[Breitbart] Federal prosecutors in western Washington will no longer defend many cases filed by immigration detainees seeking release.
The office confirmed the change Monday. Acting U.S. Attorney Charles Neil Floyd had sent it out in an Oct. 26 letter to Chief U.S. District Judge David Estudillo, a Biden appointee, telling the court it cannot keep answering the dozens of habeas corpus petitions filed in the district each week. A habeas petition asks a federal judge to decide whether the government is holding someone lawfully.
Under the arrangement Floyd described, if no government lawyer shows up within seven court days of a scheduling order, a judge can treat the petition as unopposed and rule on the detainee’s papers alone. Floyd also told the court it could email release orders straight to the ICE facility in Tacoma.
That has already happened. U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright, another Biden appointee, ruled Saturday that the petition of Baljit Singh, an asylum seeker from India, was “intentionally unopposed” and ordered him released within one day. Cartwright wrote that she knew of no precedent for the Justice Department using its discretion this way.
The government’s response in Singh’s case was not due until Nov. 12. Cartwright ordered him out five days early.
Judge Kymberly Evanson, also put on the bench by Biden, granted an unopposed petition in Seattle the same weekend. The government had full access to the facts and offered no basis to rebut the petition, she wrote, and by sitting out the case it gave up whatever arguments it might have raised.
A ProPublica tracker puts the district’s total near 2,000 since January 2025 and the nationwide count above 93,000 across the same stretch. Border czar Tom Homan has pegged the national figure at roughly 85,000.
The caseload started with a July 2025 ICE memo. Someone picked up years after crossing illegally is now handled as a new arrival stopped at the border, which closes off any bond request to an immigration judge. Detainees who wanted out were left with federal court.
Most federal appeals courts to reach the issue have ruled that holding immigrants with no bond hearing runs afoul of federal law. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits landed on the administration’s side. The Supreme Court agreed in October to settle the split. Floyd, before he ran the office, joined three other Washington judges in urging that immigration courts be stopped from setting bond for detainees.
#2
It sounds like this is only in western Washington State, not across the country. A matter of picking battles given limited resources and limited personnel.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
[Regnum] A female bear killed a hunter who was pursuing a wounded moose in the Kirov region. This was reported on November 10 by a local news outlet. Figured it would be a Flying Squirrel
According to Incidentia.ru, the tragedy occurred on November 7. A longtime hunter had obtained a permit to hunt two moose. To do so, he and his 20-year-old son went to the hunting grounds of the Yuryansky District Society of Hunters and Fishermen. The men did not bring any communication devices or dogs. The hunter managed to shoot one moose and wound the second.
Afterward, he butchered the carcass and followed the wounded animal's tracks. Along the way, he passed near a female bear's den, which spotted him and attacked. The hunter attempted to fight him off, but the bear managed to inflict serious head wounds. He later walked almost a kilometer and found himself near the road, but eventually lost consciousness and died.
The deceased's son was afraid to follow his father because he had no weapon. He sat by the car all night, and in the morning, he met power line workers and, through them, contacted the local game warden and the police. A search party later found the man's body.
On November 9, a bear attacked a 52-year-old hunter in the Tomsk district of the Tomsk region. He remains hospitalized with serious injuries. The bear was subsequently killed.
Earlier, in the northern Krasnoyarsk Territory, a bear mauled a guard at a production facility. The incident occurred several kilometers from the village of Boguchany. The animal was killed.
The wolf population has roughly doubled in the Astrakhan and Murmansk regions, Mordovia, and Bashkortostan. This was reported by the relevant regional agencies on November 10.
In the Astrakhan region, the wolf population has reached almost 2,500 individuals, which is approximately twice the number expected in 2024.
"The increase in wolf numbers is due to an improved food supply and the absence of anthropogenic stress," the region's environmental management service told RIA Novosti.
