good comments about the infiltration of strategic thinking in the United States administration of Franklin Roosevelt, and that may or may not have affected our attitude on grand strategy in the war. I don’t think it was determinative, and I agree in this case with Conrad Black, who has addressed some of your theories and points and analyses. But nevertheless, you’re quite right that the United States was overly influenced by the Soviet Union. But I don’t think that we had much choice, and I don’t think that influence would’ve determined us in a wise way just to let them fight that out or not to ally with the Soviet Union or not to help them, because again, they were primarily responsible for destroying the German army on the ground. “Aside from my book, however, it would have been very easy for him to learn the truth [about] my reflexive consternation at having been smeared by Collum on Tucker’s show. As soon as I saw what had been said about me in the Collum-Tucker interview, and which was included in the clip that went viral (8.5 million views), I posted and pinned to my Twitter/X account the following.” I don’t read your text or your Twitter account, but again, I did not smear you. David Collum may have smeared you—I didn’t listen to the entire text or interview with Tucker Carlson. But I did not smear you, unless you think I was smearing you by saying the gist, the gist of these revisionists, in which I included you—and I think you would call yourself a World War II revisionist in a positive sense—was that you doubted the wisdom of allying ourselves and aiding the Soviet Union during World War II. If that’s wrong and you were an advocate of that alliance, then I will issue apology. If I was correct that you were suspicious and disapproved of that alliance, and I am correct that I never said that you advocated an alliance with Hitler—and I didn’t say that, I think you can see by the text I didn’t say that—then I think you owe me an apology, I really do. And finally, she says, “Had Mr. Hanson bothered to check his facts before speaking/writing, he could have seen this. Or, had he bothered to conduct a quick Google search of my name and ‘Darryl Cooper,’ he would have found that what tops the queue is another essay I wrote titled: ‘Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and the Creeping Poison [of Darryl Cooper].” Again, Ms. West, I have no doubt that you do not support the views of either Darryl Cooper or David Collum. I did not say you did. I said the gist of these revisionists, of which you were included, and the comment in which I was talking about was solely allying ourselves with the Soviet Union, whether it was a wise or wrong-headed decision. I think you think it was a wrong-headed decision. They did too. I did not associate your name, however, with all of their other views, which I made clear by saying that only in my knowledge had David Collum argued for an actual alliance or at least helping Hitler. You did not say that. I did not say you did. And then, finally, “I am sure that Mr. Hanson and The Daily Signal do not wish to remain party to this continuing smear of my work and reputation. I look forward to swift rectification of the matter.” I think you’ve got it right here. Let me just recap: I have nothing to do with the title of my video with The Daily Signal. That decision is made elsewhere by others. I have nothing to do with any photographs, and to suggest that I did and I’m responsible is not a professional thing to say. I am aware of your book. I read it. I did not participate in the severe criticism which you incurred from historians. I don’t prejudice a historian, whether their professional training is in journalism, as is yours, or whether it’s through a doctorate or a Ph.D. program, and you’ve insinuated that maybe that was a question. It was not. I have respect for your historical analyses. Again, where I differ from you is I think there were military, strategic, tactical, logistic concerns that warranted helping, at that particular time, the lesser of two evils. And then, after the war, when Hitler was eliminated, then dealing with the now greater of the two, because the Hitler threat was over with and Germany had been defeated, and now we had to deal with the Soviet Union. And you’re right, as I have written in my own book, that we empowered the Soviet Union to destroy Hitler. And then we had to live with that, and we did so in the Cold War, defeated it and Stalin, as he had planned, never got into Western Europe. And with that, I think I’ve covered everything, where as I have given a clear exposition of what I said, of the title, of the photograph, of my fix, my clear reasoning that David Collum alone had argued for an alliance with Hitler, and that you and Pat Buchanan and Herbert Hoover and others had questioned the gist, again, the gist of what I was saying, that you had questioned the wisdom of alliance with the Soviet Union. Other than that, I did not associate you with any of these people on any other historical matter, other than two things: general revisionism of World War II and, in particular, the alliance with the Soviet Union. And I wish you would tell your readers to clarify that and that you withdraw the accusation that I had anything to do with the title, I didn’t; with the photograph, I didn’t; or that I suggested that you wanted to ally with Hitler, which you did not and which I didn’t say. