No Proxies, No Problem: Israel's Airstrikes Signal the Beginning of Tehran's Decline

 

Israel’s airstrikes on Hamas leadership prove that the only language Iran and its proxies understand is force—and Israel speaks it fluently. In plain terms, the death of Yahya Sinwar, if confirmed, shows that Israel has dismantled the operational core of Hamas, leaving Iran with little more than hollow threats. 

The Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict is reaching new levels of complexity, with Yahya Sinwar—the mastermind behind the October 7, 2023 attacks—potentially killed in a recent Israeli airstrike. This has become a turning point for Israel, as Sinwar's death would not only eliminate a central figure but also deal a symbolic blow to Hamas’s command structure. Sinwar orchestrated one of the deadliest terrorist operations in Israel's history, taking 1,200 lives and capturing over 200 hostages, and his elimination would demonstrate Israel’s precision in targeting enemies at the core of its conflict.

Yet, this development is not only about decapitation strikes in Gaza. It has broader implications for Iran, which has long operated behind proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah to challenge Israel. Iran's credibility is faltering: despite its support for Hamas, it has been unable to shield its allies from Israel’s relentless attacks, showing cracks in the network of proxies it painstakingly cultivated. Israel’s surgical operations in Gaza and Lebanon have methodically undermined Iran’s influence, suggesting that Tehran cannot protect those who carry out its agenda. Such decapitation strikes are not just military victories—they are strategic messages that Israel is willing to dismantle Iran’s regional ambitions piece by piece.

Iran retaliated with a brazen ballistic missile assault on October 1, 2024, unleashing 200 missiles on Israeli targets. Despite this, Israel intercepted the vast majority, minimizing casualties and damage. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stern response—calling it a “big mistake”—underscores Israel's resolve to hit back decisively. With Iran struggling to land a meaningful blow, Israel now faces critical decisions about its next move. It can pursue one or several targets from four “baskets”: Iran’s leadership, its nuclear infrastructure, military installations, and the Revolutionary Guard. Each option would send a distinct message, with escalating consequences for Iran’s ambitions across the Middle East.

The tension between Israel and the Biden administration also looms large. Washington is reportedly advising Israel to avoid striking Iran's nuclear and energy infrastructure, wary of igniting a broader conflict. Yet, Israel must chart its own course, prioritizing national security over diplomatic caution. Israeli leaders are unlikely to heed U.S. advice if it conflicts with their survival strategy. “The Biden administration should stay in its lane,” critics say, as Israel's interests will not be subordinated to American political calculations. The proverb “He who wears the shoe knows where it pinches” aptly applies—Israel alone bears the immediate risk of Iranian aggression.

Meanwhile, the geopolitical chessboard is shifting as Israel tactically drives a wedge between Iran and its proxies. The airstrikes targeting Hamas and Hezbollah demonstrate that Iran's regional strategy is being neutralized step by step. Hezbollah has already suffered losses in southern Lebanon under Israeli drone strikes, adding to the disarray within Iran's network of allies. The cracks in this proxy system may soon widen as Israel continues to assert dominance, making Tehran’s task of keeping these groups united increasingly difficult.

Israel’s focus is also shifting toward retrieving hostages taken during the October 7 raid. These captives remain a grim reminder of the brutality unleashed by Hamas, and the IDF has pledged to prioritize their safe return. Israel’s counteroffensive is not just about eliminating threats but about restoring national dignity. Every hostage brought home would be a victory, reinforcing the message that Israel does not abandon its citizens under any circumstances.

Israel’s strategy moving forward will test the limits of its alliances, diplomacy, and military prowess. As Tehran flounders, Israel’s campaign chips away at the myth of invincibility Iran once projected. Whether by decapitating proxy leaders or neutralizing missile threats, Israel is sending a clear message: it will act with precision and decisiveness, even when the odds seem daunting. Those expecting Israel to temper its response may find themselves mistaken. As Netanyahu himself warned, “We will respond, and Iran will pay.”

In the end, Israel’s actions reflect an understanding that in the game of survival, hesitation is not an option. The situation recalls the old saying, “If the lion doesn't roar, the forest will laugh.” Israel, roaring loudly, will not allow its enemies the luxury of thinking they have the upper hand. As hostilities continue and decisions about a strike on Iran loom, one thing is clear: this conflict will not be dictated by outside powers. Israel is steering its own course—and if the Biden administration tries to interfere, it might just find itself left behind, watching Israel rewrite the rules of the Middle East on its own terms.

Why Roe v. Wade Was Never About Reproductive Rights—And Never Will Be

Calling abortion 'reproductive rights' is like calling murder 'population control'—it sugarcoats a brutal reality for the sake of political convenience. In plain English, Roe v. Wade didn't empower women; it just legalized the most morally acceptable way to end an inconvenient pregnancy.

