Three Arab League countries tell Hamas to surrender
What’s up with this?:
Arab nations have taken the unprecedented step of telling Hamas to lay down its arms and surrender control of Gaza.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt called for the terrorist group to “disarm” and disband. It is the first time these countries have condemned Hamas and demanded it play no part in the future of Palestine.
The landmark shift comes after Sir Keir Starmer issued Israel with an ultimatum, pledging to recognise Palestine if Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration fails to take steps to end the war in Gaza by September.
The three Arab countries joined 14 other nations, including Britain and France, in calling for the disbandment of the group.
So they’re crediting Starmer for the Arab move? And the plan is to reward the PA, just as bad as Hamas? Apparently:
“Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state.”
And get a load of this:
It comes amid confusion over whether or not the release of remaining hostages is a condition for the recognition of Palestine, with transport secretary Heidi Alexander on Wednesday morning tying herself in knots on the issue, despite Sir Keir saying that it was.
She told the BBC ministers have “always said right from day one that the hostages need to be released”, adding that the UK expects “Hamas to act in the same way as we expect Israel to act”.
Hamas and Israel act the same? What moral inversion.
This may be a hint at what’s motivating Starmer:
The formation of a new left-wing political party, led by Jeremy Corbyn and ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana last week piled further pressure on the PM to act.
Starmer probably thinks he needs to finesse that by moving further to the left.
Republican hopes to keep the House in 2026 include redistricting
Quite a few states are potentially involved:
The Speaker is clearly referencing the announcement of the new Texas GOP redistricting plan for the U.S. House seats in Texas, which was announced recently and could change a 25 Republican to 13 Democrat House delegation edge to a 30 Republican to 8 Democrat edge. This would be a net gain of 5 seats, if the five new seats that are all pro-Trump by double digits vote Republican. But a lot depends on whether the Hispanic voters in those districts continue their electoral march towards the GOP.
This is not the only redistricting plan that Johnson may be relying on. We are also waiting on the Ohio GOP to redistrict, which may net 2 or 3 more seats. It is also possible that Republicans will redistrict in Indiana, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire and Florida.
Democrats are outraged, of course, as though they have never engaged in anything of the sort. In Texas, Democrat legislators plan to leave the state in order to make it so that a vote on the proposal is stymied by the lack of a quorum, despite a Texas law designed to prevent an action like that:
By fleeing the state to deprive the Legislature of enough members to function, Democrats would each incur a fine of $500 per day and face the threat of arrest. Deep-pocketed donors within the party appear ready to cover these expenses, according to three people involved in the discussions.
The donors’ willingness to foot the bill eliminates a major deterrent to walking out — the personal financial cost — and could embolden Democrats who might otherwise hesitate.
But first, the donors and absconding members would need to figure out how to skirt a potential roadblock: Texas House rules prohibit lawmakers from dipping into their campaign coffers to pay the fines. Republicans approved the $500 daily punishment in 2023, two years after Democrats fled the state in an unsuccessful bid to stop Republicans from passing an overhaul of the state’s election laws.
Two people involved in the latest Democratic fundraising strategy sessions, who were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, claim their legal teams have found a way to disburse the funds to the members but declined to provide any additional details.
Our Democracy is to thwart the will of the majority and evade the rules. I wonder what that undisclosed method might be.
There will, of course, be several court challenges by the Democrats of Texas. The first will involve challenging the law establishing the penalties. Another will be the tried and true method of saying the Republicans’ redistricting plans are racist.
NOTE: This is my very first post with the “Election 2026” tab. Sigh.
Medical update on my ex
A bit of clarification on yesterday’s post …
Yes, the rehab hospital has all sorts of equipment that would allow them to help a person walk safely without a walker under supervision. But they say they will not use it on him – and they meant they would not use it for the entire duration of his stay, however long he is there (which will supposedly be about ten days or so, but maybe more). I told them I thought that since he’s never used a walker before and until his health crisis a few days ago he was walking without one, that they would at least try while he was there to get him walking without one again. They said they will not try. I asked them why, and they said it was because of his stooped posture and (slightly) shuffling gait. I said that both are from the Parkinson’s he’s had for five years and neither has ever stopped him from walking unaided. But they insisted that at their hospital those things mean they will never let him walk without a walker, even with them holding onto belts strapped around him, and walking right beside him.
