In early World War II, on Nov. 30, 1939, a Soviet-Russian army invaded Finland in a surprise massive attack. The Finns were eventually outnumbered nearly 3 to 1. The population of the Soviet Union in 1940 was 50 times larger than Finland’s.Finland’s former anti-Soviet ally, Nazi Germany, had sold it out under the August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which made Germany and Russia de facto allies.Finland’s other allies, particularly France and Britain, were slow in giving aid. Both were unsure whether Finland had any chance of survival. And they were further confused as to whether their archenemy Germany was friendly or hostile to Finland.Yet for nearly the next four months, the Finns fought ferociously. They were led brilliantly by their iconic general and commander-in-chief, Carl Mannerheim.By March 1940, however, the brave but exhausted Finns were being slowly ground down. Soon they were facing abject defeat—even after courageously inflicting nearly 500,000 Russian causalities, 10 times the number of their own dead, wounded, and missing.Finnish ferocity shocked Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Eventually, he was willing to abandon his original objective of controlling, if not annexing, Finland—in exchange for stealing 9% of Finland’s territory.Mannerheim reluctantly took the deal, stopped the war, and saved an autonomous Finland.The fallout from the Winter War directly influenced World War II.After the Soviet humiliation in Finland, Hitler mistakenly perceived Stalin’s Red Army as a paper tiger. Accordingly, he would miscalculate disastrously by invading the Soviet Union little more than a year later.Later in World War II, the Finns eventually fought alongside Hitler but were careful not to invade Russia or fight on Russian ground—just in case Germany failed to win the war and they were left to again confront an ascendant Red Army.Yet after World War II, Stalin was still careful not to attack Finland, given the debacle of 1939-40.In 1945, Gen. Mannerheim was able to negotiate for a neutral, independent Finland nation. Yet, given his huge, paranoid, and inimical Soviet neighbor, he was careful not to openly side with the West.Is any lesson from the Winter War applicable to the current Ukrainian conflict?One: Drawn-out heroic resistance to the Russian juggernaut wins global praise for a nation, but not necessarily enough weapons or manpower to overcome the huge disparity of forces. The European elation at Finland’s initial success mirrors the global admiration for the Ukrainian efforts to save Kyiv in 2022.Two: The Russian Army has a long history of starting poorly in its wars. But after months of mismanagement, incompetence, and massive losses, its brutal command eventually readjusts. It then marshals the vast manpower and territorial power of Russia to slowly grind down a smaller enemy.Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that fighting in or near Russia starts out well but usually ends badly. The Ukrainian winter ebullition of March 2022 has now descended into a bitter, Verdun-like 2024 summer stalemate.Three: Smaller border nations facing Russian aggression cannot count on allied pledges of massive aid. In 1939, Finland was not helped much by France, Britain, or America. And Ukraine is learning that current foreign aid has a definite shelf life.Four: Both the media and Western democracies may lionize brave countries fighting against Russian aggression, as seen in 1939 and again in 2022, but they also sometimes fool themselves into thinking that brilliant tactical successes will always translate into ultimate strategic victories.Five: Smart leaders use their surprising, initially successful resistance to leverage a peace with Russia despite the reality that required concessions often result in the loss of some currently Russian-occupied territory. Mannerheim lost 9% of Finland but saved his nation.In late March 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was purported to be considering negotiations with a reeling Russia—reportedly by conceding that it would be impossible to recover by force the Donbas and Crimea regions lost to Russia in 2014.Six: A fully armed Finland, under capable leadership, established lasting deterrence, even against Stalin’s brutal Red Army. Ukraine’s heroic defense has stunned Russian President Vladimir Putin. Most of Russia’s population considers the 2022 surprise invasion a terrible mistake—and, apparently, Ukraine too tough a neighbor to repeat such a blunder.Carl Mannerheim is still considered Finland’s greatest leader—indominable in war and yet enough of a realist to end a war and to survive next to an aggressive and dangerous Russia.Zelenskyy might do well by studying the career of Mannerheim and how, with dignity, he saved Finland from the Russian meatgrinder. (C) 2024 Tribune Content Agency LLC We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Ukraine and the Winter War, 1939-1940 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Barbara McQuade, who was in 2017 dismissed from her job as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, has in the meantime turned into quite something of a “misinformation