You might think Roe v. Wade is the Holy Grail for women’s rights, especially if you listen to Kamala Harris and her allies on the extreme left. They talk about it like it’s a messianic moment for American women. The constant refrain of "restoring women's reproductive rights" is shouted from podiums and plastered on posters. But here’s the catch: they are not talking about giving women the ability to have children, which is what "reproductive" actually means. No, they are talking about abortion. When did abortion suddenly become synonymous with reproduction?

In any basic science class, reproduction is explained as the process of creating new life, continuing the human race. That’s biology 101. So how can the term "reproductive rights" be twisted into something that implies the termination of a pregnancy? Abortion, at its core, is the opposite of reproduction. It stops a potential life before it even begins. How can Kamala Harris and other extreme-left Democrats justify calling abortion a form of reproductive right? It is like calling destruction a form of creation. The two ideas simply don’t mix, but it’s been marketed so aggressively that many people now believe the lie.

The truth is that Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, has always been about granting the right to end a pregnancy, not about empowering women to procreate. Harris and her political allies keep framing the debate as if women’s freedom depends on their ability to access abortion. Yet, it’s worth asking: why can't they call it what it really is? Abortion is the legal ability to kill an unborn child. It’s not a pretty truth, but it’s the truth. It’s not about restoring women’s reproductive rights; it’s about expanding abortion rights, which is a completely different conversation.

The hypocrisy is staggering. These political leaders preach that they want to restore something to women that women already have—reproductive rights. From birth, every woman has the ability to reproduce. This is a natural, God-given right. It’s not something that a government or a court ruling can grant or take away. That ability belongs to every woman by virtue of her biology. Yet, Kamala Harris and the extreme left want to package abortion under the same banner as reproduction. In doing so, they avoid the moral weight of the term “abortion” and instead frame it as if it were an issue of basic freedom.

But if we are honest, abortion rights and reproductive rights are fundamentally different. One is the right to end a potential life; the other is the right to create one. Harris is attempting to conflate the two, but these are not interchangeable. In fact, the only reason this confusion exists is because abortion advocates have worked hard to muddy the waters. They know that abortion, as a standalone concept, is controversial. They know that it involves moral and ethical questions that many Americans feel uncomfortable addressing. So, instead of saying the word “abortion,” they wrap it in a feel-good term like "reproductive rights," which sounds so much more empowering and less charged.

The history of Roe v. Wade itself is a striking example of how language can be weaponized to shape public opinion. When the Supreme Court made its landmark ruling in 1973, it did not refer to "reproductive rights." It spoke about a woman’s right to privacy, which was interpreted to mean that she could make personal medical decisions, including whether or not to have an abortion. The term "reproductive rights" only began to creep into the national conversation years later as a way of softening the reality of what abortion actually entails. But a right to privacy is not the same thing as a right to terminate a pregnancy at will.

Harris and her supporters know that words matter. They know that public opinion can be swayed by how a debate is framed. That’s why they persist in calling abortion “reproductive rights,” knowing full well that it is a misnomer. They continue to champion Roe v. Wade as if it were the bedrock of women’s freedom. But the question that keeps being ignored is: freedom to do what? To terminate life?

And let's not forget the cultural impact of this debate. In America today, the narrative is that without access to abortion, women are somehow less free, less empowered. But this argument doesn’t hold up when examined closely. If reproduction is about creating life, then how does stopping a life empower anyone? Are we truly saying that the most liberating thing a woman can do is to terminate a pregnancy? It’s a twisted logic that only makes sense when you strip away the moral consequences of the act itself.

There’s also an ironic aspect to this whole debate. Many of the same people who argue for unrestricted abortion rights also advocate for saving endangered species, preventing animal cruelty, and promoting environmental sustainability. They value life in these areas but remain silent when it comes to the life of the unborn. The same crowd that pushes for zero-waste living has no problem with the waste of a human life. It’s an odd kind of inconsistency, one that can only be explained by a deep ideological commitment to the concept of personal autonomy, even at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Kamala Harris and her allies may continue to push for what they call “reproductive rights,” but the rest of us know better. This isn’t about women’s freedom to create life; it’s about the right to end it. The difference between the two is stark, and no amount of political rhetoric can erase that fact. If anything, their crusade to “restore” these so-called rights only highlights the emptiness of their argument. Women already have reproductive rights. They don’t need a law to tell them they have the ability to bring life into this world.

What Harris and her cohorts are really after is a moral free pass, an ability to do away with the responsibility that comes with reproduction. They want to turn the natural right to procreate into a legal right to abort. But no matter how they dress it up, abortion will never be the same thing as reproductive freedom. The language they use may be clever, but it’s dishonest.

So, if they want to talk about “restoring rights,” maybe they should start by being honest with the American people. But then again, maybe honesty isn’t what they’re after. Because in the world of extreme-left politics, it seems that “truth” is just another word that can be redefined to suit the agenda of the day.

