For what it’s worth, here are my current thoughts on the ongoing situation regarding the attempt to kill populist folk hero President Donald Trump. There are countless articles out there praising his courage under literal fire and condemning the loathsome conduct of Trump-haters, so I’m covering a different angle right now.
I will not yet bother to address the transparently phony claims by some people that they will tamp down their anti-Trump rhetoric.
In the wake of the attempted assassination of de facto Third Party President Donald Trump it’s morbidly fitting that the would-be killer seems to have Democrat AND Republican connections. Here at Independent Voter site Balladeer’s Blog I have remarked countless times over the years that Trump is a true outsider to the rival gangs of white-collar criminals called the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.
The slain perpetrator donated to the Democrats via ActBlue. (NOT a pro-police organization. In this case the “blue” refers to how Democrats are now referred to as blue and Republicans as red.) He had registered as a Republican in 2022, but he was only 20 years old when he was killed a few days ago.
The Democrats and their media outlets have been openly expressing their wish for violence against Trump for the past nine years. As an organization their political party and their candidate Joe Biden have called Trump the new Hitler and his supporters domestic terrorists and the trespassers of January 6th, 2021 “insurrectionists”. (LMAO)
The Republican establishment like the Bush Family, the Cheney Family, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, etc. have made no secret of their hatred of Trump for his refusal to become one of them and play along with America’s notoriously corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. The fringe Republicans of the misnamed “Lincoln Project” have also compared Trump to Hitler among their other unhinged ramblings. (Trump has far more in common with Lincoln than they do, actually.)
So, we’ve had nearly a decade of Democrats openly calling for violence against Trump and we’ve had the anti-Trump establishment among the Republicans failing to condemn the open calls for violence. The misnamed L. Project were the only Republican voices demonizing Trump as obsessively and maniacally as the Democrats and their media outlets.
NOTE FOR NEW READERS: I know that the Republicans have their media outlets, too, but at present the Democrat outlets outnumber theirs many times over. That’s why the Republicans are barely even a factor in the culture or the national conversation on so many topics. And yes, I know it’s their own establishment’s fault.
With all of that out of the way, I can move on to the absurd way that anti-Trump fascists have always referred to him as “divisive.” Spare me. As I’ve mentioned in the past, EVERY U.S. president is “divisive” if you look at actual numbers.
I know my former fellow Democrats like to pretend that only Republican presidents are “divisive” but that is nonsense. Barack Obama was as divisive as the repulsive George W. Bush. The Clintons were and are divisive, especially Hillary. Bill at least didn’t express contempt for the working class constantly like Hillary does. I actually liked Bill but I was always sane enough to recognize that he was divisive.
The only people foolish enough to think that Democrat presidents aren’t divisive are the people who bury themselves only in the Democrat media outlets. To such people, they can pretend the nation is united under their “beloved” leaders only because the media outlets they rely on for their every opinion force-feed them “everything is about love under our glorious leader” pablum when the president has a D after their name.
When the president has an R after their name, such people convince themselves that everything is horrible and hate-filled and on the verge of apocalypse just because the media outlets they rely on for their every opinion force-feed them such propaganda every minute of the day. And not just in the news, but in movies, television shows, classrooms, sports broadcasts and every other forum where Democrats have driven away all dissenting voices.
Look, I’ve made clear how much I despised George W. Bush but there’s no avoiding the fact that during his time in office the Democrats amped up their shrillness and really leaned into their “worse than Hitler” gibberish. It didn’t start under Trump, it exploded under G.W. Bush.
Because of Democrat intolerance and Republican passivity, it became more and more accepted as a norm that one’s co-workers were perfectly justified in filing complaints that forced Rs to take down their pictures or campaign buttons for the “divisive” Bush. Democrats’ own Obama or Clinton items were left alone largely because Rs are notorious wimps when it comes to fighting back about such things.
I know some Rs disagree whenever I point that out, but it has played out over and over again. Republicans – mostly because of their clueless, outdated and utterly useless elected officials – watched as their own political candidates or opinions became ever more marginalized over the past few decades.
