The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman on a special Sunday Edition of Morning Wire.  It’s been a year since Hamas terrorists launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing some 1,200 Israeli citizens and kidnapping hundreds more, including American citizens. Since that terror attack, the worst in Israel’s history, Israeli forces have systematically taken out Hamas terrorists – and, more recently, directed their forces against Hezbollah terrorists to their north. The result has been the dramatic weakening of Iran’s terror proxies. In this episode, we talk with former US ambassador to Israel David Friedman about the state of the conflict in the Middle East one year since October 7. * * * JOHN: Joining us now to discuss the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, and the anniversary of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks, is former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman. Thank you for joining us. DAVID: It’s my pleasure. Thanks for having me. JOHN: Now, we’ve seen a lot of action between Israel and Iran’s proxies, and now Iran directly. First, the Israeli military began a limited ground operation in southern Lebanon targeting Hezbollah terrorists last week despite threats of retaliatory strikes from Iran. First, was this the right move by Israel? DAVID: Oh, absolutely. Without this, there’s no way to bring quiet to the North. Israel’s done a good job of decapitating the upper echelons of Hezbollah, but there are still a lot of soldiers and a lot of rockets there. Most importantly, along the North what they’re discovering now are a series of terror tunnels just as ornate and threatening as you have in the south in Gaza. So, in order to really create a meaningful buffer between Israel and Lebanon, where the people who live in northern Israel can sleep at night with some comfort, you really have to clean out a good 10 to 20 kilometers of southern Lebanon, and you can’t do it any other way but on the ground. JOHN: And for those who haven’t been tracking as closely, what has been the situation for the Israeli citizens who were living in northern Israel over this last year? DAVID: Well, the assault by Hamas started on October 7, and by October 8 as Hezbollah started to shoot rockets from the north, the Israeli government evacuated 60,000 people from their homes in northern towns. They haven’t been home since. They’ve been living in makeshift hotels in people’s houses and with relatives. Kids haven’t gone to school. It’s been almost exactly a year of being refugees in their own country. And so this is a primary objective of Israel’s defense is to bring these 60,000 people back home and to bring quiet to the north. Leon Neal/Getty Images JOHN: Now, the White House has warned Iran that there will be severe consequences for their retaliatory ballistic missile strikes on Israel. What actual consequences might there be for Iran from the U.S.? DAVID: It’s hard to say. There haven’t been any consequences yet for three and a half years of malign activity. The sanctions that should be enforced on Iran are not being enforced. There’s no secondary sanctions, which means that Iran can sell its oil to other countries with impunity. They’re selling billions of dollars of oil to both Russia and China, which is sort of self-defeating for America. We’re trying to help Ukraine defeat Russia. And we’re also helping Iran sell oil to Russia, which Iran then takes that money and funds all the malign activity all throughout the Middle Eastern Crescent. So, I don’t know what America is prepared to do. I know what we would have done if we were still in office, but that’s certainly not what the Biden administration is doing. So, I don’t know what the threats mean. They’ve been observed in the breach over the last three and a half years. LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Ambassador David Friedman on Morning Wire. JOHN: You mention sanctions – President Trump has leveled a lot of accusations against the Biden administration, accusing them of mishandling the Iran situation, particularly when it comes to sanctions. Do you think that these criticisms are fair?  DAVID: Yes, I think it’s the most obvious and the most consequential failure of the Biden administration. When we left office, Iran had a GDP of under $200 billion, and now they’re over $450 billion. It’s not because they discovered some technology that they’re somehow doing all this great business. It’s all because we’re allowing Iran to sell oil to our greatest adversaries, and they’ve more than doubled their GDP, they have all this extra money, they use it to fund Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis, and make the world a more dangerous place. I think it’s been the single greatest foreign policy failure of the Biden administration, among many, but I think it’s been the single greatest failure because it was the easiest not to do. There was no point in doing it. There was no point in relieving Iran of these sanctions. We had them bankrupt, we had them on the ropes. And Biden made them a very powerful country again. JOHN: And what about the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel? Do you think they’ve shown adequate support of Israel over this last year? DAVID: No, of course not, not at all. I think there’s been a huge disconnect between the platitudes and the facts on the ground. For example, you’ll hear a statement repeatedly from Kamala Harris saying, “Israel has the right to defend itself,” which is essentially a meaningless statement. There’s no country in the world that doesn’t have the right to defend itself, especially against the type of attacks that Israel experienced. So there are these words that kind of sound good, but you look at the policy towards Iran, you look at the refunding of UNRWA, you look at the consistent interfering with Israel’s prosecution of its defense. That famous line where she said, “I’ve read the maps. Israel can’t go into Rafah.” I could have drawn the map on a napkin. It’s as if she had undertaken some major academic effort. Of course Netanyahu, to his credit, didn’t listen to them, and went into Rafah. Had he not gone in he wouldn’t have saved five hostages, and he also wouldn’t have discovered the smuggling tunnels from Egypt into Gaza that were the primary source of Hamas’s weapons. So, they will say enough to placate the most naive, least informed, most insecure members of the Jewish community or the pro-Israel community. But when it comes to actually helping Israel win this war, they’ve caused Israel both to be delayed by months – I think this war in Gaza would have been over many months ago. They’ve caused Israel to take efforts that I think no army would have taken, putting their soldiers at greater risk and exposing them to both death and being injured. And I think they’ve done nothing to convince Israel’s adversaries that America will be there with Israel, there’ll be no daylight. There’s been constant daylight, which has only empowered Israel’s enemies and frankly, it’s raised the price of all the hostage negotiations. Every time Biden blames Netanyahu for not making a deal, it just raises the price and makes it harder to make a deal. And of course it’s not true. So, I’m quite critical of what Harris and Biden have done. I think they really made it much harder for Israel to win this war. And, unfortunately, Israel’s paid a heavy price for that malfeasance. Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images JOHN: Let’s turn to the infamous day that started this entire conflict over this last year, October 7. It’s been nearly a year since the deadliest terror attack ever on Israel. At the time, Israel put together a war cabinet and hoped for a short conflict. Do you believe they’ve made progress in their goals? DAVID: I think they’ve made enormous progress. Hamas was a terrorist group, but they were a hell of a good terrorist group. I say “good” meaning threatening. They had created for themselves the largest, most powerful home court advantage in the history of ground warfare. Israel could not have defeated them without going in on the ground, and I think Israel maybe they knew about it, maybe they discovered more than they were aware of, but the extent of 350 miles of terror tunnels with advanced weaponry I think was something which posed an enormous challenge to Israel. They have largely destroyed that apparatus, both the soldiers, the equipment, the tunnels, and the leadership. Sinwar, we don’t know if he’s alive or dead, but he’s obviously not able to have the kind of command and control that he once had. So, I think this threat was greater than what Israel appreciated on October 6. It took them a while to really respond effectively because they were caught by surprise, but they’ve done great work in the aftermath of that attack. And because they weren’t caught by surprise with Lebanon — they were on the receiving end of rockets for almost 11 months — they had a lot of time to plan. And the kind of response that they were able to generate in Lebanon — whether it was through the exploding beepers or the walkie talkies or blowing up meetings of top level Hezbollah commanders or killing Nasrallah — the actions taken by Israel in the last, say, three weeks against Lebanon, against Hezbollah, I think will be talked about and written about for a hundred years. They were so creative and effective. So, I think the Israeli army has done a very good job. I think ultimately we’ll need a better answer as to how this happened in the first place on October 7. But since that happened, I think they’ve performed incredibly well. JOHN: Is it too optimistic to say that Hamas is effectively over? DAVID: Look, I think Hamas has been deeply degraded. It’s hard to say “over” because Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood and throughout its history, as it defeats its enemies, others continuously pop up. There’s plenty of money behind the desire to hurt Israel. There’s plenty of evil in the world. There’s plenty of misguided clerics who will continue to teach their parishioners to hate Israel and to maybe give their own lives in killing Israelis and killing Jews. So we’re not going to destroy anti-Semitism. We’re not going to destroy anti-Zionism. So, people will continue to pop up because there’s a lot of money behind it. And unfortunately that’s a reality. But is Israel safer today than it was on October 6? Undoubtedly. It’s like a patient that discovered it had cancer, and it went and it took the therapies. The therapies may have been painful. They may have thrown up, they may have lost their hair, whatever, but on the other end of that therapy, they’re a lot healthier than never discovering the cancer and letting it just eat away at you. So I think on October 6 the Israeli body, if you will, was wracked with cancer. And I think that today much of that cancer has been eliminated. Just like a cancer patient, Israel will have to get checked every couple of years. They have to check themselves and check their surroundings to make sure it doesn’t come back. But I think they are definitely healthier than they were before October 7. JOHN: Where do you see the issue of who controls Gaza going forward? How can a sustainable situation be attained in the coming months? DAVID: Look, there’s a short-run and a long-run. The short-run, there needs to be a lot of rebuilding, a lot of money needs to be put there. The people who live there have to either find a way to live there safely and securely, or they need to leave and hopefully other countries will take them in. Unlike the civil war in Syria, where hundreds of thousands of refugees were taken in by Turkey and other countries, because of this anti-Israel sentiment, I don’t think there’s going to be that much appetite to take in Gazan refugees. I know that when I was in office, we used to ask Egypt to help and they’ve never been willing to help. Jordan’s not willing to help. So, Gaza will have to get rebuilt as best as possible. Now, the long-term question is how do you run Gaza? Look, my view is you run Gaza the same way that Israel ought to run the West Bank, to run Judea and Samaria. I think Israel is the only sovereign that has the ability to rule over these territories in a way which both brings security to Israel, but also potentially brings prosperity and security and human rights to the Palestinian people. Israel’s population, as you know, is 20% Arab and more than 20% of the students at Israel’s elite universities are Arab. Israel has a track record of empowering an Arab minority, and I think that’s important. Israel is the best candidate. That’s very controversial right now. My book “One Jewish State” came out three weeks ago and advocates for Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. I hope that’s the model for Gaza as well. But I think Gaza, unlike Judea and Samaria, is still too raw and still has too many unanswered questions. So it’s hard to say what the long-term answer is, but I think Israel is the only sovereign in the area which has the ability to run these places in a way that doesn’t cause them to return to their terrorist hotbeds. JOHN: You noted the role of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in this. Since October 7, do you believe anti-Semitism has gotten worse in the U.S. and abroad? DAVID: Oh, of course, by massive powers. Yes, like nothing we’ve seen before. JOHN: So, is it