Why Excel Isn’t Dying: AI and Excel—A Match Made in Data Heaven!

 

AI won't bury Excel; it will unleash its true potential, transforming ordinary spreadsheets into powerful engines of insight!

The rows of Microsoft Excel, filled with numbers, formulas, and functions, may look like the barren desert of digital toil to some, but it seems that the spreadsheet’s legendary grid is far from drying up. Rather than being swept away by the wave of artificial intelligence (AI), Excel might just be getting a powerful upgrade. It is like discovering a treasure trove under the desert sands—an oasis that promises to thrive with AI innovation.

Many might recall the dreaded "#VALUE!" error message that pops up when a formula goes wrong. For years, it has symbolized frustration for users across industries, from finance to logistics, turning spreadsheet usage into an exercise in patience. Yet, despite this, Excel remains a tool of choice for analysts, accountants, and business professionals. The legendary spreadsheet program, first launched in 1985, has endured for nearly 40 years and now boasts close to 400 million paid users, according to Microsoft’s most recent figures. What’s most surprising? Despite frequent doomsday predictions about its demise, Microsoft Excel isn’t going anywhere—AI might actually extend its reign.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella himself praised Excel as the “best consumer product” the company has ever created. Excel isn’t just a tool; it’s an institution, so beloved it has even inspired the birth of a world championship, where spreadsheet enthusiasts gather in Las Vegas to flex their formulaic muscles. This global fanfare isn’t without reason. The power Excel provides to companies, organizations, and individuals is indispensable, allowing them to conduct complex data analysis, asset pricing, and even business forecasting.

While Excel wasn’t the first spreadsheet for personal computers (that honor belongs to VisiCalc, created by Dan Bricklin in 1979), it introduced clever innovations that set it apart. By only recalculating affected cells instead of entire sheets when data was altered, Excel dramatically sped up workflows, especially on the limited hardware of the 1980s. Its graphical interface, replacing the clunky command-line interfaces of competitors like Lotus 1-2-3, made it easier for users to navigate complex data structures. It wasn’t long before Excel became the de facto spreadsheet tool for professionals.

But let’s be honest—Excel has seen its share of high-profile mistakes. Whether it’s botched gene names in scientific papers, the underreporting of COVID-19 cases in England, or exposing sensitive information in the January 6th trial in the U.S., Excel has been the scapegoat for plenty of errors. In each case, it wasn’t the software at fault but human error. Still, these gaffes haven’t put a dent in Excel’s dominance.

Enter artificial intelligence. One might think that AI is gunning for Excel’s throne. After all, machine learning tools, cloud-based platforms, and automated data systems have risen in prominence, offering capabilities to crunch data faster, with less human intervention. Yet, if we think Excel will die because of AI, we are sorely mistaken. The truth is, AI is poised to make Excel better, not obsolete.

In September 2023, Microsoft introduced a new AI assistant for Excel—Copilot. Instead of manually entering formulas, data, or managing complex pivot tables, users can now enter natural-language prompts to generate insights. Think of this as having a conversation with Excel. Need to know the best-selling product by region last quarter? Simply ask the AI assistant, and it provides the answer without having to tinker with layers of formulas. This natural-language functionality democratizes the power of Excel, making it easier for non-experts to extract meaningful data insights.

 

This isn’t the first time Excel has evolved to meet the challenges of modern data needs. Google Sheets, while gaining ground as a competitor, still lags behind in the world of advanced analytics and complex modeling. That’s where Excel’s power still holds sway. Excel’s legacy isn’t just in its history but in its capacity to adapt. With AI as its new ally, Excel may become more user-friendly while still retaining its advanced capabilities for power users.

Consider the recent explosion of data worldwide. Businesses now have access to more data than ever, and analyzing that data effectively is critical to staying competitive. In 2022 alone, it was estimated that over 79 zettabytes of data were created globally. Excel, with its traditional interface, may seem limited when facing this tidal wave of information, but not with AI integrated into the equation. By combining AI’s ability to process and interpret large datasets with Excel’s intuitive grid system, users can gain powerful insights without reinventing the wheel.

Let’s look at a real-life example. Financial analysts at a leading investment firm recently used the AI-powered Excel assistant to analyze a company's quarterly earnings. By asking the AI assistant to identify patterns and predict future trends based on historical data, they were able to produce detailed reports within hours—work that would have taken days, or even weeks, using traditional spreadsheets. This is just one of many instances where AI can supercharge Excel rather than replace it.

Naysayers might argue that AI could make Excel redundant. After all, aren’t there other tools that offer more sophisticated machine learning capabilities? Sure, there are. But the reason Excel will persist is that it offers a bridge between the old and the new. Excel is familiar, and it’s trusted. It’s the Swiss army knife of business tools—always there when you need it and capable of adapting to the task at hand. Rather than replacing it, AI will refine it, just like sharpening the blade on that trusty tool.