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post World War II a ‘Brilliant Work of American Strategy, Productivity, Courage, and Sacrifice’  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginians on Facebook may see a post from what looks like a news outlet touting Democrat governor candidate Abigail Spanberger’s campaign stops and message on education. Unsuspecting Virginians may think a friend posted this news, but it’s actually appearing in their feeds because someone paid for it. It also doesn’t come from a news outlet, but from a Facebook page run by Spanberger’s campaign. According to Meta’s Facebook ads library, ads on the page “Commonwealth Courier” have racked up at least eight million “impressions,” which means that a promoted post has appeared in front of a user eight million times, though often the same accounts see the same posts multiple times. Users see a logo with the map of Virginia and the words “Commonwealth Courier.” This Facebook page describes itself as a “media/news company” and introduces itself as “Providing political news to Virginians across the Commonwealth.” Facebook screenshot Yet the page includes a key disclosure: “Spanberger for Governor is responsible for this Page.” In other words, it claims to be a news outlet, it looks like a news outlet, but it’s just a mouthpiece for Spanberger’s campaign. Meta’s ads library also reveals who paid for the ads—not an entity called “Commonwealth Courier” but “Spanberger for Governor.” Meta ads library screenshot According to The Daily Signal’s analysis, “Commonwealth Courier” has 13 active ads as of Thursday, ranging from $200 to $20,000 in spending for each ad (a total expenditure of between $79,300 and $104,600), providing at least eight million impressions.  Spanberger’s campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about the ads and why it uses “Commonwealth Courier” to promote them. Meta ads library screenshot Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is running to further the legacy of current term-limited Gov. Glenn Youngkin, while Spanberger warns that Virginia’s economy will likely suffer due to President Donald Trump’s layoffs of federal workers. On the education issue, Spanberger has dodged a central question—whether bathrooms and locker rooms should be open to members of the opposite sex who claim to identify as transgender. Her opponent, Earle-Sears, has championed the cause of two Loudoun County boys who were found in violation of Title IX for expressing shock at seeing a girl in their locker room. Spanberger has not addressed the Loudoun County issue, but she voted for the so-called Equality Act, legislation that would open private spaces on the basis of a claimed transgender identity and has received the endorsement of the LGBTQ activist group the Human Rights Campaign. Amid this issue, a protester compared Earle-Sears’ stance on the issue to racial segregation. Spanberger condemned that comparison, but members of her party have attempted to blame Earle-Sears herself for the attack. “Commonwealth Courier” seems to have no relation to Courier Newsroom, a left-leaning news outlet with a Virginia affiliate, Dogwood. The post Virginia Democrat Campaign Sets Up Facebook Page Appearing to Be Independent News Outlet appeared first on The Daily Signal.

At DogingtonPost, we understand that teaching an old dog new tricks isn’t just a saying – it’s a real challenge many pet owners face. As our canine companions age, they may develop unwanted behaviors that can be frustrating for both dogs and their humans. In this post, we’ll explore how to train an older dog with bad habits, offering practical tips and strategies to help you and your senior pup overcome these obstacles together. Why Do Older Dogs Develop Bad Habits? Age-Related Physical Changes As dogs age, they often exhibit behaviors that weren’t present in their younger years. These changes can frustrate pet owners, but understanding the root causes is essential for effective solutions. Physical discomfort or limitations often trigger behavioral issues in senior dogs. Vision impairment, smell disturbance, tremor, swaying or falling and head ptosis were significantly associated with cognitive dysfunction in older dogs. This condition can lead to confusion, house soiling, and altered sleep patterns. Arthritis affects up to 80% of dogs over 8 years old (according to the Arthritis Foundation). Pain from this condition can cause: Irritability Reluctance to exercise Aggression when touched in sensitive areas Environmental Factors and Stress Changes in a dog’s environment or routine can spark new behaviors. Potential triggers include: Death of a companion animal Moving to a new home Rearranging furniture These changes often cause anxiety in older dogs, which manifests as: Excessive barking Destructive chewing Separation anxiety A survey by the American Kennel Club found that 45% of dog owners reported increased anxiety in their pets during major life changes. Older dogs find these stressors particularly challenging to manage, which can lead to problematic behaviors. The Importance of Early Action Addressing bad habits in older dogs maintains their quality of life and strengthens the bond between pet and owner. Ignoring these issues can lead to a decline in both physical and mental health. Dr. Karen Overall, a veterinary behaviorist, emphasizes the importance of early intervention. She states, “Behavioral changes in older dogs often signal underlying medical issues. Prompt attention can prevent the escalation of problems and improve overall well-being.” Consulting with a veterinarian at the first sign of new behavioral issues in your senior dog is crucial. Your veterinarian may refer you to a veterinary behaviorist to help with the assessment and to coordinate the treatment of both medical and behavioral illnesses. Now that we understand why older dogs develop bad habits, let’s explore effective training techniques to address these issues. How to Train Older Dogs Effectively Embrace Positive Reinforcement Positive reinforcement forms the foundation of successful training for dogs of all ages, but it proves