Author

admin

Browsing

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky strongly objected after Vice President JD Vance asserted in a Saturday post on X that ‘Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.’

‘JD ‘I don’t give a s[—]’ Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the ‘highest and best use of the military.’ Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation??’ Senator Paul wrote. ‘What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.’ 

In a Truth Social post last week, President Donald Trump shared video footage of what he said was ‘a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists’ who he said ‘were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.’

Someone responded to Vance by writing that, ‘Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.’ 

But the vice president swiftly fired back.

Trump shares footage of military strike against suspected Tren de Aragua drug boat

‘I don’t give a s[—] what you call it,’ Vance declared.

GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio pushed back against Paul.

Rubio defends deadly strike on suspected Venezuelan drug boat

‘What’s really despicable is defending foreign terrorist drug traffickers who are *directly* responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in Kentucky and Ohio. JD understands that our first responsibility is to protect the life and liberty of American citizens,’ Moreno wrote on on X.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The 30th anniversary of Tommy Boy was recently commemorated in Sandusky, Ohio, with the first Tommy Boy Fest. I was sorry to have missed this event since the schedule looked like a blast, complete with Q&A with Director Peter Segal and Julie Warner (“prettiest gal in Sandusky”), a comedy show with Kevin Farley, and a Tommy Want Wingy throwdown. Although Tommy Boy was filmed in Canada, the movie was based in the city of Sandusky and if this festival becomes an annual event, my family will definitely be traveling there next year.

My kids love Tommy Boy (and Chris Farley) as much as I do and after a recent re-watch of the 1995 flick, I kept thinking about some of the smaller scenes with big undertones, particularly regarding the management of Callahan Auto Parts and the emphasis on it being family-owned.

Early in the movie, there is a scene with Tommy’s father, an auto parts tycoon known as Big Tom (played by Brian Dennehy), and he is sharing his plans for a new brake pad division while walking down a hallway with a few businessmen. Ron Gilmore, the town banker (played by James Blendick), is walking alongside him and seems concerned about the sizable bank loan that will be needed for this new endeavor. Big Tom, in pitching his idea, declares “Don’t tell me the bank thinks we need to wait it out. Any business that tries to wait it out will be just that: out. In auto parts, you’re either growing or you’re dying. There ain’t no third direction.” And Big Tom is right. Complacency and competitive inertia are the surest ways to lose any battle over market share in the business realm. 

Big Tom’s statements are confident and convincing, but Gilmore is still concerned. “Tom, you’re talking about a huge loan. Maybe instead of borrowing, you should take on a partner.” An idea Big Tom quickly shoots down. “No, this always has been, always will be a family firm. My grandfather founded it in ’21. My father kept it running during the Depression. My Aunt Eileen ran it when he went away to war, and someday, my son will run it.”

In this short scene, several factors are at play, but for the sake of this article’s length, let’s just focus on the family business element. And to do so, some context is needed.

The Premise

Big Tom believed in the Callahan brand, and he lived well because of the success he achieved. Big Tom’s residence is one to behold: a huge mansion, gorgeous grounds, and a massive inground swimming pool (good enough for Bo Derek). And thanks to his wealth, Big Tom was able to support Tommy Boy’s elongated college education as well as guarantee him a job post-graduation. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Tommy receives his private office at his father’s firm, and Richard Hayden, an executive assistant (played by David Spade) alludes to the nepotism by sarcastically stating “You have a window! And why shouldn’t you? You’ve been here ten minutes.”

Other than a few quips from Richard throughout the film, employees at Callahan Auto Parts are featured as being unbothered by the family favoritism and don’t begrudge their employer’s lavish lifestyle. Actually, it is hard not to like the Callahan family. Big Tom is charismatic and appears to treat employees well, while Tommy is caring and kind, making it easy to disregard his mishaps and shenanigans. When touring the factory after returning home from college, Tommy greets all the workers by name and shows a genuine interest in the work they are doing. 

Overall, Tommy’s strength (we won’t go into his rather obvious faults) lies in generating interpersonal connections, and when he needs to take charge after the sudden passing of his father, Tommy is well-received by most of the employees despite the lack of competency he has for his new role.

