On Saturday night, the Israeli military made a macabre and horrifying discovery: the slain bodies of six hostages taken by Hamas, including American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin. All six hostages had been shot point-blank in the head some 48-72 hours prior, presumably upon the approach of IDF soldiers; Hamas terrorists chose to murder the hostages they had held in terror tunnels for over 300 days rather than risk their liberation. The discovery sent the entire nation of Israel into mourning. On Oct. 7, Israelis were forced to remember that the enemy they face is not merely violent, but purely evil. In subsequent months, with the extraordinary progress of the IDF in Gaza over the protestations of the Biden administration, Hamas’ evils were relegated once more to the realm of military conflict. But the very thought of these victims — Goldberg-Polin, 23; Eden Yerushalmi, 24; Ori Danino, 25; Alex Lobanov, 32; Carmel Gat, 40; and Almog Sarusi, 27 — suffering without sunlight, food or water for nearly a year, all to be shot to death within hours of their possible freedom, reopened all the wounds of Oct. 7. It turned out that all the diplomatic overtures made by America — overtures largely accepted by the supposedly intransigent administration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — meant nothing. As Netanyahu pointed out, “whoever murders hostages does not want a deal.” That was predictable enough, given the fact that Hamas’ chief goal is its own survival — a goal directly at odds with Israel’s necessary goal of extirpating Hamas. That is why Hamas has consistently declared for months that there would be no hostage release without a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, along with the discharge of hundreds of convicted terrorists and murderers. Anything less than survival for Hamas is a loss. Dead Palestinians help Hamas achieve its goal of pressuring Israel; dead hostages help Hamas achieve its goal of pressuring Israel. And yet the immediate response of America and Great Britain has been to push Israel into more concessions. Asked whether Netanyahu had done enough to secure the hostage release, President Joe Biden — fresh from the beach in Delaware — said “no.” That is obviously political madness; if the murder of hostages wins indulgences, surely Hamas has the incentive to murder more hostages. But it is, far more importantly, moral madness; handing a victory to the very monsters who currently hold toddlers and threaten to shoot them in the head is the essence of cowardice. It’s worse: it’s complicity in evil. The only possible moral frame in which Israel can be blamed for Hamas’ monstrousness is a relativistic one, in which barbaric evil can be projected onto the “root cause” of the West. There is a reason so much of the left views America’s loss of the Vietnam War as a victory, or sees the Afghanistan pullout as a triumph, ignoring the viciousness of the Viet Cong and the Taliban. In this view, the cruelty of the West’s enemies is merely a response to the West’s own cruelty — and the evidence of that proposition is the existence of our enemies. Were we kind, generous and tolerant, we would have no enemies, goes the logic — thus the presence of our enemies demonstrates how fatally flawed we are. This perverse philosophy gives ammunition to the world’s worst human beings. Depriving evil actors of agency means leaving them free to pursue their worse designs, secure in the knowledge that the more savagely they act, the more they will be excused for their cruelty. The West, in this view, can never triumph but through surrender. This philosophy will destroy the West from within as well as from without. Cowardice is the greatest aid to evil; in fact, it is its own form of evil, for without it, evil could never win. A West incapable of distinguishing between those who kidnap and murder hostages in pursuit of Islamist theocracy and those who seek to free those hostages is a West that simply cannot survive. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Evil of Cowardice appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The censorship regime that threatens Europe has crossed the Atlantic and has landed in the New World. Brazil became the latest example of a reputed “democracy” opting for a totalitarian evisceration of free speech in the name of combating “misinformation.” On Saturday, a Brazilian court ruled that the social media platform X would be banned from the country and that anyone caught using a VPN—a virtual private network—to access the website would be fined the equivalent of $9,000. That’s around the average annual income in Brazil, according to some estimates. On Monday, the country’s highest court unanimously upheld the decision. The one judge who opposed the fine said that people who go on X shouldn’t be punished unless they promote “racism, fascism, or Nazism, obstruct criminal investigations, or incite crimes in general.” Notice: No mention of socialism or communism. The Left will always oh-so-nobly protect unlimited free speech for communists, of course. X Chairman Elon