especially important for older dogs. This method rewards desired behaviors to encourage repetition. For senior dogs, select rewards that are easy to consume and highly motivating. Soft treats, small pieces of cooked chicken, or gentle praise can yield excellent results. A study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior revealed that dogs trained using positive reinforcement methods exhibited lower stress levels and learned new behaviors more quickly than those trained with aversive techniques. This finding holds particular significance for older dogs who may display increased sensitivity to stress. Tailor Training to Your Dog’s Pace Patience plays a vital role when training older dogs. Many older dogs are able to focus on training, but they may need more time to learn than puppies. Keep training sessions short – no more than 5-10 minutes. This approach helps maintain your dog’s focus and prevents fatigue. Dr. Lisa Radosta, a board-certified veterinary behaviorist, recommends breaking down complex behaviors into smaller, manageable steps. This method, known as shaping, allows your dog to succeed more often, which boosts their confidence and motivation to learn. Adapt to Physical Limitations As dogs age, they may develop arthritis, vision problems, or hearing loss. These conditions can affect their ability to respond to commands or perform certain actions. Consider these limitations when training your older dog. For dogs with hearing loss, incorporate hand signals along with verbal cues. If your dog has vision problems, use scent-based cues or gentle touch commands. For dogs with mobility issues, modify exercises to be less physically demanding. For example, instead of asking your dog to sit, you might reward them for simply lowering their hindquarters slightly. The American Kennel Club suggests using a front-clip harness for dogs with arthritis or joint pain during leash training. This type of harness reduces strain on the neck and back, making walks more comfortable for your senior pet. Maintain Consistency Consistency proves essential in dog training at any age. Ensure all family members use the same cues and reward system to avoid confusing your older dog. With patience, understanding, and the right techniques, you can help your senior dog learn new behaviors and break unwanted habits. Now that we’ve covered effective training techniques for older dogs, let’s explore how to create a supportive environment that complements these training efforts and sets your senior dog up for success. How to Create a Dog-Friendly Home for Senior Canines Minimize Triggers in Your Living Space Start by identifying and removing potential triggers that may cause stress or anxiety for your older dog. If your dog becomes agitated by outdoor noises, use white noise machines or play soft music to mask these sounds. A study found that auditory stimulation induced changes in HRV and behavioral data indicative of reduced stress levels in dogs. For dogs with vision problems, avoid frequent furniture rearrangement. Maintain clear pathways throughout your home to prevent accidents and confusion. Place non-slip mats on slippery floors to provide better traction and reduce the risk of falls for dogs with arthritis. Create a Consistent Daily Schedule Older dogs thrive on predictability. Set up a consistent daily routine for feeding, walks, and bedtime. This structure helps reduce anxiety and provides a sense of security for your senior pet. Dr. Gary Landsberg, a veterinary behaviorist, notes that “dogs with cognitive dysfunction often lose their ability to cope with environmental changes.” Maintaining a regular routine can help manage these issues in senior dogs. Offer Age-Appropriate Mental Stimulation Mental exercise is as important as physical exercise for older dogs. Introduce puzzle toys and interactive feeders to keep your dog’s mind sharp. The Nina Ottosson Dog Brick Puzzle Toy (adjustable to different difficulty levels) is an excellent option for senior dogs. Teach your old dog new tricks! Senior dogs can and should learn new commands. A study published in the journal Learning & Behavior found that older dogs were just as capable of learning new tasks as younger ones, albeit at a slower pace. Modify Physical Activities While older dogs may not engage in high-intensity exercise, they still need regular physical activity. Replace long runs with shorter, more frequent walks. Swimming is an excellent low-impact exercise for dogs with joint issues. Always consult with your veterinarian before starting any new exercise regimen for your senior dog. For dogs with mobility issues, use ramps or steps to help them access furniture or get in and out of the car. The PetSafe CozyUp Bed Ramp (supports dogs up to 120 pounds) is a sturdy option for this purpose. Final Thoughts Training an older dog with bad habits requires patience and understanding. You must adapt your approach to suit your senior companion’s physical limitations and mental capabilities. Positive reinforcement techniques and a supportive environment will help your aging friend overcome unwanted behaviors. The process involves more than teaching new commands; it strengthens your bond and improves your dog’s well-being. Regular routines, appropriate exercise, and mental stimulation (through puzzle toys) will keep your senior dog engaged and reduce problematic behaviors. Your efforts will enhance their quality of life and prove that positive change is possible at any age. We at DogingtonPost offer resources to support you in caring for your older dog. Our platform provides expert advice and the latest dog care news to help you give your senior pet the best life possible. With love and the right approach, you can help your older dog learn new tricks and break old habits.