As the proverb goes, “A wise man changes his mind; a fool never will.” Microsoft isn’t afraid to evolve, and neither is Excel. History shows that Excel has weathered storms before. It outlasted competitors like Lotus 1-2-3, adapted to the internet age, and is now preparing to harness the full potential of AI.

So, will Microsoft Excel die? Not quite. It’s not just surviving but thriving, with AI becoming a powerful co-pilot. The truth is, it’s hard to beat something as ingrained as Excel—so don’t expect it to vanish any time soon. Instead, expect your spreadsheets to get a whole lot smarter. And as for those who think the spreadsheet era is over, well, they might want to try calculating again.

Perhaps one day, the machines will rise, but as long as humans need numbers organized and insights gained, Excel will remain the reliable sidekick. And if AI is to be the superhero of the future, then Excel will be the trusted cape that helps it soar.

Broken Beyond Repair: The United Nations on Life Support in a Fragmented World

 

The United Nations is a relic of post-WWII idealism that now operates as little more than a stage for geopolitical theater, while the real power brokers make their moves behind closed doors. In plain terms, the veto power held by a handful of permanent Security Council members transforms the U.N. from a force for global peace into a tool of political obstruction, ensuring that meaningful change is forever beyond its grasp. 

The United Nations has long been touted as humanity's ultimate collective solution for global crises—yet today, its inability to address pressing issues renders it more like a stranded ship than a lighthouse. While world leaders paraded optimism with the adoption of a new "Pact for the Future," many observers couldn’t help but wonder if the future the U.N. envisions has already escaped its grasp. This institution, originally conceived in the aftermath of the world’s deadliest war, seems now to be on the precipice of irrelevance, its ideals slowly suffocating under the weight of political maneuvering and bureaucratic inertia.

A poignant example of this came at the most recent U.N. General Assembly. Ostensibly centered on the "Pact for the Future"—a supposed roadmap to tackle our era’s challenges—the summit was mired in controversy even before the ink was dry. Russia, determined to weaken the pact, proposed amendments that would have diluted its core objectives. However, in an act that startled many, a majority of nations, including African countries and Mexico, rejected Russia's proposal outright. Yet even with the pact passed, skepticism filled the air, with several nations expressing frustration at its vagueness. Uganda’s Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja bluntly pointed out the imbalance in responsibilities between developing and developed countries, a discrepancy that the pact simply failed to address properly.

This latest show of disunity and doubt is emblematic of the broader crisis facing the United Nations. From the civil war in Sudan to the burgeoning tensions in Gaza, and the endless suffering in Haiti, the U.N. seems powerless to offer meaningful intervention. Its peacekeeping forces in Lebanon have effectively been relegated to mere onlookers amid the current Israel-Hezbollah tensions. Even in places where it once boasted of progress, such as Haiti, chaos continues to run rampant despite Security Council-backed interventions. These examples illustrate the glaring fact that the U.N. has not been able to wield its power effectively in today’s fast-changing global landscape.

Perhaps nowhere is the U.N.'s structural dysfunction more evident than in the Security Council, that relic from 1945. With five permanent members holding veto power—China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.—it embodies a bygone era of power distribution that doesn’t reflect the realities of our modern world. These five countries represent an outdated power structure, ignoring major nations like India, Japan, and Brazil, and excluding an entire continent—Africa—from having a permanent voice. Such an arrangement has rendered the U.N. impotent in situations where it truly matters, with vetoes too often wielded to uphold national interests rather than collective good. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky articulated this inherent flaw, noting that the veto mechanism allows aggressors to effectively paralyze the U.N. from enforcing peace and justice.

The adoption of the "Pact for the Future" in September 2024 was hailed by Secretary-General António Guterres as a watershed moment. It outlined commitments to nuclear disarmament, reforming the Security Council, and establishing a "Global Digital Compact" on the governance of artificial intelligence. But lofty commitments have been made before, only to be swept aside by the tides of national self-interest. Recall the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of 2015, which promised to eradicate poverty, fight inequality, and protect the planet. Nearly a decade later, progress on these goals has largely stalled or even regressed. The U.N. Development Goals Report 2024 paints a grim picture: not only have most goals been missed, but the disparities have widened due to the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and other calamities. One is left wondering whether the "Pact for the Future" will meet a similar fate.

The flaws in the U.N.’s foundational structure are stark, and they cannot be simply patched over with new agreements. As the political scientist Samuel Huntington once argued, "The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." This vision seems more prescient than ever, as nations increasingly revert to their geopolitical blocs, forsaking collective action for regional hegemony and old grudges. China, for example, has openly critiqued nations dividing into blocs, yet simultaneously forges alliances that reflect the very divisions it decries. It has expanded its influence over regions traditionally seen as Western allies, including Africa, challenging the Western-dominated global order while complicating the United Nations' ability to navigate international relations effectively.