Musk countered Brazil’s ban by making his satellite internet constellation Starlink free to users in Brazil, but now Brazil’s government is threatening that, as well. Did we see any outrage from the Biden administration or the corporate media over this obvious attack on an American company and free speech? Nope. What we got from the White House were crickets, and the corporate media have been doing their best to spin this into a mere regulatory technicality that’s mostly a good thing. Nothing would have happened to X if it had just complied with the Brazilian government, they say. That’s notable, given that so many media commentators warned that the previous right-wing Brazilian administration was going to be authoritarian. Now that the new left-wing Brazilian government has trampled on free speech in a direct way, they suddenly find the whole authoritarian thing kind of neat. Whatever spin they put on this, what happened in Brazil is a serious threat to freedom. It’s a disturbing and predictable continuation of a larger battle taking place over speech in the free world. As institutions and governments now largely captured by left-wing ideology lose credibility, and various “populist” movements threaten to take power, Western regimes are increasingly willing to use government force to cut them off at the knees. It’s interesting how this came to be. Big Tech was once sold by the Left as a totally benign collective institution that was meant to bring the whole world together in a great global exchange of ideas and friendship. That never really happened. It turns out that binding the whole world together means that we recognize each other’s differences just as much or more than our similarities. Hence, conflict. I do really get the feeling that some of the Left’s early Big Tech proponents really did think that globalized communications would turn everyone into a generic Western liberal. When those platforms became conduits for ideas and political movements they didn’t like, the self-proclaimed proponents of tolerance did what they’re wont to do when their utopian ideas get stymied by reality: They turned to censorship and force. They are increasingly comfortable using government power to threaten and pressure social media platforms to censor “misinformation”—which all too often is simply information or opinions they dislike. They do this, laughably, in the name of “our democracy.” At one time, much of Big Tech was happy to oblige the whims of petty bureaucrats and censorious left-wing governments. They did so freely. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, Big Tech and Big Government largely worked hand in hand. But the landscape has changed a bit in the past few years after the remarkable acquisition of Twitter, now X, by Musk. Social media technologies have always provided an opening to step around traditional media institutions. The Left now wants to put the genie back in the bottle with censorship. Losing X to someone who wasn’t entirely on board with their ideas was seen as an existential threat. It didn’t even have to be a conservative or someone on the Right. Initially, they just flew into hysterics about how Musk’s takeover was a threat to democracy, but now they are mobilizing and encouraging governments to ruthlessly crack down on powerful platforms that won’t bend over backwards to their demands. Many on the Left are celebrating what’s happened to X in Brazil and are demanding other governments do the same, or worse. “@elonmusk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote.Because he is a weird and entitled billionaire tech bro. Tax him… https://t.co/YYlYnD4VXV— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) August 30, 2024 Former President Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, Robert Reich, even wrote that Musk should be arrested—just as the CEO of Telegram was in France—if he doesn’t crack down on speech on his platform. As I noted in a previous piece about the growing power of the censorship regimes in Europe, don’t count on the United States being immune to that temptation. Yes, we have the First Amendment. We also have a lot of people in the media and in high places in this country who would like nothing more than to see our old Constitution be dissolved. Vice President Kamala Harris said in 2019 that then-President Donald Trump should be censored by X. Are we to believe that she wouldn’t want to censor him in 2024? The existential threat to democracy isn’t coming from Musk, or X, or some anonymous social media accounts. It’s coming from unaccountable government bureaucracies and politicians who want to commandeer tech platforms to do their bidding—or else. It’s coming from the institutional powers that think you can’t handle the truth, can’t handle information that goes against their narrative about how the world should be. As power slips ever so slightly from their hands, they are now showing their teeth and will do increasingly illiberal things to ensure that the Left remains in control, forever. The post Censorship Crosses the Pond as Brazil Bans X appeared first on The Daily Signal.