In Mordovia, the wolf population has grown almost 2.3-fold since 2024, reaching 306 individuals. In the Murmansk region, the wolf population has increased by 38% in just three years, reaching 423 individuals. Meanwhile, in Bashkortostan, the wolf population reached 870 individuals, a quarter more than in 2018.
In early November, a resident of the village of Yenikeyevo in Bashkortostan filmed a wolf attack on livestock in the middle of the day. The footage shows the predators attacking a goat, attempting to tear it apart and drag it into the forest. According to the woman, wolves have killed approximately 10 livestock in the past week alone.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Boris Rozhin
[TASS] In November, the Europe Force Posture Review (EFPR) is expected to enter its decisive phase. According to media reports, the Pentagon previously committed to preparing four force restructuring scenarios by November 6. Although the review itself was launched in the summer, the Trump administration is now set to begin the final decision-making cycle. INSTRUMENT OF PRESSURE AND MANIPULATION
Even before the 2024 presidential election, Trump and his entourage repeatedly stated their intention to review the format of relations with NATO and the American military presence in Europe. This initiative by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, announced at an alliance meeting in June, is perceived as an attempt to systematize these approaches. Future decisions by the White House will be based on these scenarios for military repositioning. However, this will be done with an eye on Hegseth's own fate and the weakening domestic political positions of the Republicans and Trump following the recent US Congressional elections.
Overall, this approach offers nothing fundamentally new compared to what the Trump administration declared and did during its first term (2017–2021). Back then, similar statements were heard from Washington, which also seriously unsettled advocates of the "Euro-Atlantic partnership."
It's worth noting that the US isn't relinquishing control over NATO, which it views as an important tool for its dominance in Eurasia — as Zbigniew Brzezinski once wrote in "The Grand Chessboard." Under Trump, Washington is simply seeking to force European vassals to pay more for "American protection" and "pay for themselves" the Ukrainian conflict, which the West itself unleashed.
Another possibility is driving Europe to fulfill the financial treaty obligations they had avoided for so long...
And it must be acknowledged that the US has made considerable progress in this area during Trump's two terms. While during his first term, the Americans demanded that NATO members increase defense spending to 2-2.5% of GDP (and not fictitious ones, such as Italy's attempts to pass off the construction of a bridge to Sicily as increased military spending), this time, the talk is already about 4-5% of GDP. And a number of NATO countries are already following suit. This allows Trump to claim that he has forced Europe to pay for its own security, easing the financial burden on the US.
Regarding the conflict in Ukraine, Washington under Trump also forced Europe to pay more by shifting the bulk of the costs from the American budget to the European one. The White House has effectively abandoned the free transfer of weapons to Kyiv (as it did under the Biden administration) and has begun charging for them — primarily from Europe under the PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) program. At the same time, the logic is openly proclaimed that the conflict was unleashed by Biden and, while it is certainly a "bad war," the US will continue to profit from it by supplying weapons at European expense. Washington has also not completely abandoned its plans to provide Kyiv with intelligence for strikes against Russia.
Thus, from an economic perspective, Trump has consistently achieved a reduction in the share of American spending on NATO and has significantly cut costs for supporting the proxy war against Russia.
REVERSE NIXON
By speculating on reducing its military presence in Europe or shifting it from one country to another, the United States is, on the one hand, attempting to punish those NATO members who refused to directly assist Washington and Israel in their aggression against Iran. On the other hand, it is attempting to exploit the contradictions of its European vassals, pitting "good" members of the alliance against "bad" ones.
This is of no small importance in the Trump administration's conflict with European globalists, who openly oppose US policy on various issues. In this context, the forced increase in defense spending is hitting globalist governments in Europe through increased socioeconomic tensions and mass protests, which are partly a consequence of spending on the war against Russia.
At the same time, the rapid advance of multipolarity in the world and the US's inability to maintain hegemony through its usual methods of dictate, sanctions, and blackmail increase the threat of direct military clashes, with the United States itself becoming involved. The Pentagon's military strength is far from unlimited, so the concept of strategic priorities is placing significant pressure on the deployment of US troops in Europe.