Furthermore, the U.N.'s legitimacy is increasingly undermined by scandal and accusations of misconduct. Peacekeepers, instead of upholding their mandate to protect civilians, have faced numerous allegations of sexual abuse, leaving a trail of broken trust and shame. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has also been accused of harboring terrorist sympathizers. These stains on the U.N.’s record serve to embolden critics and discourage countries from supporting multilateral peacekeeping missions. When combined with the disillusionment from unmet development goals and ineffective conflict resolutions, the picture of an eroding institution becomes all too clear.

The 2024 summit may have concluded with applause and some fleeting optimism, but that veneer cannot conceal the underlying disillusionment. At its heart, the United Nations was built on two conflicting tenets: idealism and moral relativism. This strange combination means that the U.N. can propose grand visions—such as global nuclear disarmament or artificial intelligence regulation—but its inability to enforce these visions makes it a mere backdrop for power politics. As Arthur Waldron of the American Enterprise Institute put it, "China’s territorial claims would likely lead to regional war if consistently enforced." This is a reminder that the world still runs on the fuel of power and might, not on resolutions passed in New York City. The U.N.'s inability to enforce global norms in the face of regional powers asserting dominance signals its diminishing influence.

In a world where leaders such as Russia's Sergey Vershinin deride U.N. resolutions as "unacceptable" yet push their agendas aggressively on the ground, the message is clear: diplomacy is for the weak, and real power lies elsewhere. The persistent conflict in Gaza, the smoldering war in Ukraine, the collapse of order in Sudan—these aren’t anomalies but symptoms of a world that no longer takes the U.N. seriously. Even during the 2024 General Assembly, the imposition of strict five-minute speech limits was a tacit admission that fewer people are willing to listen for long to the rhetoric spewed in those halls.

The United Nations’ relevance is on a slippery slope, clinging to ideals that are slowly losing resonance in a fragmented and polarized global society. Reform, though often promised, has been stonewalled by vested interests. If anything, recent events are a reminder that perhaps the U.N. isn’t just losing its way—it’s being left behind altogether. And perhaps the world, recognizing this truth, will soon stop pretending that an institution that can barely muster consensus on paper will somehow save us from real crises. As they say, "He who rides a tiger cannot dismount," and the U.N. finds itself riding a beast of bureaucracy, unable to steer or even get off—headed inexorably toward irrelevance.

Kamala Harris's Flailing Campaign: Desperation in the Final Days?

  

Kamala Harris's campaign strategy has devolved into throwing whatever it can at the wall, hoping something sticks as her lead evaporates—clear evidence of desperation. The fact that former Presidents Obama and Clinton are practically propping up Harris on stage speaks volumes—she simply can't carry this campaign on her own.

The countdown to Election Day has Kamala Harris’s campaign running on fumes—she's feeling the heat, and it's evident. The once solid lead Harris held over her rival, former President Donald Trump, has eroded to a statistical tie, and her campaign has shifted into panic mode. While polls initially showed Harris with a commanding lead after her acceptance of the Democratic nomination, recent numbers reveal a deadlock as Trump closes the gap. Harris’s approval in Pennsylvania barely edges Trump by 49% to 48%, while Trump holds a wider lead in states like Wisconsin with 57% to 39% among Catholic voters—a group he narrowly won over Joe Biden in 2020. The Catholic vote remains crucial, and this shrinking margin has sent alarm bells ringing across Harris’s camp, prompting a flurry of last-minute strategizing and campaign blitzes to counter Trump's momentum.

Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton emerging from the shadows to campaign fervently for Harris is a testament to the growing sense of desperation. Obama took to the campaign trail in Pennsylvania on October 10, 2024, and Clinton was out in Georgia, fiercely trying to turn the tide. Clinton's attempts to pin recent controversies, like the death of nursing student Laken Riley, on Trump were clear signals that the campaign is grasping at straws. Instead of rallying support, his comments backfired, providing Republicans with a gift-wrapped soundbite, casting doubts on Harris’s ability to control the narrative. Such slip-ups have highlighted the missteps that have plagued Harris's campaign, further intensifying the sense of chaos and uncertainty in her team.

Adding to the turmoil, Harris's outreach to specific voter groups, such as Black men, has also faced significant obstacles. Harris has struggled to keep Trump from peeling away key segments of Black male voters. In a recent move aimed at shoring up her support, Harris appeared on "The View" with Stephen Colbert, cracking a beer and attempting to appeal to working-class sensibilities. Yet, the gesture came off as awkward and inauthentic, unable to bridge the gap to voters who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the promises of the Democratic establishment. As polls tighten across the Midwest, Harris has also attempted to talk more about industrial policy—a topic she largely ignored in the early days of her campaign. However, this too seems to be too little, too late. Voters in battleground states like Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina appear unconvinced, and Trump has capitalized on their skepticism, focusing on issues of border security and economic concerns to bolster his standing.