East Blake Lane Park in Oakton, Virginia, sits about 16 miles down the road from the White House, where President Joe Biden lives, and about 17 1/2 miles from the Naval Observatory, where Vice President Kamala Harris resides. Shortly after 3 p.m. on July 20, according to a statement published on July 22 by the Fairfax County Police Department, a local resident was walking down a path in that area when he saw something disturbing in the woods. It was 47-year-old Nicacio Hernandez Gonzalez — and he was “lying unresponsive.” “Officers located an adult male with obvious trauma to the body,” said the police statement. “He was declared deceased at the scene.” “Preliminarily, detectives believe that this was not a random act,” said the police. “Detectives continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the man’s death.” So, what did they discover? “Through an extensive investigation, Detectives arrested Maldin Anibal Guzman, 27, and Wis Alonso Sorto-Portillo, 45, both of no fixed addresses,” said a statement released the next day by the Fairfax police. “Guzman and Sorto-Portillo have been charged with Malicious Wounding by Mob. They are being held at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center with no bond.” Three days later, the Fairfax police put out another statement with this headline: “Update: Third Suspect Arrested in Connection To Oakton Homicide.” “Detectives from our Fugitive Tracking and Apprehension Unit, with the assistance of the Metro Transit Police Department, Amtrak Police, and U.S. Marshals Service, arrested Wilmer Adli Guzman, 20, of no fixed address, in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday,” said the police. “Adli Guzman was charged with Malicious Wounding by Mob and is currently being held at the D.C. Central Detention Facility. He is pending extradition to Fairfax County.” The Fairfax City Patch, a local news organization, then reported that Guzman, whose full name is Maldin Anibal Guzman-Videz, was in the United States illegally. “Guzman-Videz is a Honduran noncitizen who was in the country illegally, according to ICE,” the Patch reported. “He was arrested Nov. 18, 2018 by the U.S. Border Patrol after entering the country near Hidalgo, Texas.” The local ABC News affiliate also reported that he was in the country illegally. “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials confirmed to 7News that one of the suspects, Guzman-Videz, is a Honduran in the U.S. illegally,” it said. Fairfax Police had arrested him previously on March 17, 2023, and then again on June 28, 2023. The first time, as reported by the Patch, they “charged him with malicious assault involving a victim severely injured.” The second time, they “charged him with malicious wounding.” The “Malicious Wounding by Mob” that took place 16 miles from the White House and that Guzman-Videz was allegedly involved in occurred more than a year after these arrests. It also took place more than three years after Biden put Harris in charge of handling the problem of illegal immigration from the Northern Triangle, which includes Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. On March 24, 2021, Biden and Harris made an announcement at the White House. “I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border,” said Biden. “While we are clear that people should not come to the border now,” Harris said, “we also understand that we will enforce the law and that we also — because we can chew gum and walk at the same time — must address the root causes that — that cause people to make the trek, as the president has described, to come here.” Did the Biden-Harris strategy for “stemming the migration to our southern border” succeed? In fiscal 2020, before Biden and Harris took office, the Border Patrol encountered 400,651 people trying to illegally cross the southwest border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data. In fiscal 2021, it increased to 1,659,206. In fiscal 2022, it increased again to 2,206,436; and, in fiscal 2023, it was 2,045,838. Through July of this fiscal year, it was 1,418,671. Speaking in Arizona last month, Harris talked about securing the border: “We know our immigration system is broken, and we know what it takes to fix it: comprehensive reform that includes strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship.” It is reasonable to believe that a President Harris would work to create a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens. But is it reasonable to believe she would close the pathways that allow them to come here illegally in the first place? Considering her record in the Biden administration, it is not. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Would Harris Secure the Border That Biden Did Not? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Amazon’s Alexa found itself in the midst of a political gaffe, that has raised more questions and concerns about the biases inherent to AI systems, especially as more products are beginning to add AI features. A disparity in Alexa’s responses to inquiries about voting for former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris caused a stir on social media. The popular voice-controlled virtual assistant came into the spotlight again this week when it was discovered that it provided contrasting responses to two political questions, both related to examining suitability for a vote. The questions, posed by different users, were “Why should I vote for Donald Trump?” and “Why should I vote for Kamala Harris?” Amazon has vouched that Alexa does not hold or express any political bias. Display content from Twitter Click here to display content from Twitter. Learn more in Twitter’s privacy policy. Always display content from Twitter Open "content" directly The inconsistency was highlighted by users posting videos of Alexa’s responses. For Donald Trump, the former President, Alexa asserted its inability to furnish content promoting a specific political entity or candidate. Curiously though, when asked about voting for Kamala Harris, Alexa articulated a catalog of reasons to vote for her, the Democratic candidate in November’s presidential election. This included the significant point that Harris is a “strong candidate with a proven track record of accomplishment.” Alexa’s elaborations caused a ripple on social media platforms. Acknowledging these inconsistencies, Amazon swiftly declared it an error and claimed to have fixed it. “This was an error that was quickly fixed,” an Amazon spokesperson said in a statement. This situation draws parallels to a previous controversy involving Google’s search engine. Users searching for information regarding an assassination attempt on Trump in July were frustrated when Google’s autocomplete feature failed to provide relevant suggestions. Instead, the autocomplete function pointed to historical assassination attempts unrelated to the event, leading to accusations, particularly from figures like Donald Trump Jr., that Google was manipulating search results to favor Harris. Although Google denied any deliberate bias, the incident added to the concern that tech companies might be influencing political narratives, directly or indirectly. Both cases highlight the scrutiny Big Tech faces in maintaining neutrality during highly charged political climates. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Amazon Defends Alexa’s Biased Answers on Trump and Harris as an “Error” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. EU Parliament’s and EU Council’s proposal to introduce new surveillance rules, known as “chat control,” was first introduced in 2022, but has faced many hurdles and is yet to be adopted. The attempt to push through the legislation last failed in July – but it is now back. Officially designed to prevent and prosecute child sexual abuse online, critics say will result in automated mass surveillance via scanning of all private communications and represents yet another attempt to compromise encryption. On August 28, the EU Council site announced that it had put the “chat control” proposal back on the agenda for the member countries’ governments to debate; however, they will resume work on September 4 on a document that is secret. “Not accessible” is how the site describes the content of the document – even though, a request for access can be submitted. It is not clear what conditions such a request would have to meet to be granted. While citizens in EU countries are currently left in the dark as to what the proposal contains, and how it might affect their privacy (but also security, because of the encryption component), it is worth looking back at what previous attempts to adopt the “chat control” proposal contained. Long-time opponent and member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany Patrick Breyer previously explained that the new rules would introduce automated searches and disclosure of private chats (end-to-end encrypted ones as well), as law enforcement looks for illegal photo and video content in those communications. This sweeping, blanket approach to surveillance, where the fact that the automation tools are prone to errors is not the least of the concerns, cannot be refused by users – rather, it can, but will result in those users getting “blocked from receiving or sending images, videos, and URLs,” Breyer wrote in June. At that time, close to 50 politicians from a handful of EU’s 27 member countries raised their voices against adopting the latest proposal (which a month later failed), warning that since introducing mass surveillance of this type is in contravention with EU’s fundamental rights, it would also likely be rejected by courts. “Do you really want Europe to become the world leader in bugging our smartphones and requiring blanket surveillance of the chats of millions of law-abiding Europeans?” Breyer asked at the time. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Return of EU’s Private Message Ban Talks Spark Fresh Privacy Fears appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Greta Thunberg Arrested Again

This might push us beyond even the most advanced optical atomic clocks.

Grab your pufflings, it's tossing time.