Illinois Open-Borders Dems Want Border Wall Built to Contain ... Indiana

Managing Editor Curtis Houck and I spoke with 2022 MRC Bulldog Award winner Drew Holden to unspool some of his famous X threads calling out the liberal media’s bias. Living in the D.C. metro area, we took a deep dive in Holden’s findings regarding a dubious Washington Post poll claiming D.C. residents thought crime wasn’t an issue. We also examined the media’s knee-jerk reaction to the FBI’s raid of John Bolton’s house, claiming President Trump was on his “revenge tour.” Before the interview, we discussed the latest number crunch study from NewsBusters senior research analyst Bill D’Agostino exposing how Abby Phillip, the host of CNN NewsNight (aka the Thunderdome) interrupted her conservative guests at a ratio of 127 to 3. You can read more about that here. We began the unspooling with Holden by going over his relatively recent thread exposing how The Washington Post manipulated the sampling pool so they could get a poll that suggested 90 percent of D.C. residents thought their neighborhoods were safe. Holden walked us through his findings, such as the Post over sampling white respondents who live in nicer neighborhoods and making them the plurality of the sample. Next, we pivoted to Holden’s evaluations of the liberal media breathless condemnations of the FBI raid at Bolton’s Maryland home. The headlines were full of pearl clutchy phrases like “revenge,” “retribution,” “payback,” “weaponization,” and “vendetta campaign.” But while the headlines roared, the truth was that the investigation started under President Biden and only whispered in the latter paragraphs of a New York Times article. And to put a bow on the thread talk, we chatted about what goes into his epic threads and how he decides what to cover. Enjoy!

The husband of Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat who advocates ensuring corporations "pay their fair share," previously owned a company that reportedly owed money to the IRS.Tim Mynett, Omar's husband, and William R. Hailer, Mynett's business partner, operated EStreetCo, an advertising, design, and public relations business that dissolved in June 2022, according to a Thursday report from the Washington Free Beacon. 'The company has no outstanding tax obligations from the COVID era; in fact, we have a balance due to us.'A document obtained by the news outlet revealed that in 2023, after the company's dissolution, the IRS filed a lien for nearly $206,000 in unpaid income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes.Omar announced in February that she introduced an amendment in the House Budget Committee to "make corporations pay their fair share." The representative has opposed Republicans' budget resolution, calling it "a blueprint for American decline.""Let's be clear: They want to exploit your labor, take your tax dollars, and gut your earned benefits — all to bankroll tax cuts for their wealthy friends and donors. They want to increase your health care costs — while Elon Musk and his friends hoard even more wealth," Omar said in February during a speech on the House floor.RELATED: Here are the top 3 LEAST patriotic members of Congress Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty ImagesThe Free Beacon noted that Omar's personal wealth is as much as $30 million. In a 2021 financial disclosure, she described EStreetCo as a "creative agency," claiming that her husband's share in the firm was worth $1,000 or less.The news outlet reported that the Sonoma County recorder does not have any record that the IRS released its lien against EStreetCo. RELATED: Trump derangement final boss: Ilhan Omar claims Somalia is better than America Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative ConferenceHowever, a spokesperson for EStreetCo told Blaze News, "The company has no outstanding tax obligations from the COVID era; in fact, we have a balance due to us." Documents provided by the spokesperson showed that the IRS owed the company approximately $3,000 as of September 3, 2025.A representative for Omar did not respond to a request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!