The Perception

What is truly interesting about Callahan Auto Parts is how the business is presented and perceived. Big Tom ran a big business, and it being family-owned was a big deal. While I can understand a father wanting to see his legacy live on through his son, I am always a bit perplexed why consumers should care whether a firm is family-owned. Yet, for some reason, in American culture, family businesses have positive appeal, and businesses heavily promote familial ties. 

If you start paying attention to taglines, you’ll find that all types of firms market themselves as family-owned. One of my favorite examples is Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., which features at the top of its cans “Family Owned, Operated & Argued Over.”

When a successful business can be passed on to future generations, this is generally viewed as a good thing and something to be proud of. Some of America’s oldest and largest firms are family-owned: The Ford Motor Co., Koch Industries, Inc., The Kohler Co., S.C. Johnson, and Wegmans Food Markets to name a few. However, when a firm is perceived as being too big and too successful, those good vibes tend to fade away. Think the Waltons of Walmart or the Hiltons of, well, Hilton. 

When we perceive a company as being too powerful or a family as being too high status, we are less enthused about the family aspect. But we must remember that business owners generate their wealth by means of the success of their business. And the success of a business depends on its efficacy in serving the market and its ability to cater to consumer interests. Walmart didn’t get big overnight, and consumers weren’t forced to shop at Walmart stores. 

Moreover, some of the heirs of big businesses do great things with the wealth they have attained. Most notably and most recently, the Alice L. Walton School of Medicine inducted its first medical school class. Not only did the Walmart heiress, Alice Walton, fund the creation of a top-tier medical school, but, as featured in Time Magazine, she is also “covering tuition for the first five graduating classes.” 

The Point

The next time you purchase a product or put your trust in a brand, try to assess all the signals being sent your way. Does it matter to you if the business is family-owned? Does it matter to you if the business is big or small? And if any of these factors do matter, ask yourself why. Also, ask if you might feel differently if you were the business owner.

The ‘shop small’ and ‘shop local’ mantras sound great, but we should remember that a lot of value is derived from big businesses that were once small. And while supporting family businesses certainly sounds nice, in reality, there is no way to know what goes on behind closed doors. The family that owns a business could be made up of horrible people. Or the founders could be coercing future generations to forgo their individual dreams to sustain the family’s brand name. 

Just because a business is family-owned doesn’t automatically make it good, just as a business that is not family-owned isn’t inherently bad.

Fortunately for Tommy Boy, he came from a loving family, and he’s lucky that his father took great pride in the business being family-owned (since it’s unlikely Tommy could get a job anywhere else). And it’s a good thing for Tommy that his father’s company wasn’t the only big business competing in the auto parts realm. At the end of the movie (spoiler alert) Tommy is able to trick the owner of Zalinsky Auto Parts (played by Dan Aykroyd) into purchasing 500,000 brake pads. The big sale saves the company, and Tommy is able to return to Sandusky a hero. And, as stated at the start of this article, I look forward to visiting the real city of Sandusky someday since I know my kids would get a kick out of it. 

The experiences I take part in and the investments I make are based on my preferences, my aspirations, and the future well-being of my family. Although I may not be able to set my kids up with an inheritance comparable to the fictitious Callahans or the real-life Waltons, I am doing my best to ensure they can be proud of the wealth we have attained. 

I am also teaching my children that what constitutes wealth can come in a variety of forms, and it is up to them to determine what it is they truly value. And I’ll be reminding them that no matter their age, I will always be happy to re-watch Tommy Boy with them since there is always something to be learned from the energetic and entrepreneurial spirit present in this 1990s classic.

In 1956, a trucking entrepreneur named Malcolm McLean did something quietly radical: he placed 58 identical steel boxes onto a cargo ship in Newark and sent them to Houston. Those boxes, the first standardized shipping containers, didn’t look like a revolution. But they soon rewrote the logic of global commerce.