The panic in Harris’s campaign is further highlighted by her recent media spree—an apparent response to criticism that she has not been accessible enough to voters. After weeks of minimal interaction with mainstream media, Harris has embarked on an aggressive series of interviews, hoping to regain control of the narrative. However, the results have been mixed at best. Facing tough questions, Harris has struggled to present a clear and compelling vision for America, and the effort has only served to further highlight the inconsistencies within her campaign. Just as her media blitz began, Trump's campaign countered by announcing a rally at Madison Square Garden, a calculated move aimed at capturing media attention and energizing his base in a traditionally liberal state. Trump’s ability to draw attention away from Harris, even as she scrambles to connect with voters, is emblematic of her campaign’s struggle to break through the noise and define the terms of the race.

Harris's difficulty in addressing criticisms and countering Trump’s messaging has resulted in her losing ground where it matters most: the swing states. The polls in critical battlegrounds show an increasingly precarious situation. Trump leads in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, while Harris is holding on to slim leads in Nevada and Pennsylvania. The narrowing margins in these states have turned what was once a comfortable lead into a fight for survival. With the odds of winning the Electoral College slipping to their lowest point yet, the pressure on Harris to make a decisive comeback is growing by the day. A recent batch of polls, including those from Emerson College, Marist College, and The New York Times, all point to a virtual tie—a situation that leaves Harris vulnerable to any late-breaking "October surprise" that could tip the election in Trump's favor.

In what appears to be a bid to salvage the situation, the Harris campaign has even rolled out a push to create a bipartisan advisory council in Arizona, signaling a pivot to a more centrist message in hopes of appealing to disillusioned Republicans. But such moves carry the risk of alienating her core Democratic supporters, many of whom feel the campaign’s messaging has already been too vague and uninspiring. The balancing act that Harris is attempting—between energizing her base and reaching across the aisle—is proving to be more of a tightrope walk without a safety net.

Perhaps most telling of the campaign’s struggles is Harris's inability to maintain momentum in what should be friendly territory. Even in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to her path to victory, her lead is wafer-thin, and Trump has been relentless in challenging her on economic issues and public safety—a tactic that resonates with many undecided voters who are increasingly concerned about inflation, crime, and the broader economic uncertainty gripping the country. Meanwhile, her repeated attempts to paint Trump as a threat to democracy seem to be losing their effectiveness as voters become more focused on their day-to-day concerns rather than grand political narratives.

The final stretch of the campaign is shaping up to be a sprint with Harris playing catch-up. Obama’s and Clinton’s involvement, intended to be an asset, is beginning to feel like a desperate move by the establishment to prop up a faltering candidate. Harris’s campaign is being forced to expend resources and energy simply to maintain the ground she had previously gained—a position no candidate wants to be in with just 20 days left until the election. The involvement of high-profile surrogates might boost her visibility temporarily, but it also risks reinforcing the image that Harris cannot win on her own merits—that she requires the heavyweights of the Democratic Party to bail her out of a tight spot.

As the campaign heads into its final weeks, one thing is clear: Kamala Harris's campaign is not where it hoped to be at this stage of the race. The mixed messages, the frantic attempts to regain lost ground, and the ever-tightening polls all point to a campaign in a state of disarray. The reality is that the enthusiasm gap between Harris’s supporters and Trump’s loyal base is growing, and unless Harris finds a way to reverse this trend, her chances of victory may slip away.

After all, as the proverb goes, "A drowning man will clutch at a straw"—and from the looks of things, Harris’s campaign is clutching at whatever it can. Whether or not these desperate measures will suffice remains to be seen, but with the clock ticking and Trump breathing down her neck, the Vice President's quest for the Oval Office looks increasingly shaky. And perhaps, as the critics say, the real "October surprise" is just how disorganized the Harris campaign has turned out to be—proof that even with all the right endorsements, the wrong strategy can still lead to disaster.

 

 

 

 

Double Standards in Action: Why the World Holds Israel Back from Its Survival Battle

 

Calls for a ceasefire are nothing but thinly veiled attempts to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to regroup and strike again. Period.

Israel’s recent military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah are more than a response—they are a battle for survival in a region where the threats are relentless, calculated, and specifically targeted at the only democracy in the Middle East. Critics often cast Israel as an aggressor, but a deeper look reveals a troubling hypocrisy, one that demands to be exposed. This ongoing conflict is not just another episode in the Israel-Palestine saga; it's a showdown orchestrated by Iran’s cold determination to crush the Jewish state while the world watches, often with selective moral outrage.