even more challenging on the international stage for Israel now, post-October 7, than it was before? DAVID: Well, yes and no. Look, I think there’s been a lot of anti-Israel sentiment that’s been fomented in a very well-financed, very orchestrated manner in America. I think there is a lot of homegrown anti-Semitism in places like London and Paris, largely because of the immigration mistakes that they’ve made over the last 10 years. It’s gonna be harder than it was before. But I think the flip side of it is there’s now much more clarity to the situation than there had been before. I think Israel knows who its friends are. It knows who its enemies are, and knows what it can accomplish, what it can’t accomplish. I think Israel has to stop trying to justify its existence. I don’t think there’s any country in the world that’s put through those paces of justifying their existence. Israel exists – it’s a fact. It has to take care of its citizens. It has to create whatever strategic alliances it can. It’s obviously very important for Israel to be on good terms with the United States, its most strategic asset. That’s always better under a Republican administration. But it’s got to find a way to deal with both alternatives. But when you’re kind of fighting for your life, when you’re fighting for your existence, you kind of obsess less about all these other issues, and you just basically protect your citizens, you get stronger, you worry about the right things, and you basically tell the world, “Look, you can join us or you can fight us.” But I think with that kind of self-respect, I believe Israel will restore a lot of the respect of the world. It’s an incredible country with a lot to be proud of, but it has to pursue its agenda from a position of strength in self-respect and not beg other countries to be nice to it. It’s just not necessary, and I think it’s counterproductive. JOHN: Final question: How has the sequence of events over the last year changed our understanding of the situation in the Middle East? DAVID: Well, a couple of things. I think it’s told us that Israel’s enemies — mostly the same as America’s enemies – were not going to negotiate some deal with them. They’re just not. They hate us, they are fanatical, they have a warped sense of religion and God. And we need to focus more on defeating them than placating and appeasing them. That’s on the negative side. On the positive side, the Abraham Accords have held. There’s been writing at Columbia and Harvard and UCLA. A lot less so in UAE and Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Challenges in those countries for sure, because of what they’re seeing, but the part of the countries that joined the Abraham Accords haven’t left it and have indicated that they don’t intend to leave it. So our friends are our friends, our enemies are our enemies. The same is true for the United States. I think we need to empower our friends more and we need to make sure their enemies never again get these opportunities to hurt the U.S. or to hurt the state of Israel. Again, the clarity is there. We know what needs to be done. We need to be much more cognizant at home, domestically, of the forces that are getting these students to really hate Israel because they hate America as well. I noticed the demands at Columbia — in the spring, the demands were “Palestine from the river to the sea.” Now they’ve come back after summer break and their first demand is to eradicate the American colonial empire. That’s where they’re going. These are Marxists, anarchists. They hate America, they hate Israel, but they’re on American soil. They can do a lot of damage to us here on American soil. And I think that the Biden and Harris administration will continue to look at them, in the first instance, as potential voters, and then only after that, really take a stand against what they’re doing. That’s horrible. A lot of these people are foreigners. A lot of them need to be deported. A lot of them are committing crimes. A lot of them need to be prosecuted. There’s just been too much indulgence of this internal cancer that we’re facing in America. JOHN: Ambassador, thank you so much for talking with us. DAVID: My pleasure. JOHN: That was former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman – and this has been a Sunday/Extra edition of Morning Wire. *** LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Ambassador David Friedman on Morning Wire.

If you’re looking for an easy way to entertain your cats at home, you apparently can’t go wrong with a window bird feeder! One social media user caught the most hilarious footage of her parents’ kitties observing their avian friends outside. Their eyes were glued to the window as though they were watching a soap opera! This adorable video has received over a million views, and for good reason. In the clip, all four cats crowded together on a pair of stools to get a good view of the window bird feeder. Their tails swished back and forth expectantly as they peered out through the glass, staring wistfully at the feathered creatures. At one point, these felines turned toward the camera with perfect synchronicity. Perhaps they understood that someone was observing them, too! @kaymur My parents got a window bird feeder for their cats… these are the videos ive received so far #catsoftiktok #cattok #catsiblings #birdwatching ♬ Monkeys Spinning Monkeys – Kevin MacLeod & Kevin The Monkey There was enough room for everyone on the two stools, but only just. Although these cats behaved surprisingly well while watching the window bird feeder, one kitty seemed a little possessive of their space! However, this setup was still better than the previous one. Here’s what happens when there’s not enough room for all four cats to look outside. In another video, the social media user shared that their parents had originally placed only one stool in front of the glass. Even when all the cats squeezed together on the seat, there was just enough room for three of them at a time. That meant one pet was sometimes left out while the others got to see out the window! @kaymur Before we learned the second bar stool was necessary… poor Buddy #cattok #catsoftiktiok #catsiblings #birdwatching ♬ Funny – Gold-Tiger “Before we learned the second bar stool was necessary…” read the post’s caption. “Poor Buddy.” These hysterical videos prove that window bird feeders aren’t just a great way to entertain pets — they’re also pretty fun for humans, too. We could spend hours watching these mesmerized kitties as they stare at the tantalizing sight outside! You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post Delighted Cats Experience A Window Bird Feeder For The First Time appeared first on InspireMore.