As economist Marc Levinson chronicled in The Box, this wasn’t just about saving space or time. The genius of the container was its standardization. No matter the cargo, no matter the destination, one set of protocols including fixed dimensions, stackability, and compatibility with cranes, trucks, and ports suddenly governed a previously fragmented industry. Costs fell. Transit times collapsed. Theft and spoilage plummeted. Global trade surged from $100 billion in 1960 to over $25 trillion today, largely because containers allowed goods to move frictionlessly through a universal system.

What the shipping container did for physical goods, stablecoins now promise to do for money.

The recent bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act and the expected passage of the CLARITY Act in the next few weeks, is the policy equivalent of agreeing on the international container standard. It establishes a framework for dollar-backed stablecoins, digital tokens whose value is pegged 1:1 to U.S. dollars and backed by reserves held in cash or short-term Treasuries. Issuers must meet rigorous disclosure, audit, and consumer-protection requirements. In short, the Act sets the rules to make stablecoins not just safe, but also scalable and interoperable by defining basic regulatory guidelines.

That distinction matters. Because like early maritime trade before containerization, today’s financial system remains fragmented, expensive, and slow. Sending money internationally often takes days, involves multiple intermediaries, and racks up fees, especially for consumers and small businesses. Different ledgers, jurisdictions, and systems don’t talk to each other.

Stablecoins change that. They are programmable, 24/7, borderless instruments that allow dollars to move instantly across platforms, contracts, and geographies. They’re not trying to replace the dollar; they’re trying to standardize its transport, just as containers didn’t replace ships, they made ships dramatically more efficient.

Even before the GENIUS Act, the market for stablecoins was exploding. In 2024, stablecoins processed over $27 trillion in transactions, more than Visa and Mastercard combined. Over 90% of that volume was denominated in U.S. dollars. And, unlike cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, these aren’t speculative assets. They are increasingly the infrastructure of modern financial exchange.

But just like container adoption required more than a clever box, it required regulatory alignment, international buy-in, and standardized protocols, stablecoins need legislative scaffolding to scale securely. The GENIUS and CLARITY Acts provide that scaffolding. This legislation sets a bar that serious, well-capitalized issuers can meet and ensures dollar-backed tokens are trusted, transparent, and functional at scale.

The benefits are profound. For consumers, it means faster and cheaper transactions. For entrepreneurs, it unlocks programmable financial applications. But for the United States, the biggest benefit is macroeconomic and geopolitical: the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts will increase global demand for U.S. dollars.

Every compliant stablecoin must be backed by reserves held in dollars or short-term Treasuries. As stablecoins are adopted globally, for remittances, trade settlement, and digital contracts, they become a continuous engine of demand for dollar-based assets. Morgan Stanley estimates this could generate trillions of dollars in new demand for U.S. government debt, strengthening Treasury markets and lowering borrowing costs.

It also fortifies dollar primacy. In a world where China is pushing a digital yuan and the EU is experimenting with a digital euro, the U.S. must export not just currency, but currency infrastructure. Stablecoins are the shipping containers of monetary influence. If we define the standard, the world will adopt it. If we hesitate, others will fill the vacuum.

To be clear, stablecoins aren’t risk-free. But their risks, such as liquidity mismatches, fraud, systemic exposure, are precisely the kinds of challenges that regulation is designed to manage. The current crypto legislation addresses them with measured oversight. It is neither overbearing nor permissive, it is infrastructural.

The true lesson of the container revolution is this: infrastructure wins not by invention, but by consensus. Once enough actors agreed on the rules, global trade scaled almost automatically. Stablecoins offer the same promise for digital commerce if we codify their standard.

Both the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts are not just about enabling crypto. They are about ensuring the U.S. dollar remains the base layer of global finance in a world that is moving, inevitably, toward digital rails.

The future of money needs a container. We have it. Now we need to standardize it and lead.

For decades, New York City prided itself on being the financial capital of the world. It’s a place where money, culture, and power converge. And yet, as has been seen in San Francisco, Chicago, and other locations around the US, New York is experiencing a steady exodus of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. While some observers dismiss this as anecdotal or exaggerated, the facts paint a different picture: one with serious implications for the city’s fiscal health, social fabric, and attractiveness.