So yesterday when I was visiting the rehab hospital I spoke to his case manager about it, and she said she’d talk to the therapists to see if something can be arranged. I hope so, because the lack of independence is something he finds extremely frustrating. And it’s not just that he is not allowed to walk without a walker. It’s that he’s not allowed to do much of anything on his own. He’s not allowed to stand from a sitting position, or stand from lying down, and if he does either a big alarm gets sets off. And what seems to me to be worst of all – and which I just discovered yesterday for the very first time – is that they tether his wheelchair to the bed with what amounts to a short leash, which means that even when I am visiting he and the wheelchair cannot be moved more than a few inches, even by me. For example, I cannot wheel him a few feet to look out the window. I cannot take him for a spin in the wheelchair down the hallway, or take him outside where there is some sort of garden I’ve yet to see.
That seems to me to be way too restrictive. I plan to have a discussion about it today with the case manager, and I want an answer that makes sense. The whole thing is depressing him (and me) and he is getting very frustrated and angry as well, which cannot possibly be helpful to anyone, or to his health and recovery.
By the way, this is a very highly rated facility. Beautiful physical plant, pretty decent food. But something is not right with the degree to which they are limiting his independence – even when he’s sitting in a wheelchair and I’m there.
Open thread 8/1/2025
Hello, August!
No medical news today …
… so far on my ex’s stay at the rehab facility.
One thing I see that’s a potential problem is that, although he was walking on his own until he had the health crisis (partly caused by dehydration) this past Saturday, now they’ll only let him walk with a walker. It seems to me that they should let him try some walking on his own while they are close by, in order for them to help him and give him tips on how to do that in the safest manner and to see what he’s capable of. But they say that for safety reasons he has to use a walker at all times when he’s at the facility. They are doing that, they say, to protect him – but of course it protects them as well.
So how does a person get ready to walk independently if they won’t let him?
Clapper’s crew threatened the Russiagate whistleblower
And is anyone surprised?
From Margot Cleveland:
A crony of then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper threatened to withhold a promotion from a senior intelligence official unless he concurred in the fake Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, notes obtained exclusively by The Federalist show.
And why did they fail to burn the burn bags which apparently contained some further incriminating material?
The UK, France, and Canada are gung-ho on a Palestinian state
Why are they rewarding terrorism and those who would destroy not just Israel but the West in general? Is it to appease and placate their own Muslim populations? Is it because they hate Israel – that “shitty little country”?
Here’s the story with Canada:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Wednesday that Canada will recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September, in a fresh diplomatic blow to Israel as it faces increasingly intensifying international criticism over the war in Gaza.
He said the move was “predicated on the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to much-needed reforms,” including elections in 2026, anti-corruption measures, and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Carney stressed he was “not in any way or shape minimizing that scale of that task.”
“Clearly that’s not a possibility in the near term,” the prime minister said, adding that Canada has joined the efforts of other states to “preserve the possibility of a two-state solution.”
This makes so little sense that I wonder if I’m understanding Carney correctly. It seems to me that he’s saying he will recognize a Palestinian state in September, “predicated” on certain PA reforms that have not happened and probably will not happen. He also clings to the fantasy of a 2-state solution, something that has failed since the beginning and that 10/7 made clear was dead in the water. And yet in about a month he’s set to recognize a Palestinian state that doesn’t exist and is more accurately described as a terrorist entity.
This is not the first time brutal terrorism has paid off big time for the Palestinians; it happened after the Munich massacre in 1972, which made Arafat a star and ended up with his addressing the UN two years later.
The following just might be my favorite quote from Canada’s Carney. It is quite stunning in its obtuse and perverse reversal of the truth:
“Canada condemns the fact that the Israeli government has allowed a catastrophe to unfold in Gaza,” he said.
The Israeli ambassador to Canada had a good response:
Iddo Moed, Israel’s ambassador to Canada, said Israel “will not bow to the distorted campaign of international pressure against it.”
“We will not sacrifice our very existence by permitting the imposition of a jihadist state on our ancestral homeland that seeks our annihilation,” he said in a statement.
”Recognizing a Palestinian state in the absence of accountable government, functioning institutions, or benevolent leadership, rewards and legitimizes the monstrous barbarity of Hamas,” Moed continued. “It punishes Israeli and Palestinian victims of Hamas, vindicates Hamas.”
That seems completely obvious to me.
NOTE: O’Neill on Starmer’s threat to Israel.
NOTE II: Trump says the Canadian trade deal might be at risk:
President Donald Trump warned Wednesday that Canada’s promise to recognise a ‘Palestinian state’ would hurt its prospect of a trade deal with the United States.
President Trump responded on Truth Social by writing: “Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!”
“Oh Canada” is a pun on the title of the Canadian national anthem, which is “O Canada.”