warrior.” Earlier this year McQuade – who in the past also worked as co-chair of the Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee in the Obama Administration – published a book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” Now, she herself is attacking the First Amendment as standing in the way of censorship (“content moderation”) and advocating in favor of essentially finding ways to bypass it. Opponents might see this as particularly disheartening, coming from somebody who used to hold such a high judicial office. “The better course for regulating social media and online content might be to look at processes versus content because content is so tricky in terms of First Amendment protections. Regulating some of the processes could include things like the algorithms,” McQuade said. This point – that the First Amendment serves precisely the purpose it was designed for – has lately been cropping up more and more frequently in the liberal spectrum of US politics, with the situation resembling a coordinated “narrative building.” McQuade also sticks to the script, as it were, on other common talking points this campaign season: the dangers of AI (as a tool of “misinformation” – but the same camp loves AI as a tool of censorship). In the scenario where AI is perceived as a threat, McQuade wants new laws to regulate the field. And she repeats the suddenly renewed calls to change CDA’s Section 230 in a particular way – namely, a way that pressures social platforms to toe the line, or else see legal protections afforded to them eroded. This is phrased as amending the legislation to provide for civil liability, i.e., “money damages” if companies behind these platforms are found to not force users to label AI-generated content or delete bot accounts diligently enough. McQuade’s comments regarding Section 230 are made in the context of her ideas on “regulating processes rather than content” (as a way to circumvent the First Amendment). While on the face of it, stepping up bot removal sounds reasonable, there are reasons to fear this could be yet another false narrative whose actual goal is punishing platforms for not deleting real accounts falsely accused of being “bots” by certain media and politicians. The Hamilton 68 case, exposed in the Twitter Files, is an example of this. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post From Prosecutor to Censor: Barbara McQuade’s Call to Erode Free Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Earlier this week the EU Commission (EC) published its second report on what it calls “the state of the digital decade,” urging member countries to step up the push to increase access and incentivize the use of digital ID and electronic health records. At the same time, the bloc is satisfied with how the crackdown on “disinformation,” “online harms,” and the like is progressing. In a press release, the EC said the report was done to assess the progress made in reaching the objectives contained in the Digital Decade Policy Program (DDPP), targeting 2030 as the year of completion. EU members have now for the first time contributed to the document with analyses of their national “Digital Decade strategic roadmaps.” And, here, the EC is not exactly satisfied: the members’ efforts will not meet the EU’s “level of ambition” if things continue to develop as they currently are, the document warns. In that vein, while the report is generally upbeat on the uptake of digital ID (eID schemes) and the use of e-Health records, its authors point out that there are “still significant differences among countries” in terms of eID adoption. To remedy member countries falling short on these issues, it is recommended that they push for increased access to eID and e-Health records in order to meet the objectives set for 2030. The EU wants to see both these schemes available to 100% of citizens and businesses by that date – and reveals that eID is at this point available to 93% of citizens across the 27 of the bloc’s countries, “despite uneven take-up.” Still, the EC’s report shows that policymakers in Brussels are optimistic that the EU digital ID Wallet will “incentivize” eID use. And, the document’s authors are happy with the way the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA) is getting enforced. Critics, however, believe it is there to facilitate crackdowns on speech – under the guise of combating “disinformation,” etc. The EU calls this, “strengthening the protection against online harms and disinformation,” while also mentioning that it is launching investigations (into online platforms) to make sure DSA is enforced. And in order to reinforce the message that DSA is needed as a force for good, the report asserts that “online risks are on the rise and disinformation has been identified as one of the most destabilizing factors for our societies, requiring comprehensive, coordinated action across borders and actors.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Commission Urges Digital ID, E-Health Records, and Touts “Anti-Disinformation” Efforts in Digital Decade Report appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Boeing Takes the Plea Deal, but Will it Stick?