It is easy to forget that New York’s gleaming infrastructure, vast public services, and social programs are underwritten disproportionately by a tiny number of residents. Fewer than one percent of taxpayers account for more than 40 percent of all income tax revenue collected in the state, and a similar share in the city. Without those individuals, the ability of millions of ordinary New Yorkers to enjoy subsidized transit, robust public safety services, and cultural investments would collapse. In other words, and despite endless egalitarian rhetoric, the lifestyle of the masses is silently carried on the shoulders of the few.

The scale of the loss is becoming visible. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of New Yorkers earning between $150,000 and $750,000 fell by nearly six percent, while the number of true high earners — those making over $750,000 — dropped by nearly 10 percent, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. This erosion matters because the city’s top one percent — about 41,000 filers — pay more than 40 percent of all income taxes. The top 10 percent pay about two-thirds. Which means the remaining 90 percent of taxpayers contribute only about one-third of the city’s income tax revenue. When even a small share of these high earners disappears, the impact is seismic.

Recent migration trends confirm the damage. More than 125,000 New Yorkers have fled to Florida in just the past few years, carrying nearly $14 billion worth of income with them, according to the Citizens Budget Commission. About a third of those movers — more than 41,000 people — went to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties between 2018 and 2022. Those escapes alone stripped New York City of an estimated $10 billion in adjusted gross income. When money and mobility align, no amount of political rhetoric can stop people from voting with their feet.

Into this fragile situation steps Zohran Mamdani, whose mayoral primary victory has been accompanied by a platform that includes a new “millionaire’s tax.” His proposal would tack on an additional two-percent levy for New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year, raising the combined city and state top rate to 16.776 percent — by far the highest in the nation. Add federal obligations, and the total burden would rise to nearly 54 percent. That is not just taxation; it is confiscation. 

Wealthy New Yorkers wouldn’t even need to flee to Florida to avoid it. A short move to Westchester, Long Island, or across the Hudson to New Jersey would suffice. As the Tax Foundation has noted, “a high earner doesn’t need to give up the convenience of the city, they just need to move outside the five boroughs.” Developers are already banding together to oppose Mamdani’s rent-control platform, while Florida realtors report a surge in inquiries from wealthy New Yorkers looking to relocate.

Rather than acknowledge this delicate balance, policymakers in Albany and City Hall continue to treat the wealthy as inexhaustible resources. Each subsequent budget cycle seems to bring fresh proposals for higher levies, justified by a reflexive invocation of “fair share.” For the city’s most mobile taxpayers, however, there is a limit. They are increasingly concluding that enough is enough.

Not to worry, though. Other US states and cities are only too happy to receive them. 

Florida has no state income tax and a climate that, quite literally, feels like a bonus. Texas markets itself as a business-friendly, family-friendly destination where capital is welcomed rather than penalized. The Lone Star State is even planning its own stock exchange to fight against corporate ESG/DEI mandates, among others. Even Connecticut, once derided as a commuter’s backwater, now makes a pitch as a calmer, lower-tax alternative just a train ride away.

It’s not just states. Municipalities from Miami to Austin to Nashville are creating entire ecosystems — schools, cultural centers, financial services clusters — designed to attract, satisfy, and retain disaffected New Yorkers. And the migration data show that these efforts are paying off.

The most striking irony of this government-greed-driven exodus is that the very policies promoted as remedies for inequality are accelerating a new divide. On one side are jurisdictions with extractive tax regimes like New York, which are increasingly reliant on a shrinking base of wealthy residents. On the other side are “merely high-tax” or moderate-tax states that calibrate their revenue needs without driving out their most productive citizens. In attempting to punish the “haves” in the name of the “have-nots,” New York is in the process of creating an even sharper divide between places where the wealthy live and places they have left behind. The intended redistribution becomes a geographic one, with capital, philanthropy, and jobs following the departing millionaires.

Beyond dollars and cents, there is also a cultural cost. Wealthy New Yorkers are not just taxpayers; they are patrons of the arts, benefactors of hospitals, and funders of civic institutions. When they decamp to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, or elsewhere, they don’t merely take their checkbooks; they take their boards, galas, and fundraising networks. The very character of New York as a city of ambition progressively dims. A city that once attracted the world’s best and brightest risks becoming a place they leave once they have achieved the successes they sought.