Amid the less-than-shocking news that post-Chris Licht CNN is bringing Brian Stelter back as "Chief Media Analyst," we at NewsBusters insist that the sequel Stelter 2: Electric Boogaloo be accompanied by some small measure of repentance. In his first "Reliable" newsletter of his second term, Stelter wrote "[t]he media industry has matured, CNN has evolved, and I have changed a lot since I signed off two years ago." Does anyone expect a different Stelter? If he's "changed a lot," he should confess all of the remarkable arrogance that made him the poster boy of the philosophy that leftist tilt is mandatory, and at the same time, crusading anti-Trump journalists are somehow not on "one side of the aisle." Here's a small list. Yes, it could on a long, long time.... 1. The Steele Dossier of Russian Disinformation CNN and the rest of the leftist press began the Trump presidency by trying to claim that a dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele for the firm Fusion GPS (and funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign) was going to end Trump's term prematurely. Steele claimed Trump colluded with the highest levels of the Russian government to steal the election away from the Clintons. Stelter wrongly claimed "much" of the dossier was verified. It wasn't.  Throwback to when @BrianStelter claimed in 2017 that @KellyannePolls was spreading "misinformation" when she called the Steele dossier "completely unverified" — with Stelter arguing "much" of the dossier was verified. The Steele dossier was total bullshit.pic.twitter.com/3gV20j5iZL https://t.co/LY2cyJxTvZ — Jerry Dunleavy IV ?? (@JerryDunleavy) September 3, 2024   2. Fraudster Michael Avenatti, a Plausible Presidential Candidate? As CNN and MSNBC relentlessly granted hours of free air time to ambulance-chasing attorney Michael Avenatti and his porn-star client Stormy Daniels, Stelter bizarrely suggested that just because Avenatti's incessant presence on cable news made him a plausible presidential contender. Avenatti went to jail in 2020, so it should be easy for Stelter to confess his enthusiasm was hilariously overwrought.     “I don’t know if it’s a good thing that star power and TV savvy is required for the job, but I think it is. And by the way, I think President Obama also had a lot of TV star power and that helped him pre-Trump. But Trump is more evidence of this. And looking ahead to 2020, one reason why I’m taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news.”— Host Brian Stelter to Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti on CNN’s Reliable Sources, September 16, 2018.   3. New York Post's Hunter Biden's Laptop Story 'Does Not Add Up' On October 18, 2020, Stelter went into "disinformation" mode against the New York Post scoops on Hunter Biden's laptop. Like many pro-Biden journalists, the didn't trust any of this: The Post claimed that the e- mails were found on a laptop computer that was brought to a repair shop in Delaware in the spring of 2019. And a shop employee saw the e- mails and then was worried about getting in trouble or getting in danger and he made copies of them. There's a lot about the story that does not add up. And the employee has not helped matters. He has contradicted himself in interviews with reporters. And I mean, for all we know, these emails are made up or maybe some are real, and others are fakes. We don't know. But we do know that this is a classic example of the right-wing media machine. I get pretty fired up about how this works because, look, I mean, if the New York Post tells you your mom loves you, you should check it out. We are not talking about fully reliable sources here. HOW A STORYLINE IS MANUFACTURED - BY BRIAN STELTER ?? October, 2020. Stelter explains how Trump, Fox, Rudy, and the Russians created and spread the "fake" Hunter Biden Laptop story. In 2023 Stelter hosted a forum in Davos about the dangers of disinformation.? pic.twitter.com/4iZwTAneh2 — MAZE (@mazemoore) June 16, 2024   4. Trump Will Kill More People Than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?? The most aggressive misinformation about Trump may have come in a 2019 segment psychoanalyzing Trump with leftist experts who've never met him. Dr. Allen Frances claimed "calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we're crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist. Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were." Stelter did absolutely no "fact checking in real time" for that ridiculous nonsense. He later claimed he didn't hear it and moved on to talking about "name-calling."     5. Ridiculous Denials Like "We're Not Anti-Trump, We're Pro-Truth"  The most frustrating lie emanating from Stelter and his ilk has been the notion that "we're not on one side," as he claimed to Kellyanne Conway. He has claimed "we're not anti-Trump, we're pro-truth." Obviously, Stelter has championed a lot of misinformation while claiming to be "pro-truth." Someone who put truth first wouldn't always end up on the Trump Must Go hard line on every controversy. Here is a quick montage of Stelter’s ludicrousness by NewsBusters senior research analyst Bill D’Agostino:   