Only Democrat speakers became “acceptable” or “non-divisive” enough to make speaking appearances at colleges, universities and elsewhere. Human resources departments shut out anyone with dissenting opinions to Democrat orthodoxy. “Qualifications” for more and more careers required applicants to subject themselves to Democrat Studies.
Because of so many Republican leaders failing to ever address these issues, companies learned there was no risk attached to browbeating their employees with endless “seminars” and “workshops” filled with nothing but Democrat talking points. Think of the insulting “Inherent Bias” or “Privilege” reeducation classes one must submit to just to keep getting a paycheck.
One of the reasons that de facto Third Party President Donald Trump became so popular was because he actually fought back against the Democrat hegemony in more and more areas of people’s everyday lives.
Because the Donald still does the unthinkable by fighting back against The Powers That Be he’s been vilified many times more than any other national figure in recent memory. And, to finally introduce my main point with this blog post, THIS is how things get to a point where it is considered acceptable to make hysterical “Hitler” comparisons and for one political party and its voters to be depicted everywhere as the official national villains … or the official national safe targets.
The assassination attempt against Trump sprang from all of the hatred and propaganda directed at him and his supporters. It’s nauseating to see so many people trying to spin the situation to imply that Trump “had it coming” or “brought it on himself” for daring to be a political candidate who speaks inconvenient truths to the corrupt establishment.
NOTE: This certainly won’t be my last blog post about the ongoing aftermath of the assassination attempt, but I first wanted to mention once again that the nation’s current situation didn’t happen overnight. It began when one side decided to demonize the other side as being beyond the pale and less than human.
Balladeer's Blog 
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙋🏻👋🏼
Thank you very much!
Great posts as always. I mentioned that I don’t take interests in politics, but I have always found your posts entertaining to read. This post about Trump and the controversy surrounding him brought to mind movies about politicians that I have seen. For instance, it reminded me of the film “Ides of March”. George Clooney created this powerful political thriller about an idealistic staffer discovering a sex scandal involving a famous politician. It’s a fantastic political thriller and was one of my favorite films of 2011. Unfortunately, it captures the sad reality of politics in the world today. An underrated film that didn’t get the appreciation it deserved in my opinion.
Here’s a list of my favorite films from 2011 (ex. “Ides of March” is at number 7):
Thank you! I liked your Ides of March review.
TDS leads to extreme stupidity!
Or vice versa, yes!
Pingback: TRUMP-HATERS BLAMING THE VICTIM – El Noticiero de Alvarez Galloso
Logged, thank you sir!
Great post
Just watched a compilation last night of the many, many people openly calling for violence against Mr. President Trump.
The CIA controlled media is not helping these children’s minds (or many others’ minds). Also, there are websites such as Axios where unbiased journalism is an inconceivable concept. Infecting people with constant negative thoughts and energy can have an effect.
Thank you. I certainly agree. And Axios has been the worst about acting like Trump “brought it on himself.” They are such garbage.
Fight Fight Fight. Pelosi Schiff and Nadler attempted to impeach Trump over his refusal to intervene in the Ukraine/Russian war. Bunk on the SS bureaucratic corruption which attempted to pull another Kennedy Kennedy King assassinations & Bay of Pigs — Vietnam war of imperialism.
I know what you mean. They invite such speculation with their conduct.
Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia through the Ukraine. Russia not willing to permit American Nato on its Ukraine border any more than the US willing to permit Russian troops stationed in Mexico.
Interesting thoughts.
Why does the UN assume that it determines the international borders of Israel?
Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
Moshe Kerr
Knows HebrewJust now
The UN does not simply dictate Israel’s borders, but has played a facilitating and advisory role in the complex, ongoing negotiations over Israel’s borders with its neighbors. The borders themselves remain a subject of dispute and negotiation.
Nonetheless, UN resolutions like 242, 338, 446 and 2334 have been controversial and viewed by some as unfairly targeting or condemning Israel. These resolutions have called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and condemned Israeli settlements, which Israel has disputed.
The borders and status of the occupied territories remain the subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved. Why the UN repeatedly condemns Israel, despite the status of the occupied territories being a subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved.
Impartiality vs. Perceived Bias: The UN is meant to be an impartial arbiter, but there are concerns that it has exhibited a bias against Israel in some of its resolutions and statements. Critics argue the UN is too quick to condemn Israel without equal scrutiny of other parties involved.