The migration of millionaires is not an abstract threat. It is an early warning sign of the consequences of fiscal imbalance and political avarice. New York can continue to chase headlines with promises of soaking the rich, or it can recognize that prosperity depends on partnership, not punishment. If it chooses the former, the flight will only accelerate, and the city may wake up one day to find that its most valuable export is no longer finance or culture, but people. Wealth, like love, does not stay long where it goes unappreciated.

President Donald Trump issued his ‘last warning’ to Hamas to accept his deal and release the remaining hostages or face the consequences.

‘Everyone wants the hostages HOME. Everyone wants this War to end,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘The Israelis have accepted my Terms. It is time for Hamas to accept as well.’

‘I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting,’ he continued. ‘This is my last warning, there will not be another one! Thank you for your attention to this matter.’

Last month, Trump said the remaining hostages would only be returned when Hamas is ‘confronted and destroyed.’ At the time, Hamas was citing alleged progress in ceasefire talks.

In July, the U.S. and Israel pulled negotiators from Qatar after Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said Hamas showed a ‘lack of desire to reach a ceasefire’ and was likely not negotiating in good faith.

On Aug. 26, Witkoff told Fox News’ Bret Baier on ‘Special Report’ that he and Trump wanted the hostages home that week. 

‘There’s been a deal on the table for the last six or seven weeks that would have released 10 of the hostages out of the 20 who we think are alive,’ he said, noting that he believes Hamas is ‘100%’ to blame for the hold-up.

Witkoff did not elaborate on what is delaying the hostages’ return, nearly two years after they were taken in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

Fifty hostages continue to be held by Hamas, only 20 of whom are assessed to still be alive. 

Trump previously predicted in late August that there would be a ‘conclusive’ end to the war in Gaza within the next ‘two to three weeks,’ though he did not say how this would be accomplished. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that only a comprehensive ceasefire — one that ensures the return of all hostages and ends the war on Israel’s terms — will be considered.

Israel is preparing a new offensive in Gaza targeting Hamas, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said, as it expanded ground operations under Operation Gideon’s Chariots II.

IDF spokesperson Col. Avichay Adraee warned Palestinians in parts of Gaza City to leave ahead of an expected escalation. The warning included a map marking the area and highlighting one building the IDF planned to strike, citing ‘the presence of Hamas terrorist infrastructure inside or nearby.’

Fox News Digital’s Rachel Wolf and Danielle Wallace contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump issued his ‘last warning’ to Hamas to either release the remaining hostages or face the consequences.

‘Everyone wants the hostages HOME. Everyone wants this War to end,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘The Israelis have accepted my Terms. It is time for Hamas to accept as well.’

‘I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting,’ he continued. ‘This is my last warning, there will not be another one! Thank you for your attention to this matter.’

Last month, Trump said the remaining hostages would only be returned when Hamas is ‘confronted and destroyed.’ At the time, Hamas was citing alleged progress in ceasefire talks.

In July, the U.S. and Israel pulled negotiators from Qatar after Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said Hamas showed a ‘lack of desire to reach a ceasefire’ and was likely not negotiating in good faith.

On Aug. 26, Witkoff told Fox News’ Bret Baier on ‘Special Report’ that he and Trump wanted the hostages home that week. 

‘There’s been a deal on the table for the last six or seven weeks that would have released 10 of the hostages out of the 20 who we think are alive,’ he said, noting that he believes Hamas is ‘100%’ to blame for the hold-up.

Witkoff did not elaborate on what is delaying the hostages’ return, nearly two years after they were taken in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

Fifty hostages continue to be held by Hamas, only 20 of whom are assessed to still be alive. 

Trump previously predicted in late August that there would be a ‘conclusive’ end to the war in Gaza within the next ‘two to three weeks,’ though he did not say how this would be accomplished. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that only a comprehensive ceasefire — one that ensures the return of all hostages and ends the war on Israel’s terms — will be considered.

Israel is preparing a new offensive in Gaza targeting Hamas, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said, as it expanded ground operations under Operation Gideon’s Chariots II.