The chain of violence saw a brutal escalation on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a sudden and bloody attack, leaving over 1,200 Israelis dead and propelling the conflict to unprecedented levels of violence. Since then, Hezbollah and Iran have ramped up the pressure, with the latest salvo of 181 missiles fired by Iran raining down on Israel as recently as October 2024. If any nation faced attacks of this magnitude, the response would be unequivocal. Yet, as Israel fights for its right to exist, the Western outcry against its so-called "disproportionate response" is deafening. Do these critics truly believe that Israel should sit by idly and accept such aggression, simply because they happen to inhabit the most precarious neighborhood on Earth?

History, particularly that of the past year, teaches us that Iran is not an innocent bystander, but a dangerous player actively engaged in proxy warfare against Israel. Iranian officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard boast openly about their capabilities and their intention to see Israel fall. Hezbollah, Iran’s willing ally, has continued to launch missile barrages in coordination with Hamas, effectively keeping Israel under siege from multiple fronts. To expect Israel to hold back under such conditions is nothing less than lunacy—would Washington or London respond with anything less than full force if Tehran's rockets were landing in Times Square or Trafalgar Square?

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the stance of the state abundantly clear: “We will act at the place and time of our choosing.” Israel’s military response isn't about expansion or conquest—it’s about survival. It’s about ensuring that an attack like that of October 7 never repeats itself. It’s about stopping Hezbollah and Iran from tightening their grip around Israel’s borders. It’s about sending a message to Iran that their ambition to dominate the region through terror tactics will be met with an iron wall.

Iran’s desire to "resist" does not end at Gaza or Lebanon—it extends to the destabilization of the entire Middle East. The fact that Iran continues to expand its ballistic missile arsenal while defying the international community in its nuclear pursuits should serve as a wake-up call. Iran's ambitions are dangerous not only to Israel but to the entire region. Yet, the world seems more concerned with condemning Israel’s actions rather than addressing the root of the problem. Why do we so conveniently forget that Iran is the one pushing for instability by funding terror groups that are committed to Israel's destruction?

This irony is underlined by the world's reaction—or lack thereof—to the suffering of Israelis. When Hezbollah launches rockets into Israeli cities, the calls for restraint are almost exclusively aimed at Israel. These critics forget that no sovereign nation could tolerate being attacked from all sides without taking definitive action. Israel's military actions are necessary steps towards ensuring its future. Yet, some Western voices remain fixated on labeling these defensive actions as "excessive." Imagine for a moment if Hezbollah fired rockets into New York or Berlin—would the United States or Germany be asked to negotiate with those terrorists?

The narrative pushed by some international observers is dangerously skewed. Terrorists are painted as "freedom fighters," while Israel, the victim of unprovoked and vicious attacks, is depicted as the aggressor. This distorted narrative is not only misleading but also emboldens Iran and its allies, sending them a clear signal that the world might tolerate their actions if they dress them up as “resistance.” Israel cannot afford such misinterpretation, nor should it bow to the hypocrisy of those who can’t see past their selective outrage.

Consider the October 2024 missile attack that saw over 181 missiles raining on Israel. This was not an isolated act but a calculated escalation, designed to provoke fear, chaos, and international condemnation of Israel’s inevitable response. If the tables were turned and these missiles targeted Paris, would any government hesitate to eradicate the threat by any means necessary? Of course not. Yet, in the eyes of some Western critics, Israel must live by different rules, even as it faces coordinated attacks from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran from afar.

The double standards applied by many international leaders and observers aren’t just an insult—they’re a danger. They embolden Israel's enemies, signaling to them that attacking Israel comes with little consequence in terms of international backlash. It’s time for a reckoning of the biases that have long influenced global discourse around Israel and its right to defend itself. We must ask: Why do we demand restraint from Israel that we wouldn’t demand from ourselves?

Israel's current offensive is not merely a retaliatory strike; it's a stand for its continued existence. Iran’s proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah—act on Iran’s bidding, and their increased coordination means a greater threat to Israel’s future. As such, Israel’s actions should be understood as a strategic necessity, not an optional venture. Any nation in Israel’s position would do the same, but unlike Israel, they might not be faced with the same global criticism, which so often appears politically motivated rather than grounded in a genuine concern for peace.

And then there is the human cost—both sides feel it, but only one side has been explicitly clear about its goal: to annihilate the other. Israel's enemies want it wiped off the map, while Israel wants nothing more than to live in peace. It’s time to support Israel’s right to secure its borders without constantly questioning its morality. The argument that Israel should negotiate with groups committed to its annihilation falls apart upon any serious examination. Would America sit at the table with those explicitly plotting its destruction? History and logic say no.

Israel stands alone at a crossroads: between survival and annihilation, between self-defense and self-sacrifice. In a region where enemies lurk at every border, the strategy is straightforward: to eliminate those who threaten to erase the nation from existence. The West must wake up and understand this—not hinder Israel in its quest for security. A proverb says, "When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you." For Israel, those enemies are real, present, and as dangerous as ever. The only path to lasting security lies in their total elimination.