Within the oldest crystals in the world, collected from Western Australia’s Jack Hills, lie the remnants of even older rocks – some of which were reprocessed through magma into the surviving crystals. With the help of machine learning, geologists have revealed that a third of these primeval rocks were sedimentary. This means that more than four billion years ago, at a time from which no minerals survive, the Earth had extensive crust exposed to the elements above sea level. The Earth’s first few hundred million years were not as strange to us as we might think.The Earth’s atoms are mostly the same ones that were here more than four billion years ago, but nothing solid from that time survives; everything has been reprocessed, usually many times over. It’s one of the reasons we went to the Moon, and study asteroids, to find a direct line almost to the birth of the Solar System.The lack of rocks that bear witness to the first ten percent of the Earth’s existence frustrates geologists. Yet in the oldest things on the Earth, arrivals from space aside, researchers have found an unexpected clue to that lost era, revealing how quickly the planet evolved to something familiar. It comes just a month after the same tiny crystals were used in a different way to prove something similar, but not quite as impressive. The zircons of the Jack Hills are the Earth’s oldest surviving relics. They formed up to 4.4 billion years ago and subsequently became incorporated into sedimentary rocks that have since eroded away, leaving just the zircons behind.The Jack Hills zircons crystallized from magma, but not the original magma ocean. This magma was made of older rocks drawn into the Earth to melt. Most information about those previous rocks has been lost in the magma reprocessing, but one fact geologists have hoped to find is whether any of them were sedimentary, or if these were all igneous. Igneous rocks can form from cooling magma or lava we know existed on the early Earth, but sedimentary rocks require a water cycle, where rocks are exposed to the atmosphere above the water line. Rain erodes them, and the material is washed into lakes or oceans to settle and be converted into new forms of rock. Professor Ross Mitchell of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and colleagues have taken a new look at Jack Hills zircons, as well as some from the newly discovered South African Green Sandstone Bed that may almost match their age. By training computers to recognize the fingerprints of sedimentary material within zircons, Mitchell and colleagues were able to determine that a sample of very old zircons contains about abundant S-type granite. This is granite formed from sediments that were subducted into magma.The S-type share rises with time, as would be expected – but if the method Mitchell and colleagues used to identify S-type granites is right, zircons formed 4.24 billion years ago were made from 35 percent S-type granite. In an interesting tangent, the authors found that rather than rising forever, the S-type proportion rises and falls in line with cycles of supercontinent formation and collapse.Magma melt incorporating sediment (“S-type” granite) from the Himalayas (left) and the discovery site of the Jack Hills zircon in Western Australia (right).Image Credit: Ross MitchellTo make an S-type granite, you need a previous process in which rocks form, erode to become sediments, and then are compressed to new rocks before being pushed down into magma. Such a multi-stage process is unlikely to be quick, so the original islands poking out of the sea must have been there considerably before the zircons’ formation. S-type granites in such ancient zircons would also prove tectonic cycles that subducted crust into the mantle occurred at least 4.2 billion years ago.In other words, if an alien had visited the Earth early in its existence, they would have found neither a dry orange world, as presumed a few decades ago, nor an all-encompassing ocean, as suspected more recently.The findings complement and extend work published in June, when a team investigating the ratio of oxygen isotopes within similarly aged zircons found most were formed within the ocean. However, some of the zircons show signs of having formed in fresh water on land that poked out of the ocean, indicating the presence of continental crust around this time.The presence of S-type granites in Jack Hills zircons may have been a big debate among a small subset of geologists, but it has implications for a question attracting much wider interest. The two competing hypotheses for the origins of life are the warm little pond proposed by Darwin, and the hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. However, the warm pond idea requires the planet to have had a water cycle with land and fresh water at the time life emerged. By pushing back the time when the first ponds existed, Mitchell and co-authors have not proved this was where life began, but they make a powerful case that ponds remain a contender.The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