IDF spokesperson Col. Avichay Adraee warned Palestinians in parts of Gaza City to leave ahead of an expected escalation. The warning included a map marking the area and highlighting one building the IDF planned to strike, citing ‘the presence of Hamas terrorist infrastructure inside or nearby.’

Fox News Digital’s Rachel Wolf and Danielle Wallace contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

America’s so-called allies – Britain, France, Canada, Australia and others – are about to stab President Donald Trump in the back. The goal is to lay waste to the president’s signature foreign policy success – the Abraham Accords.

The Abraham Accords denied violent Palestinian rejectionists a veto over the normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel. Now Palestinians and their band of useful idiots have launched a coup. The scheme opens by overthrowing the fundamental principle of a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. United Arab Emirates officials have speciously started blaming Israel for the Accords’ demise.

The staging ground for this ‘Et tu, Brute?’ moment is the United Nations. French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Sept. 3, 2025, that he, and his Saudi counterpart, have called upon world leaders to assemble at the United Nations in New York City on Sept. 22 and endorse this agenda. Formally, the substance has been committed to paper in what they are outlandishly calling ‘The New York Declaration.’

This means that by the time President Trump addresses the General Assembly on the following day, he will have been reduced to the guy with the broom bringing up the rear. His hopes and plans for peace in the Middle East will have already been rejected by virtually every head of state or government in attendance. 

The New York Declaration first appeared at the conclusion of a confab, chaired by the French and the Saudis, at the U.N. in July of this year. The United States and Israel stayed away. The vast majority of states ignored State Department pleas to do the same. 

The document weighs in at 30 pages of anti-Israel venom and attacks on American foreign affairs. It twists the horrors of Oct. 7, 2023 – when more than 1,400 Jews (and others in Israel) were murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped – into a political win for Palestinians. 

US vetoes anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution

Here are just some of the Declaration’s extraordinarily dangerous demands:

A ‘State of Palestine’ before ‘mutual recognition’ of the Jewish state. 

A Palestinian ‘right of return’ that would flood Israel with millions of Palestinians from the river to the sea – thus ending the Jewish state.

A fully armed Palestinian state (called a ‘one state, one gun policy’) and an indefensible Jewish state.

An arms embargo on Israel (‘ceasing the provision or transfer of Arms’) cutting off the country’s ability to defend itself.

A global pogrom to arrest and prosecute Israelis in national and international courts the world over.

Abandoning the hostages and rewarding the kidnappers by conditioning their release on Israel freeing convicted Palestinian criminals and fully withdrawing from Gaza. 

Huckabee rejects Macron

And here is what the Declaration does not mention: Jews. Judaism. The Jewish state. Antisemitism – the actual driver of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even Jerusalem is only discussed in terms of Islamic and Christian rights. Jewish history is nowhere.

The Declaration represents multilateral bullying at its worst. But the United States is not powerless. 

The president has options:

Don’t go. If the event to adopt the Declaration on Sept. 22 isn’t canceled or world leaders don’t decide to pull out, then cancel the president’s appearance on the 23rd. President Trump doesn’t need the U.N. stage to be heard loud and clear. The U.N. needs America.

Send the U.N. packing. Back in 1988, President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz denied Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat a visa to speak at the U.N. The General Assembly reacted by temporarily moving to Geneva. Lesson learned: move the whole lot out of the USA for good.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slams UK, France and Canada in wake of deadly DC shooting

Stop paying. Bypass the organization and fund directly only what is consistent with American values and interests and is fully accountable to the U.S. taxpayer.

Apply sanctions. Impunity for the Declaration’s signatories is the wrong message to send states that endanger American national security and undermine our vital foreign policy goals. 

On Oct. 7, Palestinian terrorists massacred the nationals of 69 countries and kidnapped people from 22. That’s the Palestinian multilateralism the United Nations is all set to reward. 

Failing to respond is not an option.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Following unrelenting criticism from the United Nations, the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is once again being targeted by NGOs, even as it delivered its 155 millionth meal to Gazans on Saturday.