The Left might hate the Supreme Court, but it’s the Left that keeps the court in business by shoving its strange obsessions onto its docket. For this new term that begins Monday, the Left has forced the court to confront its obsessions with child “sex changes,” banning guns, and protecting pornographers from laws that keep their products away from children. And if that wasn’t enough, the Left has also forced the court to confront, yet again, its strange obsession with replacing democracy with bureaucracy. First Up, Child Sex Changes The case is called United States v. Skrmetti, and it involves a Tennessee law that bans giving children hormone treatments or genital surgeries to change a child’s body to match his or her chosen “gender identity.” That is, giving testosterone to and cutting off the breasts of girls who think they’re boys, and giving estrogen to and cutting off the penises of boys who think they’re girls. Barbaric stuff, and Tennessee has wisely pumped the breaks on this left-wing obsession given the terrible risks that scientific research shows is associated with these drugs and surgeries. But the Biden-Harris administration has sued Tennessee claiming that children have a constitutional right to get hormones and genital surgeries if they feel like they were born the wrong sex. You can read the Constitution all day long but you won’t find this strange new inalienable right in it, but if the court agrees with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, no state will be able to pump the breaks on this dangerous new obsession. Next Up, Spooky Guns Americans have been handcrafting their own guns for hundreds of years. And for all those hundreds of years, nobody ever thought it was illegal. Even Democrats thought it was legal until just recently. What changed? Well, the Biden-Harris administration realized that it might be able to end this ancient tradition by deploying a slur. What were once handcrafted guns are now “ghost guns,” and with a name that spooky, they must be banned. The problem, says the administration in Garland v. VanDerStok, is that these guns can’t be traced by the federal government. This, the administration assures us, is an “acute threat to public safety.” But there’s little evidence of that. It’s expensive, difficult, and time consuming to handcraft a gun, so criminals typically buy or steal them instead. But leftist feelings don’t care about the facts; they just want all the guns gone. Fearmongering is the strategy they’ve settled on to do it. A Supreme Court decision upholding this ancient American tradition, they say, would “flood” our communities with “untraceable ghost guns” that would “endanger the public and thwart law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes.” The liberal justices will surely be fearmongered into upholding the administration’s ban on spooky guns, but the other justices seem to be made of sterner stuff. After That, Pornography The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, but don’t get confused by the plaintiff’s name. This case doesn’t involve a noble fight against Big Tech censorship or a righteous stand against a screaming campus mob. No, this case is brought by pornographers hiding their smut behind the banner of free speech. Pornography rots brains, especially children’s brains, so Texas joined 19 other states and prudently passed a law saying that pornographic websites must verify that their users are over 18 years old. Texas, being a free state, wanted to strike the balance of allowing adults the freedom to make the self-destructive choice of watching pornography while protecting children who are too immature to fully appreciate the consequences of that choice. But a trade association of pornographers calling themselves the Free Speech Coalition argued that the law interferes with “adults’ access to constitutionally protected expression.” They claim that requiring adults to provide their identifying information on a pornographic website raises “privacy concerns.” The court will probably not resolve the whole case at this point but will decide what level of judicial review the law gets when it gets remanded back to the lower court for a decision. Texas wants the law to get “rational-basis review,” which means the law will survive if Texas can show some rational reason for it, like protecting children’s brains from the rotting effects of porn. The pornographers, on the other hand, want “strict scrutiny,” which means the law will most likely be struck down because of First Amendment concerns. How this case gets decided under established precedents is uncertain, and the uncertainty is increased because in recent years, the court has been moving away from these different levels of scrutiny and toward an approach more faithful to history and tradition. On that front, there is no history or tradition of denying states the power to protect children from porn. Finally, Deep State Shenanigans The Biden-Harris administration is obsessed with telling us that anyone who disagrees with it hates democracy. But at the same time, members of the administration are obsessed with doing end-runs around Congress and local elected governments to impose their will on the country. Their latest end-run is so egregious that even San Francisco is fighting back. The case is San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which a super-lefty presidential administration has gotten on the last nerve of a super-lefty city. The case involves the way that the Environmental Protection Agency regulates water pollution. In the past, the EPA gave local governments specific pollutant target levels. If the local governments allowed pollution levels to exceed those targets, the EPA would fine them huge amounts of money. Those fines could be relatively easily avoided, however, because the specific levels let local governments know exactly how much was too much, and if they stayed under those levels, they were considered in compliance. But then the federal bureaucrats realized that they could wield the EPA like a climate cudgel if they did not give local governments specific targets. Instead, they told local governments to avoid “causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards.” What does that mean? Whatever the administration wants it to mean. San Francisco asked the EPA, “How do we comply with that?” And the EPA replied, “By complying.” Clear as mud. As well-ensconced on the “climate-crisis” bandwagon as San Francisco is, it still has one foot on the “we-don’t-like-arbitrary-government” bandwagon, so it sued. It’ll probably win, and the Biden-Harris administration will add yet another well-deserved loss to its already impressive loss record. More to Come The court is still taking cases for its new term, and there will be many more exciting ones added to the docket in the coming weeks. So, stay tuned. The post High Court to Take on Child ‘Sex Changes,’ Gun Bans, Kids’ Access to Porn appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—One year after Hamas terrorists in Gaza invaded Israel, raping women and slaughtering more than 1,100 people, including infants, and after video evidence of the slaughter has spread across the world, a shocking percentage of American Muslims deny these facts and harbor disgusting antisemitic attitudes, a new poll shows. When asked which statement “comes closest to your view,” more American Muslims