With Joe Biden’s presidency in peril over the left finally admitting publicly he has little grasp of his basic faculties and more voices demanding he withdraw from the 2024 race, Biden went to his happy places on Monday with a surprise call to MSNBC’s Morning Joe, his favorite news show and helmed by two of his top liberal media lemmings, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and wife Mika Brzezinski. Biden surfaced in a block originally scheduled to feature Vice President Kamala Harris, which Brzezinski had no problem with in giddily announcing: All right, Now for something a little different. And from inside the White House, we have a special guest. Joining us now, the 46th President of the United States and presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, calling in to Morning Joe right now.  Biden immediately got snippy: “Hey, Mika. I'm more than the presumptive, I'm going to be the Democratic nominee.” The supposed conservative in Scarborough had the first softball question, which he falsely claimed there was an open Democratic primary (when it was in name only). This allowed Biden to go off on a tangent about Donald Trump riding in a golfcart, referred to himself in the third person, cited supporters in the past tense (as if he’s left the race), and even admitted “the press is with me”: ?Lol Biden called into MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', meaning he can just read talking points.... Mika Brzezinski: "All right, Now for something a little different. And from inside the White House, we have a special guest. Joining us now, the 46th President of the United States and… pic.twitter.com/WcPJnyX9PN — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 8, 2024 Scarborough followed up with more lunacy, arguing Sunday “was quite a contrast, that the people that were supporting you yesterday compared to, say, a lot of the Washington insiders and Hollywood moguls and...very powerful people that want you out”. He then gave Biden a second chance to answer a question he flubbed during his ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos. In other words, it was a chance to argue America, democracy, and the world would cease to exist in peace if Trump won. This time, Biden argued losing is “not an option” and angrily sounded like he did throughout the interview, which was reading heavily from notes.  A man with nearly 60 years in Washington who represented the credit card company state also and hilariously asserted he doesn’t “care what the millionaires think” and bragged “[y]ou don't see a whole lot of CEOs flocking to Trump”.     Brzezinski only gingerly asked about the disastrous debate: “How — how can you assure the American people that you won't have another night like the one you did in Atlanta?” Biden again became extremely defensive and used his all-but-certain crutch of notes as he angrily shouted about having “created over 15 million jobs, 21 million ensured with ACA, beat big pharma, relieved student debt for five million people, first black woman on the court” and takes “a neurological test everyday” by being president. Brzezinski’s follow-up was similar to how ABC’s George Stephanopoulos acted on Friday in showing concern: [I]f anybody in my family had a night like that. Like, if Joe — if my Joe had a night like that or my kids or anybody, I’d — I’d probably want to do some sort of workup, medical workup, and make sure he's okay. Have you been tested for any age-related illnesses, pre-Parkinson's or anything like that, that might explain sort of having a night like that where you couldn't finish sentences? Biden meandered his way through another lengthy answer that made little sense.     Brzezinski then listed some of those who’ve called for him to get out of the race, ranging from liberal news outlets (like The New York Times editorial board) to elected Democrats (New York’s Jerry Nadler) and liberal influences like David Axelrod. Biden continued with his angry, defense elderly bit popping off about NATO, Gaza, and the 2022 midterms. When he started to speak in gibberish, he was rescued (click “expand”): BIDEN: My plan of attack is to go out — BRZEZINSKI: These are pretty big names. BIDEN: — and keep doing — they’re big names, but I don't care what those big names think. They were wrong in 2020. They’re wrong in 2022 about the red wave. They’re wrong in 2024. And go with me — come out with me and watch — watch people react! You make a judgment. You make a judgment. BRZEZINSKI: Mmmhmm. BIDEN: And by the way, I’m going to be — have all of these foreign leaders! I've been in contact with the new British Prime Minister, with the — anyway — look, the country — the rest of the world is looking — our allies are looking for U.S. Leadership. Who else do you think could step in and do this? I expanded NATO. I solidified nato. Ask your brother about it in Poland. I made sure that we were in a position where we have a coalition of people — of the nations around the world to deal with China, with Russia, with everything that's going on in the world. We're making real progress. The Biden plan, which got — in Israel, for — for — for the Gaza Strip is something that was adopted by the U.N. Security Council. Whether it comes to fruition, it’s awful close, we'll see. He — seven — bubrarah — BRZEZINSKI: Okay. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. BIDEN: — but, look, I — I'm not going to explain anymore about what I should or shouldn't do. I am running. I am running.  BRZEZINSKI: Mmhmm. BIDEN: And if you want to stop me, come see — SCARBOROUGH: I wanted to ask you, it's so interesting, you talked about how, you know, you were supposed to lose in 2020. You won. There was supposed to be a huge wave in 2022. There wasn't. In 2023, Republicans were supposed to win, they didn't.  