Doctors Without Borders, known by its French acronym MSF has launched ads criticizing GHFMeta’s Ad Library shows that in August it ran several Facebook ads targeting the foundation. One ad read ‘This is not aid. This is orchestrated killing.’ Another said, ‘In MSF’s 54 years, rarely have we seen such levels of systemized violence.’

Both allegations are taken from an Aug. 6 article on MSF’s website in which General Director Raquel Ayora describes accounts received from patients reportedly injured around GHF sites. Ayora says aid seekers claimed to have witnessed ‘children shot in the chest while reaching for food. People crushed or suffocated in stampedes. Entire crowds gunned down at distribution points.’ 

GHF spokesperson Chapin Fay called MSF’s accusations, ‘false and disgraceful,’ saying that it is ‘amplifying a disinformation campaign orchestrated by the Hamas-linked Gaza Health Ministry. They know better. By repeating these lies, they’re not aiding civilians, they’re aiding Hamas.’

‘No civilians have ever been shot at any of our distribution sites,’ Fay told Fox News Digital.

Fay said that ‘Nearly every day, Nasser Hospital issues false reports to the media of civilians killed near our sites, based solely on testimony from others. Not a single MSF doctor has ever witnessed an incident near our sites. Any conflict between Israel and Hamas, sometimes several kilometers away, the Gaza Health Ministry falsely links to GHF.’

In response to questions about whether MSF employees have witnessed injuries or deaths at GHF sites firsthand, a spokesperson told Fox News Digital that, ‘MSF has documented the impacts of violence and chaos at GHF sites in Gaza, based on firsthand accounts of our personnel and patients at two clinical sites, as well as a body of medical data.’

MSF declined to respond to questions about how much money it has spent on ads targeting GHF, or whether it has advocated for medical care for Israeli hostages taken by Hamas. 

The MSF spokesperson added, ‘For the past 22 months, humanitarian organizations working in Gaza and the West Bank have consistently faced baseless and inaccuratesmear campaigns.’

Though there is growing outcry about purported violence near GHF sites, reporting from the United Nations indicates that there were twice as many deaths surrounding humanitarian aid convoys (576) as there were deaths around GHF sites (259) between July 21 and Aug. 18. 

A U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs update from August states there were 1,889 deaths near aid sites between May 27 and Aug. 18, 1,025 ‘near militarized distribution sites’ and 864 ‘along convoy supply routes.’ As of July 21, U.N. News reported there were 1,054 deaths at food distribution sites, with 766 near GHF sites, and 288 near U.N. and humanitarian aid convoys.

The U.N. Human Rights Office did not respond to a request for confirmation of these figures by press time. 

Amid tensions between GHF and humanitarian aid organizations, Fay said that GHF nonetheless provided support to MSF in early August after it requested help to ‘safeguard their medical aid from the elements.’ A GHF post on X from Aug. 7. showed what it said were pallets of MSF aid in GHF care. MSF did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request to confirm that they asked GHF for assistance with their supplies. 

When GHF staff were brought to Nasser Hospital after a Hamas attack in June that killed eight, they did not receive care from MSF staff, according to Fay.

A GHF employee’s written statement provided to Fox News Digital describes how wounded workers were taken to Nasser Hospital, where doctors refused to treat them. The witness said survivors were placed in a courtyard, where hospital staff incited others to beat them. One GHF employee was reportedly stabbed.

‘Three more GHF staff died due to their lack of treatment by Nasser Hospital. MSF doctors work there, yet claim they weren’t aware of the situation,’ Fay said.

In an Aug. 25 report following the Israeli bombing of Nasser Hospital, MSF said that it ‘has been operational in Nasser since before the conflict escalated in October 2023, providing trauma and burn care, physiotherapy, neonatal and pediatric services, and treatment for malnourished children, among other critical services.’

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies has reported multiple times since October 2023 that Hamas fighters have been operating out of Nasser Hospital. On Aug. 26, FDD senior research analyst Joe Truzman shared photos on X of two Hamas summonses that reportedly ordered individuals to come to Nasser Hospital for questioning.

MSF did not respond to questions about GHF employees failing to receive care or whether its staff at Nasser Hospital were aware of Hamas’ operations at the site.