selected “Hamas did not commit murder and rape in Israel on October 7” than “Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel on October 7.” More than a third (39%) denied the Hamas murders and rapes, while only 31% admitted them. Another 30% said they “don’t know,” in the poll, provided first to The Daily Signal. Female Muslims and Muslims of Arab descent proved more likely to say Hamas did not commit murder or rape on Oct. 7. Among the general American public, 64% acknowledged the crimes of Hamas, while only 7% denied them, and another 29% said they did not know. When asked why Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 59% of Muslims selected, “because Hamas wanted to forward the Palestinian cause,” while only 14% explained the terrorism by saying that “Hamas wanted to kill Jews and is set on the destruction of Israel.” By contrast, most Americans (51%) explained Oct. 7 by noting that Hamas wanted to kill Jews and destroy Israel, and only 17% said Hamas aimed at forwarding the Palestinian cause. Two-in-three college graduate Muslims (67%) said Hamas attacked in order to further the Palestinian cause. Black Muslims (39%) proved the least likely to give that explanation. Similarly, many American Muslims (43%) said, “Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish homeland,” while only 11% of the general public said so. One-third of American Muslims (33%) said “Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish homeland,” compared with two-thirds of overall Americans (66%). Younger Muslims (ages 18 to 29) and Muslims of Arab descent proved more likely to say Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish homeland. Antisemitic Beliefs The survey also asked U.S. Muslims whether “Jewish people have too much power, too little power, or about a normal amount of power” in American media and in U.S. federal policy. A majority of Muslims (58%) said Jews have “too much power” over the media, and about the same number (57%) said Jews have “too much power” over federal policy. My contrast, far fewer among the general public say Jews have “too much power” over the media (22%) and policy (17%), while more Americans say they have “about a normal amount of power” over the media (41%) and policy (45%). Older Muslims (67% of those older than 65) and college graduate Muslims (64%) proved more likely to say Jews have too much power over the media. Meanwhile, more Americans (57%) say antisemitism has increased in the wake of Oct. 7 than say anti-Muslim animus has increased (44%) during the same period. One-third of Americans say anti-Muslim animus has decreased in that time, while only 20% say antisemitism has decreased since then. If Attacked By Iran The survey—conducted in September, before Iran sent rockets into Israel on Tuesday—asked both Muslims and the broader population what the U.S. should do if Iran were to attack Israel. About a bit more than a third of U.S. Muslims (37%) said the U.S. “should not support Israel at all,” while a quarter (25%) said the U.S. should “support diplomatically only.” A smaller group said the U.S. should “support Israel with aid and military equipment, but not send troops” (14%), and only 9% said the U.S. should back Israel with American troops. By contrast, Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, with 17% saying the U.S. should send troops, 35% backing Israel with military equipment and aid short of troops, and 20% saying the U.S. should provide only diplomatic support. Only 8% said the U.S. should not support Israel at all. The 2024 Election, Kamala Harris U.S. Muslims rank the Israel-Palestine conflict highly when deciding how to vote in the 2024 election. The survey asked: “Of the following options, what is most important to you in the next election?” Among the general public, only 4% selected “the Israel-Palestine conflict,” which took a back seat to inflation and the economy (29%), immigration (25%), threats to democracy (9%), and abortion (9%). Even climate change ranked higher at 5%. Meanwhile, 34% of Muslim respondents selected the Israel conflict as their top issue, while only 25% chose the economy and 11% selected immigration. (Screenshot) The survey also probed American Muslims’ attitudes toward the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. Almost half (47%) said Harris is “too pro-Israel,” while 29% said she “gets the balance about right,” and 7% called her “too pro-Palestine.” College graduate Muslims (53%), and Muslims of Asian (62%) and Arab (66%) descent proved more likely to call Harris “too pro-Israel,” while Muslims of other races—black (37%), white (41%), and Hispanic (52%)—proved more likely to say she gets the issue right. Muslim Identity Politics The survey asked American Muslims and the general public about various policy positions that would give Islam a favored place in American society and law. On each issue, American Muslims proved more supportive than the American public at large. Muslims proved more likely to support making it illegal to show a picture or cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad (50%) than the general public (14%). They proved more likely to support the formation of a Muslim political party (46%) than the general public (9%). They backed the implementation of Sharia law (39%) more than the general public (10%). They also supported declaring Islam America’s national religion (33%) more than the general public (9%). Many Muslims opposed these policies (31% opposed implementing Sharia law and 32% opposed declaring Islam the national religion), but the general public opposed them far more vigorously (56% and 68%, respectively). “Sharia” merely means “law” in Arabic, and interpretations of Sharia vary. While radical Islamist groups such as the Taliban interpret Sharia in extremely restrictive ways, American Muslims vary widely. Muslims Oppose Attacking Jews on College Campuses While American Muslims proved more likely to oppose Israel’s right to exist, to deny Hamas committed murder and rape, and to ascribe positive motives to Oct. 7, they did not support campus protesters targeting Jewish students who support Israel. The survey asked which of two statements comes closest to respondents’ views: “Jewish students on college campuses who openly support Israel are not valid targets of campus protests” or they “are valid targets.” Nearly half of Muslims (46%) agreed with nearly half of the general public (48%) that these Jewish students do not represent valid targets. Only 23% of Muslims and 23% of the general public described the students as valid targets, while the rest said they do not know. The survey, conducted by J.L. Partners on behalf of The Heritage Foundation, polled 1,000 Americans online between Sept. 9 and Sept. 13 to determine attitudes among the general public. The study surveyed 500 U.S. Muslims through various methods—landlines, cellphones, text messages, and online panel. Analysts weighted the survey to obtain a representative sample. The margin of error is plus/minus 3%. Muslims Oct 7 ChartsDownload The post American Muslims Deny That Hamas Murdered, Raped Israelis on Oct. 7. Many Want Sharia Law in US, Poll Finds. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Elon Goes to Butler, PA

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post From the Wilderness to the Society: The Fragile Transformation of a Feral Girl appeared first on Anomalien.com.

What if our thoughts, like radio waves, are transmitted beyond our individual minds, creating a shared web of consciousness? Recent discoveries in neuroscience, quantum physics, and psychology are challenging the long-held notion that our minds are isolated, self-contained units. Instead, evidence suggests that human consciousness may be interconnected in ways we’re only beginning to understand. The idea of collective consciousness, which has long been the domain of metaphysics and spirituality, is now finding a foothold in science. From strange telepathic phenomena to groundbreaking scientific studies on quantum entanglement and the “multiples effect,” the idea that our thoughts could influence or even communicate with others at a distance is no longer just science fiction. Telepathic Phenomena and the Search for Connection Telepathy—the ability to communicate or transmit thoughts without physical interaction—has long been dismissed as pseudoscience. However, recent studies and anecdotal experiences continue to intrigue scientists and psychologists. One commonly cited experience is the spontaneous “knowing” of what a friend or family member is about to say, or experiencing a premonition that turns out to be accurate. While these could be chalked up to coincidence, researchers are now turning to controlled experiments to explore whether such experiences hold any measurable validity. A major player in this field is Dr. Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS). His research involves experiments with “intention” and “distant influence,” in which participants attempt to influence the physiological states of distant subjects, often with surprising success. One experiment showed that when individuals focused on calming or exciting another person from afar, the recipient’s brain waves exhibited corresponding changes, suggesting some level of mental interaction. Further studies have used electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to detect changes in brain activity in people attempting to send or receive thoughts. While the scientific community remains divided on the interpretation of these results, the data shows that something curious is happening—especially in tightly controlled environments where external stimuli are minimized. The Global Consciousness Project provides another layer to this exploration. Developed in 1998, this initiative tracks random number generators (RNGs) around the world, with the hypothesis that large-scale events—such as natural disasters or global celebrations—can influence the output of these machines. While RNGs should, in theory, produce completely random sequences, the project’s data shows deviations during moments of collective emotional intensity, such as after the 9/11 attacks. These findings suggest that collective human emotions may create a form of “global consciousness” that affects our surroundings. The Multiples Effect and Quantum Theory Beyond telepathy, a well-documented phenomenon known as the “multiples effect” provides additional evidence for the notion of interconnected minds. This effect refers to the historical observation that multiple individuals, isolated from one another, often come up with the same discoveries or inventions at the same time. Famous examples include the simultaneous development of calculus by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and the discovery of oxygen by Joseph Priestley and Carl Wilhelm Scheele. How can such uncanny synchronicity be explained? Some researchers suggest that shared cultural and intellectual environments might explain this phenomenon—an idea grounded in sociology and psychology. Others, however, argue that a deeper, unseen connection might be at play, proposing that thoughts and ideas exist in a shared “field” of consciousness, which we tap into intuitively. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of Morphic Resonance, has developed a theory suggesting that biological and social systems inherit a collective memory, much like genetic inheritance. According to Sheldrake, this “morphic field” might allow for the transmission of information and patterns across time and space, thus explaining the multiples effect. In parallel, quantum physics offers a compelling, though still theoretical, framework for how minds might connect. Quantum entanglement—the phenomenon where two or more particles become interconnected in such a way that the state of one instantly influences the state of the other, regardless of distance—has led some scientists to speculate whether a similar principle could apply to human consciousness. Although still controversial, the potential for quantum effects within the brain raises the possibility that thoughts or intentions could be “entangled” across individuals, creating a form of mind-to-mind connection. Researchers at the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) have begun investigating whether quantum mechanics might explain phenomena such as telepathy or precognition. Dr. Jim Tucker, a psychiatrist at DOPS, suggests that consciousness might exist outside of the brain, much like a signal exists independently of a television set. If this hypothesis proves correct, it could fundamentally alter our understanding of human thought, making the brain less a generator of consciousness and more of a receiver. What Does This All Mean? If the human mind is indeed connected to a larger network of consciousness, this could mean that our thoughts are not limited to the confines of our skulls, but can spread outward, influencing those around us and even contributing to a global pool of shared knowledge and emotion. Whether through telepathic experiences, quantum entanglement, or collective emotional states, the evidence for a shared consciousness is slowly growing. In the coming years, we may find that our minds are far more interconnected than we ever imagined. The post Are Our Minds Connected? Investigating the Science of Collective Consciousness appeared first on Anomalien.com.

On CBS Mornings, contributor Lisa Ling (a former cast member of The View) self-identifies as a "die-hard feminist," which CBS thinks is a great reason to assign her stories on "The State of Spirituality." In September, Ling championed the notion of female priests in the Catholic Church, and on Thursday, Ling promoted a "transgender man" who's a pastor in Hollywood for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Co-host Tony Dokoupil set the tone in a tease: "Coming up, Lisa Ling talks spirituality with a pastor trying to expand inclusivity in the Christian church." Dokoupil later introduced the segment: "Many traditional religions are trying to make progress toward being more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community. But for some groups, it`s been a very slow journey on that front. Today, Lisa introduces us to a pastor in California who wouldn`t be welcome to preach in many American churches." 'CBS Mornings' continues it's 'State of Spirituality' series by celebrating transgender pastors and pro-trans churches, lamenting how many churches aren't like the Evangelical Lutheran Church by allowing trans clergy and implying those opposed do so by sending threats. pic.twitter.com/VVzhjYVzDZ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 3, 2024 LISA LING: Stever is a transgender man and he's also an ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. DREW STEVER: Do we stand on the side of fear and hate or do we stand on the side of curiosity and awe? - LING: Some Christian denominations have evolved to be more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community, but the acceptance of trans clergy has been much slower. According to Pew Research, the majority of Christians still feel whether a person is a man or a woman is determined by their sex assigned at birth. Do you believe that the Lutheran Church is a safe place for queer people? STEVER: It is trying so hard. LING: In 2015, the Lutheran Church ordained its first trans priest. Trans clergy also serve in other denominations, but most still forbid LGBTQ+ clergy. Those troglodytes who "still" hold to what the Bible teaches were not interviewed for this story. But they are brought up as hateful people who believe the Bible isn't outdated.  LING: Because there are a lot of people who say that according to the Bible, God made man and woman and that couldn't be more clearly defined. How do you respond to them? DREW STEVER: It's hard to relate it to modern day times because it wasn't written for 2024, it was written for then. When we read in the scripture that God created man and woman, yes, and God created everyone else as well. The God of the Bible wasn't "compassionate" or "inclusive." But God has apparently become wiser and more compassionate for our modern times, because Stever claims God encouraged his "transition." LING: Stever credits a homeroom teacher for first introducing him to a more compassionate Christian theology, accepting of everyone. This eventually helped him realize he was being called to become a pastor. You went into seminary as a woman. How did you come out of seminary? STEVER: Not a woman. LING: It was summer 2016 and leading up to the election, anti-trans rhetoric was ramping up. But Stever says he could no longer deny who he's always been. STEVER: There was a moment where I woke up in the morning, and the words that came to my mind was, you don`t have to be angry anymore. And I almost felt like God just took a snowball and just threw it at my face. LING: So you think that voice was God? STEVER: I think so, yeah. LING: But after Stever transitioned, he began receiving hate, mostly online. The opponent isn't conservative views, it's just "hate," whether it's online messages or in-person vandalism. Ling concluded: "Pastor Drew has had a pride flag hanging outside of Hope Lutheran. And shortly after we filmed there, someone ripped down the flag and damaged it. The flag, though, is back up. And he told us he is, quote, "not deterred by one person's small worldview." Or, as Ling confessed, "still the majority of Christians."

When you pick up a pair of good leather shoes, or a bag, or a jacket, the first thing you notice is that beautiful, unmistakable smell. There's nothing like it.It's a smell you rarely encounter when you get into a new car, even if the interior vaguely looks like leather. Instead, your nose fills with the aroma of off-gassing plastic. Plastic breaks a lot quicker than leather — it crumbles with flakes, and, when that happens, it's not repairable.And that's because "vegan leather" or "faux leather" or "leatherette" or "pleather" or whatever a car company wants to call it has never even come near to an actual animal hide. Let's call it what it is: 100% petroleum-based plastic. How's that for "sustainable"? Last month, I went to Italy at the invitation of Is It Leather?, a global campaign to educate consumers about leather, one of the oldest materials used by humans. Contrary to what environmental and animal-rights activists say, it's renewable, practical, and humane.My destination was Lineapelle, the massive international leather trade show held in Milan. There, I met with some of the finest leather crafters and companies in the world. It was an eye-opening experience and a reminder that no matter how some brands try to trick you, nothing beats the real thing. Our journey started in Pompeii, in the ruins of a tannery dating back to the first century. The ancient Romans used urine to tan their hides; in modern times, we've switched to chemicals such as chromium. Now, that process does produce a fair amount of pollutants, but in recent years leather-makers have pioneered the use of organic compounds like olive leaf extract. While in Milan, I had a chance to talk with leather crafter and influencer Tanner Leatherstein about something consumers encounter when buying a car. You open the door and look at the interior and seats, and they tell you, "That's Napa leather."Does that mean anything — or is it just a sales pitch?Napa leather (so called because it comes from a process pioneered in Napa, California), Leatherstein tells me, is a type of finish "they apply on top of the leather. In automotive, you need a really thick layer of finish for ... resistance and durability."But Napa leather starts with high-quality, full-grain leather, which means it doesn't need as much finish as lesser-quality hides. "You can almost think it in terms of makeup," says Leatherstein. "If the hide is too full of imperfections because it's an animal scratching itself everywhere, you need a lot of makeup to make it standardized looking, which means a lot of plastics to cover it.""But if you have naturally clean hides, which is maybe 10 or 5% of the entire hide population, it doesn't require a lot of makeup because it's naturally beautiful. So now you can accomplish this nice look with a minimal layer of plastic finish on top, [meeting] the requirements, yet you still enjoy that natural chaotic look of the grain, the leather grain."So if you hear a car interior has Napa leather, that's a good sign. "There's a lot of trickery going on in car interiors," says Leatherstein. "As a consumer, when I'm buying a luxury car I expect real leather, but unfortunately car brands using these plastic materials with leather in the name, and a lot of people think it's leather."Real leather isn't just nicer, its better for the environment, Leatherstein tells me. "Plastic breaks a lot quicker than leather — it crumbles with flakes, and, when that happens, it's not repairable. You just have to trash it, and plastic doesn't go anywhere — it turns into microplastics, which go into the water and the soil; it goes into your plants and vegetables."I also met up with saddlemaker and leatherworker Ben Geisler, who walked me through all the various animal hide used to make leather, from cow and sheep, to pig and shark and even alligator. For more on my time learning about leather in Italy, watch the video here: - YouTube www.youtube.com