Open thread 7/31/2025
The NY Times continues its blood libel of Israel
Blood-libeling Israel seems to be high on the Times’ agenda, and I don’t think they have any intention whatsover of stopping; see this:
The New York Times published a photo—taking up nearly half the front page—showing what appears to be a child dying of starvation in Gaza.
It shocked the world, as it should. It was horrific, if a bit weird, since the mother for some reason seemed well fed.
After we exposed the lies and cynical exploitation of Gazan children who suffer from rare genetic diseases that cause their bodies to become severely emaciated, who have become symbols of hunger – the New York Times, one of the world’s largest newspapers that echoed this lie itself, published a clarifying tweet… The problem is that a week has passed, and after you publish the picture of a child like this on the cover, a small clarifying tweet doesn’t really help. This is how media outlets in the world that are supposed to be objective and balanced become tools for Hamas propaganda. Instead of having to apologize over and over again, take some advice – do your job, investigate, and publish only the truth and facts, even if it means that Israel is actually right.
It fed every narrative that Hamas and its supporters want you to believe, and did so in the most powerful way. Because a picture is not worth a thousand words, but millions of them. You cannot unsee a starving child. No amount of statistics can dissuade you from believing what your eyes show you, even if what they show you isn’t exactly real.
Absolutely, and the press learned this long long ago. The Times almost certainly knew the provenance of the photos it published and didn’t care. The paper has its agenda.
Bill Maher does something unusual – he says he was wrong
I’m not a Bill Maher fan. But I give him credit for this. So few people, in private life or public, admit they were wrong. But Maher did:
The stock market is at record highs….I don’t see a country in a depression at all. I see people out there just living their lives.
“And I would have thought — and I gotta own it — that these tariffs were going to f***ing sink this economy by this time — and they didn’t. So, how do we feel with that fact? Because that’s the fact.”
“I gotta own it” is an unusual sentiment, especially with public figures whose pronouncements have been seen and read by so many people.
Maher also changed his mind on something else:
NEW: Bill Maher *RAVES* over Trump’s Iran strike
“I loved it. That was a home run.”
“And I’m a guy who was always saying … we should try to see if the Obama plan — the peace deal that Obama made — can work.”
“Maybe I was wrong.”
It’s certainly not a full-blown political conversion. But it’s nevertheless something of which many people – I think most people – are incapable.
Now the EPA feels the heat
It was Nixon who established the EPA by an EO in December of 1970, later ratified by Congress. It seemed well-intentioned enough:
At its start, the EPA was primarily a technical assistance agency that set goals and standards. Soon, new acts and amendments passed by Congress gave the agency its regulatory authority. A major expansion of the Clean Air Act was approved in December 1970.
EPA staff recall that in the early days there was “an enormous sense of purpose and excitement” and the expectation that “there was this agency which was going to do something about a problem that clearly was on the minds of a lot of people in this country,” leading to tens of thousands of resumes from those eager to participate in the mighty effort to clean up America’s environment.
But power tends to corrupt, or at least grow and grow. From a WSJ editorial:
EPA [under the current Trump administration] is proposing to undo what Congress never gave the agency the authority to do: Regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and others that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
A 5-4 Supreme Court majority ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that greenhouse gases could qualify as pollutants under a capacious reading of the law. Ergo, the EPA must regulate them if it finds they endanger the public. Thus arose the Obama 2009 endangerment finding that undergirds federal climate diktats.
The finding acknowledged scientific uncertainties about the effect of CO2 emissions on temperatures, extreme weather, allergies, diseases and more. But it cherry-picked studies to support the dubious proposition that greenhouse gases pose a clear and present danger to the public.
The gist of it is the administration’s claim that CO2 is not a pollutant like the ones envisioned in the Clean Air Act:
Those pollutants “are subject to regulatory control because they cause local problems depending on concentrations that include nuisances (odor, visibility), damage to plants, and, at high enough exposure levels, toxicological effects in humans,” the report notes. “In contrast, CO2 is odorless, does not affect visibility and has no toxicological effects at ambient levels.”
In other words, higher levels of CO2 in the air from fossil fuels won’t make you sick. This is a distinction Democrats elide when they claim that increases in CO2 will cause dirtier air.
It matters because this expansion to CO2 was the way a host of regulations came to be: electric-vehicle mandates, the retirement of fossil-fuel fired power plants, and proposals to regulate CO2 emissions from such things as leaf blowers and lawn mowers which use fossil fuels.
Obviously, there are legal hurdles ahead.
NOTE: Here’s one of the comments to the article:
It too late anyway. The Republicans have won the extreme weather, inundated coastline, wildfire raged future they future they always wanted. Gee, I wonder why people aren’t lining up to have babies anymore? It is too dangerous and too expensive.