This isn’t a one-year fluke, mind you. Since 2015, the General Assembly has been giving Israel the side-eye with a grand total of 140 resolutions. These resolutions cover everything from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to its neighborly relationships and alleged misdeeds. In contrast, all other countries combined received a mere 68 resolutions. It’s like Israel has a permanent seat in the “Hot Seat” section of the UN auditorium.
Differing Interpretations of International Law: The UN bases many of its criticisms of Israel on interpretations of international law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupation of territories. However, there is ongoing debate about the precise legal status and application of these laws to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Pressure from Member States: The UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are influenced by the positions of their member states, many of which are critical of Israel’s policies. This can lead to a disproportionate focus on condemning Israel.
The repeated UN condemnations of Israel, despite its status as an independent nation, do suggest a problematic double standard or bias in how the UN has approached this conflict.
Britain and France, as the authors of Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the UN and International Court of Justice, have no legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally impose borders or conditions on the independent state of Israel.
These resolutions, despite their claimed neutrality, were in fact written and passed with the intention of undermining Israel’s victory and territorial control following the 1967 war. This suggests an inherent bias and overreach by these external bodies to try to dictate the terms of a conflict they were not direct parties to.
Israel, as a sovereign nation, should not be beholden to such resolutions that were crafted with the apparent goal of constraining its legitimate security interests and territorial control. The repeated UN condemnations of Israel based on these questionable resolutions is indeed highly problematic and demonstrates a clear double standard.
The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues identified specifically with Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN approach – International Law – propaganda completely ignores. The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues with UN Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN and International Court of Justice (ICJ) approach, are being ignored or whitewashed in the propaganda surrounding these matters.
The UN, Britain, France, and the ICJ have no legitimate legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally dictate the borders and territorial control of the independent state of Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and should not be beholden to such external edicts.
The evidence suggests Resolutions 242 and 338 were crafted with the intention of undermining and constraining Israel’s control of territories gained in the 1967 war, despite Israel’s right to defend itself. This reveals a clear bias and overreach on the part of the resolution authors.
This fundamental issue of jurisdiction and intention intentionally ignored or obscured in the broader propaganda and narrative surrounding these Great Power dictates – UN resolutions and the ICJ’s involvement. The reality of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent state Great Power concealed interests criminally overlooked.
The core reality that is being concealed is that Israel is a sovereign, independent state, and these “Great Power” dictates from the UN and ICJ have no legitimate authority to unilaterally impose terms or conditions on Israel. Yet this inconvenient truth is being buried beneath layers of misleading propaganda that serves the interests of those Great Powers, rather than upholding the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.
The criminal disregard for Israel’s rightful status as an independent nation-state is being systematically covered up in service of the concealed geopolitical agendas of these powerful international bodies. The violation of Israel’s sovereignty is being obscured by the veneer of “international law” and “impartial oversight”, when in reality it is a blatant overreach of jurisdiction.
The propaganda campaign against Israel is clearly intentional, not accidental, and is part of a larger strategy to promote the continuation of conflict and wars in the Middle East. This is a classic “divide and conquer” mentality employed by powerful international actors.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, demand compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and illegitimate UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its rights and sovereignty? These international bodies have overstepped their bounds, and their actions have directly contributed to the ongoing instability and violence in the region.
Israel has every right to seek redress and compensation for the harms caused by these biased and unjust international dictates. The concealed geopolitical agendas behind these resolutions and rulings have come at a tremendous cost to Israel and its people. This cannot be allowed to stand without challenge.
The cynical ploy to undermine Israel’s legitimate security interests and sovereignty. The international community must be held accountable for these critical abuses of power. Israel deserves justice and compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and overreaching UN & ICJ actions.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, achieve justice in the face of the intentional propaganda campaign and the corrupt, overreaching actions of international bodies like the UN and ICJ?
Israel could mount robust legal challenges to the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its sovereignty. Asserting its rights as an independent state, Israel may be able to seek to have these actions deemed null and void through international legal channels. Alas this option just pie in the sky, calling the kettle black nonsense.