Scarborough had what ended up being the last question and it was, of course, another softball citing leftist romps in France and the United Kingdom as proof that could come to fruition in the U.S. Still angry and claiming he and Democrats have been douted in every election from 2020 on, Biden comically added he’s grown “so frustrated by the elites — now, I’m not talking about you guys — but the elites in the party who — oh, they know so much more, but none of these guys don’t think I should run.” Biden went from talking about the French elections to Trump to the Supreme Court to Project 2025 to tax cuts to claiming Trump gives jobs to illegals to even admitting he’s reading from notes. Biden eventually wrapped by saying Trump “makes George Wallace look like a patriot” (click “expand”): BIDEN: [O]n Europe, the polls were wrong in France. There's also — right — there’s right wave or tide here in America either. By the way, in case you're wondering whether there is one, have you ever seen Trump run away so fast from what he's for? You know, he's going to do it anyway, but I mean, he's such a liar. This guy — it’s all — everybody knows what they're planning to do. And now, he’s saying, no, no, no. This guy is going to rip away at a women's right to choose in a permanent way. This guy is going to make sure that he exacts revenge. This guy is going to destroy democracy. This guy is going to give a blank check to the Supreme Court and use his past — the — the 2025 agenda, you know, extreme dan — this guy is extremely dangerous. He doesn't speak up for — now — what he’s really is for. He’s — all of a sudden, he's realizing, oh, my god, nobody is for what I'm for. At any rate — look — and again, think of the things he lied about. He talked about he gave his — the largest tax cut in history. Yeah, he gave the largest tax cut in history to millionaires and billionaires. He said that he’s going to — 10 percent annual universal tax proposal is not going to drive prices higher. Every major economist in the world is going to say it's going to drive up $2,500 per person. Only jobs he’s created for illegal immigrants and bounce back from jobs and bounce back from Covid. Give me a break. That's what he said at the convention — excuse me — at the debate. And he — I mean, everything he said — he said — you know — he largely fixed Covid. Are you kidding me? And what happened? Nobody said anything. Nobody said anything except me and the folks out there in the local — [SHUFFLES PAPERS] — uh — you know, race. You know, he said, I did nothing to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In fact, I encourage Russia from — going — I — I encourage — I think he encouraged Russia going in.  I mean, we're reading from a list of lies. First of all, he was — made-up quotes, suckers and losers. I was with him. He — called the Americans in the cemeteries in World War I suckers and losers. And so, this guy’s going to have to start answering for what he’s did. I'm not letting up, Joe. I am not letting up a little bit. SCARBOROUGH: Oh! BIDEN: By the way, France registered — you know — I — look, you talk about Europe. France rejected extremism. Democrats will reject it here as well. Trump — and — this is a — this is a guy who is an extreme candidate. I can't think of a candidate in my lifetime that's been more extreme. He makes — SCARBOROUGH: Alright. BIDEN: — George Wallace look like a patriot. With the 20-minute mark approaching, the Biden stooges made sure to wrap with Brzezinski pleading with Biden to “make this a thing”, which was an interesting take since the three supposedly talk off-camera on the regular. To see the relevant MSNBC transcript from June 8, click here.

Statistics-based journalist-pollster Nate Silver, who previously worked at the New York Times (where he founded the influential presidential polling-data site FiveThirtyEight) and at ABC News, had some internal insight into the media bias debate, saying out loud what we at NewsBusters know well. It came in his Monday post “Blaming the media is what got Democrats into this mess.” (The mess being President Biden’s disastrous debate performance and the feigned shock from the press who felt obliged to downplay it.) In his latest Silver Bulletin newsletter, the political prognosticator credited, or blamed, the newly minted progressive media critics for putting a lid on Biden age coverage (Silver’s original links are included below): But the partisan media critics I cited before succeeded in keeping coverage to a simmer -- the pot never quite boiled over. Journalists are human beings, and although they won’t want to admit it, most of them actually do read the mean Twitter messages you write about them. And, although they won’t admit to this either, most who work for high-prestige media outlets like the Times and the Washington Post are left-of-center. They aren’t necessarily partisan Democrats, but vanishingly few are Republicans or would like to see Trump elected again. (Nor would I, for that matter). He discounted the oft-heard criticism from defenders of the press that any hypothetical Democratic lean among journalists is more than neutralized by their capitalist bosses. There are some countervailing biases: publishers and media moguls are often centrists or conservatives, or at least unrepentant capitalists. But having worked for some of the biggest mainstream media outlets in the country -- including the New York Times (where I still occasionally freelance) and ABC News -- my experience is that staff attitudes usually prevail over management. At news organizations of a certain size, there are too many things happening at once -- dozens of stories being published every day under intense deadline pressure -- for central planning to be entirely effective. Some of Silver's media criticism of so-called "cheap fakes" are aimed at the Associated Press and his former employees at the Times itself, judging by his links. In their critiques of coverage of Biden’s age, then, progressive media scolds are like the dog who caught the car. They succeeded in getting the media to frame the issue gingerly -- for every story that engaged forthrightly, there were two that dismissed it as “misinformation”, sometimes even inventing whole new categories like “cheap fakes” to describe what were simply lightly edited but unflattering video clips of Biden. But having caught the car, the critics aren’t sure what to do with it. Because the car was a lemon…. Although anti-Trump himself, Silver is well aware of the liberal media bubble. His prediction in the final hours before the 2016 election that Trump had a 29% of winning was mocked by liberals as being far too generous to Trump. How’d that turn out?

