This shit is evil. But I don't think she is going to like how it turns out.

Why are they not shooting these people?

This is the craziest, most racist, scientific study I have ever heard of. Who the hell does this kind of research?

Quite impressive how effective the Palistinian propaganda efforts have been. And that is even though it was so ham handed as to have been claiming the Israelis were committing genocide even before they counterattacked.

How can any nation exist like this?

"Prince Estabrook, wounded at Lexington, fought on in the Continental Army, eventually freed for his service but returned to live out his years with the Estabrook family as a free man. An enslaved American who fought for his freedom. A black man with a gun." What a cool story!

The only question here is whether she is really that stupid or just thinks her voters are. I think it is the latter. But it is definitely one of the two and either of them is quite terrible for our republic.

On this anniversary of October 7, Hamas’s brutality must be named plainly. Its founding charter claims all Palestine as an irrevocable Islamic possession, leaving no legitimate place for a sovereign Jewish state. Its founder justified killing Israeli children as retaliation. Hamas-led attackers slaughtered civilians and took children hostage, while its leaders have celebrated Palestinian deaths as sacrifices for their cause. This is a movement that invokes religion to sanctify violence and treats human lives as instruments of victory. Neither religious conviction nor a claim of victimhood excuses murdering children. It is also important to remember that negotiating a truce does not mean that they accept lasting peace. The laws of war do not require a nation to match its enemy’s violence and then stop. Proportionality is not a scoreboard of casualties. It weighs expected incidental civilian harm against the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, prohibiting harm that would be excessive. Lasting peace requires an enemy to abandon its determination to wage war. Hamas cannot promise further massacres and then claim immunity for its fighters by placing children between them and their opponents. Fighters remain lawful targets even when surrounded by civilians. Those who deliberately use children as shields bear responsibility for putting those children in danger. Proportionality does not require accepting another inevitable massacre of your own children by stopping short of destroying your enemy's will to fight.

Death to traitors.

The spirit involved here, that parents are too backward and ignorant to raise their own children so the government should be in control of raising them, is exactly what motivated the Native American children being forced into boarding schools.

It seems like an obvious point that arresting people for social media posts will definitely cause some people to have anxiety.

In my experience the DOS was completely politically compromised. I once heard the embassodor at one of our embassies refer to the sitting president as "The war criminal".

This entire Trial has been disgraceful. Lawyers, you must police your own if you don't want the people coming after you as a class. Why, for example, should a private, non-governmental organization have the power to decide who can represent others in court, if the organization cannot even hold its members to ethical standards?

This may be the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. An army cannot be run by HR ladies who are offended by dark humor and vulgarity.

This really is unbelievable.

Training movement, mind, and moral clarity for modern combat.

The Constitution has many enemies, foreign and domestic.

This is a good piece by Stuart Lyle and worth reading. I agree with much of his argument. The bayonet made sense as a solution to a particular set of battlefield problems. Those conditions have changed, but the requirement for soldiers to fight at extremely close range has not disappeared. I particularly agree with his rejection of the argument that we should retain bayonet training because it teaches “controlled aggression.” If controlled aggression is the desired training outcome, combatives can produce it while simultaneously developing skills with much broader application across military tasks. His historical observation is also important: even when bayonets were genuinely relevant, close combat frequently ended in grappling. He quotes a Canadian officer from WWI: “After a bayonet attack, in nine cases out of ten (trench or open) the men grapple.” I was also glad to see his recommendation for a dedicated fighting knife. For several years I have recommended replacing the current issue bayonet with a purpose-designed combat knife carried in a modern retention sheath. A knife remains a useful field tool and, unlike a bayonet, can be accessed and employed independently of the rifle when the fight has collapsed into grappling range. More broadly, though, I think the enduring requirement isn't bayonet fighting—or even hand-to-hand fighting considered in isolation. It is giving soldiers the ability to continue accomplishing the tactical task when an enemy physically interferes with their ability to do so. The weapons change. The enemy still gets a vote. Good article by Stuart Lyle. Worth the read. thinkdefence.co.uk/2026/09/t…