In an online statement about the incident, MSF said it ‘has seen no credible evidence that healthcare was refused by Ministry of Health or other medical staff.’ The group also said ‘MSF staff have not been present in the emergency department of Nasser Hospital since 2024.’
 

On Saturday, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation announced a new initiative to provide medical care to Gazans through a program with Samaritan’s Purse.

In a statement on X, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation said that in addition to treating wounds, injuries and infections, it was also helping pregnant women.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Republicans are getting closer to changing the upper chamber’s rules to allow for a slew of President Donald Trump’s lower-level nominees to be confirmed, and they’re closing in on a revived proposal from Democrats to do it.

The hope among Republicans is that using a tool that Senate Democrats once considered would allow them to avoid turning to the ‘nuclear option,’ meaning a rule change with a simple majority vote.

‘The Democrats should support it, because it was their original proposal that we’re continuing on,’ Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News Digital. ‘And I wouldn’t be surprised if they won’t. This historic obstruction by the Democrats is all playing to their far-left liberal base, who hate President Trump.’

Republicans met throughout the week behind closed doors to discuss their options and have begun to coalesce around a proposal that would allow them to take one vote to confirm a group of nominees, also known as ‘en bloc,’ for sub-Cabinet level positions.

So far, the only nominee to make it through the Senate with ease was Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January. Since then, various positions throughout the bureaucracy have stacked up and have not received a voice vote or gone through unanimous consent — two commonly-used fast-track procedures for lower-level positions in the administration.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was in charge of the Democrats, ‘this was always done in a way where, if you had some of the lower-level nominees in the administration, those were all voted en bloc, they were packaged, they were grouped, they were stacked.’

‘This is the first president in history who, at this point in his presidency, hasn’t had at least one nominee clear by unanimous consent or voice vote,’ he said. ‘It is unprecedented what they’re doing. It’s got to be stopped.’

And the number of nominees on the Senate’s calendar continues to grow, reaching 149 picks awaiting confirmation this week. The goal would be to make that rule change before lawmakers leave town for a week starting Sept. 22.

The idea comes from legislation proposed in 2023 by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Angus King, I-Maine, and former Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Republicans are eyeing their own spin on it, such as possibly not limiting the number of en bloc nominees in a group or excluding judicial nominees.

Republicans would prefer to avoid going nuclear — the last time the nuclear option was used was in 2019, when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lowered debate time on nominees to two hours — but they are willing to do so, given that Democrats haven’t budged on their blockade.

They may only be making a public display of resistance, however.

‘Democrats privately support what Republicans are talking about,’ a senior GOP aide familiar with negotiations told Fox News Digital. ‘They’re just too afraid to admit it.’

Sen. James Lankford, who worked with Thune and Barrasso over the recess to build a consensus on a rule change proposal, told Fox News Digital that his Democratic colleagues acknowledged that they’ve ‘created a precedent that is not sustainable.’

‘But then they’ll say, ‘but my progressive base is screaming at me to fight however I want to. I know I’m damaging the Senate, but I got to show that I’m fighting,’’ the Oklahoma Republican said.

‘We feel stuck, I mean, literally,’ Lankford continued. ‘Some of my colleagues have said, ‘We’re not the ones going nuclear. They’re the ones that are going nuclear.’’

Klobuchar told Fox News Digital that she appreciated the prior work she’s done with Lankford on ‘ways to make the Senate better’ but wasn’t ready to get behind the GOP’s version of her legislation.

‘When I proposed that, it was meant to pass as legislation, which means you would have needed bipartisan votes, and the reason that’s not happening right now is because the president keeps flaunting the law,’ she said.

Not every Senate Democrat is on board with the wholesale blockade, however.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., told Fox News Digital that lawmakers should all behave in a way in which administrations, either Republican or Democratic, get ‘those basic kinds of considerations’ for nominees.

‘That’s not the resistance,’ he said. ‘I just think that’s kind of unhelpful to just move forward. I mean, you can oppose people like the big ones, whether it’s [Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.] Kennedy or others.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer’s office for comment but did not immediately hear back. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS