John (@benemortis) header
John (@benemortis) profile picture

Florida Farmer, Libertarian, Gaymer

Homestead, FL
Joined December 2010
Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)Photo by John (@benemortis)
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer. Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war. To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha. The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people. And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final. We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it. Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made. They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making. One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
29,592
76,518
26,233
402,474
96,419,566
Liberals are learning what the right has been telling them about the Second Amendment, while the right is forgetting everything they said.
70
236
23
2,136
50,006
Dan Bongino DISS TRACK 🤯🎶
213
585
213
3,280
175,312
I’m loving the homage to Monkey Shines the righteous gemstones has this season
2
126
MAGA loves Thomas Massie.
1,495
4,183
246
38,556
564,560
This isn’t complicated. Separate the bills and vote on them individually. one vote on the clean CR one vote on the debt limit one vote on disaster relief one vote on farm bailouts Radical right? Individual bills for each issue.
8,465
31,946
3,730
159,227
4,658,927
Let's get #NoRubio trending
The Rubio decision is not yet final. The other option in contention for Secretary of State is Ric Grenell.  When ambassador to Germany Grenell brought attention to the Ukraine war in a crushing series of op-eds warning it would happen while advocating for a treaty with autonomous zones and more realistic foreign policy around limiting NATO expansion.  Marco Rubio was calling for the Ukraine war the entire time. The only positive thing he has on his record is one recent opportunistic vote against funding Ukraine. But make no mistake what side of this conflict Rubio has been on, aggressively pushing the war in Ukraine and deposing Putin from the beginning. Not to mention Iran. This choice is a big signal to international adversaries as to whether they can trust the US to negotiate with renewed intention, or if the permanent Washington interests go too deep for them to trust we can change.
110
1,034
90
3,990
105,613
259
2,252
118
11,380
160,998
New York Times is spreading misinformation that Maro Rubio will be Secretary of State . Let's trend #NoRubio #TulsiForSOS
303
1,506
121
7,085
318,696
#NoPompeo He's a closet never Trumper
116
1,445
52
3,586
32,617
Rand Paul for majority leader. Thomas Massie for speaker of the house. Pass it on.
Rand Paul for majority leader. Thomas Massie for speaker of the house. Pass it on.
172
1,539
95
8,037
183,368
Rand Paul for majority leader. Thomas Massie for speaker of the house. Pass it on.
294
2,579
171
13,925
307,944
I've just created an alternative to Project 2025. Here it is: Eliminate every federal department and agency that isn't referenced, by name, in the Constitution. That's it. I call it Project Afuera.
455
2,400
217
20,989
689,337
Joe Rogan should absolutely live stream the debate with RFK Jr. They will pause after each question, Kennedy will give his answer, then they hit play again. Make it last 4 hours if it needs to. Then we are streaming to Rogan and not to CNN. They can also fact check along the way. Tag the peeps if you want to see this!
969
2,042
329
15,787
762,543
the 9/11 of television
this is not a test, stephen colbert made a skibidi toilet joe biden video and broadcast live on his show, the seniors know the skibidi, repeat the seniors know the skibidi
1,755
10,475
8,006
72,957
21,137,844
Okay, lets talk about @MattWalshBlog . I'm going to upset a lot of conservatives with this but it's important to go in with eyes wide open. Matt Walsh is a net benefit, but he's using you, and everything has a cost. What Matt is doing here is called "framing," specifically by setting up a straw-man argument. Framing puts an issue into a new perspective favorable to the persuader and changing the discussion to their benefit. Gamers are upset with Matt about slamming games, but he carefully reframes it here as the victim "I'm not allowed to talk about games." And it conveniently changes the topic (because of his reach), and ignores the facts of what started it all. Gamers aren't saying he can't talk about games, they are saying he has been playing both sides: hating games and deriding them, then riding the publicity wave opportunistically, for profit (which is not bad in my book, just don't be naïve). This is similar to how Journalists treated SBI by omitting the triggering event from their stories, and tried to reframe it as "harassment by gamers" (a falsehood). They are trying to get you to forget and talk about it in a new "frame." Different topic, same technique. (con't)
I have to say, I've been the target of some extremely unreasonable backlashes in the past. But this one is probably the most ridiculous yet. This time people are mad that I talked about an issue in the news. Apparently I have no right to discuss it because I'm not in the club. Truly the dumbest outrage I've ever encountered in my life. And man is that really saying something.
348
882
99
7,140
662,718