The American Revolution was led by many men with names we know by heart — Adams, Revere, Hancock, and Washington — to name a few. But there’s a lesser known name who’s received little to no time in the limelight in the history books: Dr. Joseph Warren of Massachusetts. “It’s very interesting,” Mark Levin says. “In New England, early on when the war broke out, before 1776, Dr. Joseph Warren was known better than George Washington.” During the Battle of Bunker Hill, there was a problem that Warren, a leader of the Revolutionary movement in Boston, helped solve. The colonists were short on gunpowder, so Warren and a few others put together and signed a letter addressed to the Congress of New York asking for help. “You read that, and you look at that, and you really think about the men who wrote it and signed it, who put everything on the line, everything they had, including their lives,” Levin says, admiring their sacrifice. When the Patriots ended up running out of gunpowder during this battle, some of them stood firm at the front line while others were ordered to retreat for another day. “Dr. Warren insisted on staying on the front line. He was a wanted man, they knew who he was,” Levin explains. “The Americans are overwhelmed, they fight hand to hand combat, and one of the higher ranking British officers, as they were charging up the last time, saw Joseph Warren, aimed his pistol at him in nearly point blank range, shot him between the eyes.” “And so as not to make a martyr out of Dr. Joseph Warren, they would cut him up into pieces, they would burn what was left of him,” he adds, noting that the British forces also urinated on his remains. The American forces were able to determine that Warren was one of the dead as in his teeth he had some easily identifiable iron, which was made by Paul Revere, who was a metalsmith. “I tell you that as a personal example, not personal to me, but a specific example, of what took place,” Levin says. Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) used history on Sunday to upend a popular liberal talking point used to incite fear about Donald Trump's potential return to the White House.For nearly a decade now, Democrats and media activists have claimed that Trump is a fascist and authoritarian who will unconstitutionally seize dictatorial-level power if elected president and bring an end to American democracy.'He will be too busy undoing all the damage of this disastrous presidency.'On CNN's "State of the Union," host Dana Bash asked Rubio if the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity makes him "comfortable," suggesting it empowers the president beyond what the Constitution says. Rubio, in response, provided the context for the court's ruling: It only became necessary when the Justice Department was weaponized to target Trump.The senator's observation prompted Bash to jump to Biden's defense."Donald Trump has said that he would go after Joe Biden, that he would go after members of the Biden family. That's never something that we have heard Joe Biden say," Bash claimed."Donald Trump has said that — no, he hasn't," Rubio fired back. "I watched the debate ... and he was asked, and he said, 'My vengeance will be winning and restoring America — making America great again. ... He has repeatedly said that his revenge will be to make America great again, to undo all [of the Biden administration's] bad public policies."That's when Rubio pointed out a historical fact that undermines the argument that Trump will become a fascist dictator."By the way, he was president for four years. He didn't go after Hillary Clinton. He didn't go after Joe Biden. He didn't go after Barack Obama. He didn't go after any of their consultants," Rubio explained."We didn't see under him what we're seeing now," he added.Bash, however, ignored that fact. Instead, she followed up by asking Rubio essentially to promise that Trump will not "go after any Democrats, any of his political opponents.""Yes, he was president before, and he didn't do it then. He's already said that he wouldn't do that," Rubio answered. "He will be too busy undoing all the damage of this disastrous presidency."Earlier in the interview, Rubio noted that not a single prominent Democrat "was chased around, persecuted, prosecuted" when Trump was president from 2017–2021. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. State Department is leading an international scheme at President Joe Biden's behest to leverage America's resources and reputation abroad to support LGBT activism, the acceptance of gender ideology, and the normalization of non-straight lifestyles. A recent report has revealed some of what goes into establishing an LGBT-affirming monoculture worldwide. Former President Barack Obama issued a memorandum in late 2011 directing "all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons." The memo went beyond having American agencies throw American weight around to curb perceived discrimination against non-straight foreigners but also to advance the LGBT agenda more broadly. Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden issued a juiced-up version of the memorandum, indicating it "shall be the policy of the United States to pursue an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics, and to lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world." The State Department's new "progress" report on the implementation of Biden's directive indicated that the agency has helped bankroll various LGBT activist organizations through the Global Equality Fund — a "public-private partnership" it manages with the support of a coalition of other countries and organizations. Through the GEF, the State Department has supported activist groups in African nations whose lawmakers were drafting or passing legislation supposedly criminalizing non-straight status or conduct. According to the document, the State-run GEF has "supported 116 LGBTQI+ organizations in 73 countries with grants ranging from $8,000 to $25,000, and cumulatively total more than $3,200,000 over the last five years." Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Development has dumped over $7 million into activities at its missions that "integrate LGBTQI+ equities across a range of development sectors." The apparent aim of such monetary support from Biden agencies is to pave the way to fuller LGBT acceptance. However, to shape the legal landscape, the administration has not just injected money but threatened to take it away. Uganda, for instance, passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act last year, imposing sentences of up to life in imprisonment for gay sex and the death penalty for gay sex with a minor or a mentally compromised senior. Uganda's law also criminalized the promotion of homosexuality. 'We have emphasized the importance of ensuring broad access to evidence-based LGBTQI+-affirming care.' According to the report, the U.S. has found numerous ways to punish Uganda for keeping the law on the books. Uganda has lost eligibility for African Growth and Opportunity Act benefits — duty-free access to the American market for various products — and has been denied significant government-to-government support. In addition to the Biden administration concern-mongering about doing business in Uganda, the Treasury Department has supported a pause in new public lending to the dissenting African nation's government. The report all but admitted that Uganda has been slapped around as an example to other countries considering similar policies. While punishing dissenting national elements of the global south, the Biden administration has also worked with apparently like-minded developed nations to fight policies thought regressive. To this end, the State Department's special envoy to advance the human rights of so-called LGBTQI+ persons apparently "convened senior officials from various countries for rapid coordination in response to proposed anti-LGBTQI+ legislation." In addition to working to void legislative resistance to LGBT activism universally, the Biden administration has leaned on governments to kill the practice of "conversion therapy" practices globally, having "engaged governments to encourage them to stop sponsoring, funding, and/or otherwise supporting CTP." Conversion therapy is the promotion of straight lifestyles among homosexuals or the provision of reality-affirming remedies to persons with gender dysphoria. The Biden administration is warring against such efforts but appears altogether keen to support international efforts to ensure that vulnerable persons can undergo activist-approved conversion therapies into mutilated simulations of the opposite sex. "We have emphasized the importance of ensuring broad access to evidence-based LGBTQI+-affirming care and have highlighted evidence-based resources for families to expand supportive and affirming behaviors with LGBTQ+ youth," said the report. The report indicated further that the Department of Homeland Security, another executor of Biden's scheme, has enabled refugee and asylum seekers to identify as whatever gender they please on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services forms "without the need to provide supporting documentation or to match the gender listed on their identity document." Apparently, the ability for prospective asylum-seekers to conceal their real sex "helps ensure safety and security both in the United States and abroad." While much of this scheme is outward-facing, some agencies are also ensuring conformity among their own ranks. USAID, for instance, is reportedly developing a "LGBTQI+ Inclusive Develop E-module" for a training program its workforce will be required to complete. The State Department emphasized in a release coinciding with the report's release, "Promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons is a U.S. foreign policy priority." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!