Why does the media support satanic abortions? The Economist is the latest outlet to celebrate Satanism and its nomination of abortion as a sacred rite. Like so many others, the article profiles the Satanic Temple's founder with a tone of reverence. The Washington Post indulges in similar coverage, exploring everything from its "revolutionary roots" to a live-blogged abortion, as though this were just another milestone in progressive politics. Perhaps the most absurd claim from the Temple is that adherents don't 'really' believe in Satan. But how does an avowed satanist engage in satanic rituals without acknowledging Satan? PolitiFact, part of Poynter's "fact-checking" empire, once again joins in with a fluff piece disguised as objective reporting. Over and over, media outlets portray the Satanic Temple as a champion of religious freedom and abortion rights. Its telehealth service offers medication and "abortion care," which the press portrays as some bold exercise of liberty. Meanwhile, more honest sources see it for what it is: open antagonism toward Christian values, dressed up as mischievous rebellion. The Economist claims the Satanic Temple is battling "Christian encroachment" in public life, while the Atlantic frames the movement as a "satanic rebellion," comparing it to Satan’s original fall from grace. This is the language of warfare. The Guardian applauds the Temple's "fight against the religious right.” Vice literally frames the issue as “Satanists v. Republicans.” In doing so, the outlets establish the actual dichotomy at play: In their fight against Republicans and Christianity, Democrats ally with Satan. Devil in a blue dress LGBTQ+ rights and the Satanic Temple go hand in hand, with the anti-religion placing Black Lives Matter and “social justice” at the forefront of its activism. Adherents are pro-vaccine in the name of "science," one of their sacred idols. They protest Christian monuments like the Ten Commandments, often leaving satanic sculptures in their place, as if to mock traditional values. They’ve even used loopholes to infiltrate public schools, supposedly to expose the overlap of church and state. But what exactly does that mean in the context of their anti-religious ideology? The Satanic Temple’s stated mission includes a tenet about adhering to "scientific understanding." It sounds reasonable, until you see its “scientific” understanding at work. Adherents are too selective in their data, too fantastical in their logic, too elusive in their methods, too uneven in their irony, too bitter in their discourse. Under these conditions, politics is merely a tool of the deceiver.Ironic worship? Perhaps the most absurd claim from the Temple is that adherents don't “really” believe in Satan. The Atlantic smugly informs readers of this point. But how does an avowed satanist engage in satanic rituals without acknowledging Satan? They claim to be atheists or “non-theistic,” but their devotion to Satan — a mythological character, they say — is unmistakable. They hold religious services and rituals, and they pray, or a version of prayer. They also enjoy “satanic picnics, and the occasional orgy.” If they were truly godless, they wouldn’t fixate so obsessively on Christianity. The Satanic Temple’s ultimate goal is to undermine Christ’s kingdom. Adherents' true aim is secularism — a complete dismantling of Christianity, with abortion as their sacrament. They twist the literary and biblical Satan into a rebellious hero, ignoring the fact that this figure has always represented rebellion against God, the very source of life. Because the Satanic Temple's assault is more than just political theater: It’s yet another reminder that Satan’s domain thrives on lies and deception. Followers of Satan have no problem with falsehoods. You won’t find any mention of “truth” in their screeds about “scientific understanding.” As Paul writes in Ephesians, Christians must “put away falsehood" and speak truthfully. While Satan sows division and death, Christians must stand firm in the belief that truth, rooted in God, will ultimately set us free. Exceptions for radicals Satanism serves as a leftist parody of religion, thriving on mockery and inversion. Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is their playbook. Alinsky dedicated his work to Satan, the "original rebel." Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” This schtick is distinctly, well, satanic. Make it seem like “trolling,” a kind of political mockery. NPR even declared: “When they write the bible on the great trolls of history, the Satanic Temple should be on the cover.” The media typically admire that satanists take ridicule to unprecedented heights, even gaining tax-exempt status and providing an official app available in Apple and Google app stores. Or how the Satanic Temple is headquartered in Salem, Massachusetts, site of the Salem witch trials. The building includes an eight-foot statue of Baphomet, an early representation of Satan — the horned, goat-hoofed, angel-winged idol worshiped by pagans. Ha ha ha … good one. Ritual sacrifice Their ridicule lacks all dignity and humor. Satanists twist everything upside down. Their rituals mock Christianity; their philosophy contradicts the sacred. They hate not just Christians but Christ Himself. In place of faith, they celebrate pornography, euthanasia, and debauchery. Their liturgical life is a parody of Catholicism. They “unbaptize,” they pray in reverse, they perform black masses. It’s all a perverse reflection of Christian worship, ending not with communion but with the sacrifice of the unborn, a deliberate inversion of birth. It’s a strategy similar to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who mocked the Christian faith with impunity and were celebrated by the Los Angeles Dodgers. Satanism’s only true “creed” is opposition. Its rituals are empty negations of Christian practices, its activism a hollow rejection of God’s law. Defend us in battle The Satanic Temple and other movements that promote abortion rights in the name of autonomy are in fact beholden to an anti-freedom. Christians know that Satan cannot create life — he only destroys. He may offer seductive ideas cloaked in equality or liberty, but his goal is always to eradicate the value of human life, which stands at the core of God’s creation. Scripture tells us that Satan "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44), and his mission has never changed. His followers don’t realize that their master is a horrible accomplice; just ask Judas. Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians is especially relevant here: Satan has “blinded the minds of the unbelievers,” keeping them from seeing the light of Christ. But despite the satanists' chaos and noise, the Christian message is simple but profound: Love and life, rooted in God’s truth, will always triumph over the forces of chaos and death. Satan offers nothing but division and death. Christ offers redemption and love.