For those who condemn without understanding, the challenge is simple: imagine if it were your home, your children, under attack. Imagine if the rockets were falling on your cities. The reaction wouldn't be so tempered then, would it?

Mike Johnson Will Certify the 2024 Election—Even if Harris Wins!

Speaker Johnson is no puppet—whether Harris or Trump wins, he will certify the 2024 election without hesitation, shattering any fantasies of electoral rebellion.

As the rumor mill churns with speculation about Mike Johnson, the newly elected Speaker of the House, one thing stands out: he has quickly become a lightning rod for controversy. Some on the extreme left are pushing a narrative that Johnson, a staunch ally of Donald Trump, might refuse to certify the 2024 election results if Trump loses. But is there any truth to these rumors, or are they just political fearmongering?

To set the record straight, let’s start with who Speaker Johnson really is. Known for his deep religious convictions and principled stance on governance, Johnson is not the caricature that some critics are painting. While it’s true that he supported efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election, he has since made it clear that, as Speaker, he will ensure the election results are handled fairly and constitutionally, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump wins the 2024 race.

During an interview, Johnson emphasized that if the 2024 election is free, fair, and legal, he will certify the results without hesitation. His exact words were, "Of course, if we have a free, fair, and safe election, we’re going to follow the Constitution"—a clear commitment to the democratic process. This statement alone should put to rest some of the anxiety being stoked by certain media outlets and political figures, yet for many, his role in the 2020 election challenges continues to cast a long shadow.

It’s important to remember, however, that political leaders evolve, and Johnson’s track record as Speaker so far reflects a man more concerned with doing his job than with partisan theatrics. In fact, Johnson’s recent success in navigating the House to secure $61 billion in funding for Ukraine and $4 billion for Israel stands in stark contrast to Trump’s opposition to these measures. Johnson pushed these bills through without triggering a government shutdown, signaling his ability to balance competing interests—even when they conflict with Trump’s preferences. This act alone showcases a leader who is pragmatic, methodical, and capable of making independent decisions, even under pressure.

There’s no doubt that Trump views Johnson as a useful ally. But if Trump assumes that Johnson will bend to his every whim if he returns to power, he may be in for a rude awakening. Johnson is a man of faith and principles, and those principles may very well guide him in a different direction than Trump anticipates. Should Kamala Harris win, Johnson’s response might surprise Democrats as well, proving that his commitment is to the Constitution, not to any political figure.

The fear surrounding Johnson’s role in the 2024 election largely stems from the fact that he was instrumental in contesting the 2020 results. As a constitutional lawyer, he spearheaded efforts to object to Biden’s victory in several states, citing concerns about how pandemic-related voting changes were handled. However, it’s crucial to note that Johnson also condemned the violence of January 6th and has acknowledged Biden as the legitimate president, which shows a nuanced approach to the very issues that many of his critics fear.

Another point of concern has been Johnson’s close ties to the MAGA movement and his conservative views. His deep religious faith and social conservatism, which align closely with Trump’s base, fuel fears that he may prioritize partisan interests over democracy itself. Yet, for those who understand Johnson’s background, this perspective misses a key element of his character. Johnson’s faith is rooted in the idea of justice and fairness. It is highly unlikely that he would tarnish his reputation by subverting the will of the voters.

Some Democratic leaders have expressed their concerns, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reportedly speaking privately with colleagues about potential strategies for the 2024 certification process. Their worry? That Johnson, given his past, could play a pivotal role in disrupting the electoral process if the results don’t favor Trump. Yet Johnson’s assurances, combined with his recent actions in Congress, suggest otherwise. He’s proven to be more pragmatic than many initially believed, deftly handling a divided House and delivering legislative victories without bowing to hardline demands from any one faction.

As we look ahead to 2025, the question isn’t just whether Johnson will certify the election results—it’s whether the fears being stoked around him are justified or merely the result of political theater. Johnson has already shown that he can handle immense pressure without falling into partisan traps, and his track record as Speaker suggests that he will continue to act in accordance with the law, not the whims of any political group.

In the end, both Trump and Harris may find themselves caught off guard by Speaker Johnson. Trump might expect a loyal foot soldier, only to find a leader who follows his own moral compass. Harris, should she win, may anticipate resistance, but could instead encounter a man who upholds the Constitution, no matter who occupies the White House.

It’s been said that “a man of principle is a man who refuses to lie, even when the whole world would prefer him to do so.” If Johnson’s principles guide him as they have in the past, then those waiting for him to play the role of Trump’s puppet or Harris’ antagonist might be in for a surprise. After all, even in politics, not every rumor holds water. And sometimes, the quiet, methodical leaders are the ones who surprise us the most.