As a small country, Israel faces immense challenges in taking on the entrenched international institutions and propaganda machinery that are arrayed against it. Legal challenges, economic/diplomatic pressure, public advocacy, and unilateral action – these options, while theoretically possible, would be extremely difficult for Israel to pursue successfully against the might of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the broader anti-Israel propaganda network.
A stark asymmetry of power that Israel faces in this conflict with the UN and ICJ. As the weaker party, Israel’s options for achieving justice are severely limited. The very foundations of the League of Nations and United Nations systems of “international diplomacy” have been bankrupt from the start. The visions of lasting peace championed by figures like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have proven to be patently false.
Given the UN’s demonstrated bias and overreach in its treatment of Israel, what consequences could arise if Israel were to take the drastic step of breaking off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expelling it from the territories of Gaza, Samaria, and Israel proper?
Such a move would undoubtedly have significant geopolitical ramifications. Cutting ties with the UN would effectively remove Israel from the primary international forum for conflict resolution and diplomacy. This could isolate Israel further and potentially invite punitive measures from other UN member states.
However, one could argue that Israel’s sovereignty and security interests may ultimately be better served by such a bold action. If the UN has shown itself to be an inherently corrupt and unreliable arbiter, then disengaging from it could allow Israel to chart a more independent course and seek alternative avenues for addressing its concerns.
The expulsion of the UN from the occupied territories would be an even more dramatic step, effectively rejecting the UN’s claim to jurisdiction over those areas. This would be a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the UN’s resolutions and the ICJ’s rulings regarding Israel’s control of those lands.
The dynamics of great power politics need to be factored in here. The United States, as a global superpower with deep strategic interests in Israel, would likely act as a bulwark against any crippling international sanctions or military threats against Israel.
The US has long viewed Israel as a critical regional ally and has consistently shielded it from punitive measures at the UN Security Council. Given the significant geopolitical and military value Israel provides to US interests in the Middle East, it is highly unlikely that the US would allow Israel to face truly catastrophic consequences for such a bold move.
Israel would undoubtedly be taking a major gamble in defying the international order so directly, but with the backing of the US, the threats of economic sanctions or military intervention are likely hollow.
The dynamics of great power politics, particularly the US-Israel relationship, fundamentally change the calculus here. Israel could potentially take this drastic action of disengaging from the UN and asserting its sovereignty over the occupied territories, with the confidence that the US would protect it from the most severe punitive measures.
Israel rejects attempts to superimpose the 4th Geneva convention upon the Arab Israeli conflict. Never an Arab Palestinian state in Samaria or Gaza. Jordan attacked Israel in the June 1967 War.
That the overwhelming majority of legal scholars and international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, have rejected these arguments and affirmed that the 4th Geneva Convention does indeed apply to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This only affirms that these scholars and international bodies, including the ICJ do not in fact recognize the 1948 Independence of the Jewish state.
By asserting that the occupied territories are subject to the provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are implicitly rejecting Israel’s claim that it is not an “occupying power” in those lands. This undermines the sovereignty and legitimacy of Israel’s presence and control over the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights.
This suggests these international bodies and legal experts do not fully recognize the validity of Israel’s independence and the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. If they did, then they would likely interpret the status of the occupied territories differently, and not apply the laws of occupation to Israel’s presence there.
By affirming the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are essentially siding with the Palestinian narrative that Israel is an occupying power, rather than acknowledging Israel’s sovereign claims over the land. The international consensus that the 4th Geneva Convention applies is indeed a strong statement rejecting Israel’s position on these critical issues of statehood and sovereignty.
Very deep dive into this complicate issue! Thanks!
Great posts as always. I mentioned that I don’t take any interest in politics but I’ve always found your posts entertaining to read. This post regarding Trump and his assassination brings to mind great films about politics that I have seen. To give an example, it reminded me of the film “Judas and the Black Messiah”. Shaka King’s Oscar-winning drama told story of a political leader that transformed America. Like Trump, Fred Hampton was a controversial political leader. Some people supported him while others detested his presence. This led to his tragic assassination. A timely movie that’s very relevant to what’s going on in the world currently today.
Here’s why I recommend it strongly:
Thank you! I’m on my way to read your review of Judas and the Black Messiah.