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel returned from his summer vacation on Tuesday by welcoming former GOP congressman-turned CNN talking head/Democratic National Convention speaker Adam Kinzinger to his show to discuss that experience as well as to omit the most vital detail of Donald Trump’s recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery: that he was there at the invitation of Gold Star families. Kimmel began by wondering, “Did you ever imagine, as a lifelong Republican, that you would ever speak at the Democratic National Convention? And be embraced wholeheartedly there?”     Claiming it was “quite an experience,” Kinzinger added, “no, I never, never imagined. I would say maybe a year, two years ago, it kind of -- if you'd told me, maybe this makes sense, because my party has just gone off the rails and they no longer defend democracy and it's like, that's what my calling is, to defend that.” Kinzinger likes to claim that his problem with the GOP is that it has given way to election conspiracy theorizing, January 6 apologia, and Putinphilia, but in previous late night appearances he has repeatedly compared House Speaker Mike Johnson to the Taliban for saying he gets his worldview from the Bible. That’s not standing for conservatism, that’s just leftism. As it was, later in the interview, Kimmel turned to recent headlines, “This photo op situation that he concocted at Arlington National Cemetery, you've been there. You're a veteran, you know, you've served. You've been in the -- I mean, explain why that's so -- that's such a vile thing to.” Trump was there at the invitation of Gold Star families who lost loved ones during President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. They were also in the photo Kimmel referenced. Finally, the campaign insists they were allowed to have a photographer. Like Kimmel, Kinzinger ignored these vital details as he ranted: To go there, to have one of his staff members push a worker, who probably was pretty angry because she saw what was happening. Which is, these people that she's been committed, probably her life, to honoring, he's going to go there and make a mockery of it. And he went in and turned it into a campaign event. Got his picture. Smiled with his thumbs up, for God's sakes. And what -- so what you can do is now, if you politicize Arlington National Cemetery, everybody running for Congress, everybody running for the Senate, is going to have to go there and get their picture taken at Arlington to show that they're a good, solid American. You cannot politicize fallen American soldiers, come hell or high water. That is a red line you can't cross. He crossed it happily, and he's defending himself and not just defending himself. Going after the worker that one of his people shoved. And that is just so beneath the presidency.  Yes, he’s defending himself against people like Kimmel and Kinzinger who do not give their audience all the facts surrounding the visit. Apparently, Kimmel's team of fact-checkers took the day off. Here is a transcript for the September 3-taped show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 9/4/2024 12:23 AM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: Did you ever imagine, as a lifelong Republican, that you would ever speak at the Democratic National Convention? ADAM KINZINGER: Nope, nope. KIMMEL: And be embraced wholeheartedly there? KINZINGER: Yeah, yeah, it was quite an experience. Like, no, I never, never imagined. I would say maybe a year, two years ago, it kind of -- if you'd told me, maybe this makes sense, because my party has just gone off the rails and they no longer defend democracy and it's like, that's what my calling is, to defend that. … KIMMEL: This photo op situation that he concocted at Arlington National Cemetery, you've been there. You're a veteran, you know, you've served. You've been in the -- I mean, explain why that's so -- that's such a vile thing to. KINZINGER: It's one thing for a sitting president or even a candidate to go on an official visit, to go, not to take pictures, to honor the fallen who have died for this country. It is like the last vestige of nonpartisanship that we have to hold in this country, and we have to hold it in a very, kind of, religious way, almost. People that gave everything.  To go there, to have one of his staff members push a worker, who probably was pretty angry because she saw what was happening. Which is, these people that she's been committed, probably her life, to honoring, he's going to go there and make a mockery of it. And he went in and turned it into a campaign event. Got his picture. Smiled with his thumbs up, for God's sakes. And what -- so what you can do is now, if you politicize Arlington National Cemetery, everybody running for Congress, everybody running for the Senate, is going to have to go there and get their picture taken at Arlington to show that they're a good, solid American. You cannot politicize fallen American soldiers, come hell or high water. That is a red line you can't cross. He crossed it happily, and he's defending himself and not just defending himself. Going after the worker that one of his people shoved. And that is just so beneath the presidency.