Part of the American establishment believes that the main enemy of the United States is China (Taiwan is already being pumped with weapons according to the same scheme as Ukraine before the start of the Second World War), and not Russia. Therefore, it makes sense to shift the responsibility and costs of "containing Moscow" to the European part of NATO, and concentrate the main forces on defeating Tehran and the future confrontation with Beijing.
At the same time, some believe that a partial reduction of the American military presence in Europe and a number of other steps to normalize relations with Russia will create an opportunity to implement a "reverse Nixon" strategy—that is, a scenario that would split the Russian-Chinese alliance. In 1972, amid the crisis between the USSR and China, the United States normalized relations with Beijing in order to cement the split within the Soviet bloc.
The potential of the modern Russian-Chinese alliance is obvious, and the United States has openly declared its desire to destabilize these relations, as well as BRICS. However, force and threats are not effective in achieving this, so there is a prevailing belief within the American elite that if local concessions are made to Russia and pressure on it is reduced, Moscow, as part of the global struggle, will distance itself from Beijing ahead of the upcoming clash between the US and China.
There's also a more hidden calculation: if Russia and the European part of NATO do clash in a short-term nuclear conflict, partially normalized relations between Washington and Moscow will allow the United States to avoid involvement in such a catastrophe. Ultimately, the United States will reap all the benefits, while the main parties to the conflict are significantly weakened.
Proponents of this approach have a compelling argument based on the US's experience entering the two previous world wars, when both allies and enemies were already exhausted. Overseas, of course, they don't consider a limited nuclear war in Europe a major problem. In such a scenario, the US would only strengthen its hegemony, and the damage to itself would be minimal.
These are the economic, military, and political goals that guide the United States when, in addition to its ultimatum demands for increased NATO spending, it raises the issue of redeploying its troops in Europe.
BELIEVE ONLY IN DEEDS
It's important to understand that the planned scenarios for reducing the American military presence in Europe are juxtaposed with very tangible steps aimed at maintaining it in a modified form. Here are just a few characteristic markers:
The United States is considering building a permanent military base in Poland, tentatively named "Fort Trump." Poland is expected to finance its construction through loans.
Already during the war against Iran, the US began to make more active use of airfields in Romania and Bulgaria. Meanwhile, NATO has been actively developing its key Romanian foothold since 2024.
In 2024, a US missile defense base was also opened in Poland. It can be used, among other things, to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The United States is actively participating in strategic aviation training near Russia's borders, including practicing simulated nuclear strikes on the Kaliningrad region.
And perhaps most importantly, according to a Pentagon statement, as of May 2026, approximately 80,000 soldiers and officers remained stationed in Europe as part of EUCOM and AFRICOM forces. This is the largest American force outside the United States. It is directly involved in NATO's preparations for a potential conflict with Russia, participating in virtually all major exercises in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia in 2025–2026.
At the same time, the White House under the second Trump administration did take a number of steps aimed at reducing the American presence:
In 2026, the United States reduced the number of its brigade combat teams in Europe from four to three.
Trump's decision reduced the troop concentration in Germany by 5,000 troops, and suspended the rotational activities of American forces in Poland.
The US also suspended efforts to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles on German territory and refused to sell these weapons to the Bundeswehr.
Plans have been announced to reduce the European group to 40,000–55,000 people (however, a final decision on this issue has not yet been made).
Even before the start of military operations against Iran, Washington reduced its military presence in Romania (from 1,700 to 1,000 people) and announced its intention to reduce contingents in Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia.
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS
Pentagon experts and defense analysts are trying to systematize all these actions, placing a ready-made “menu of solutions” on Hegseth’s desk.
Direct withdrawal of some forces from the European theater of military operations (ETMO) and the transfer of troops to the Indo-Pacific region.
A simple redeployment of units within the European theatre of military operations in order to put pressure on European countries and continue the dual line towards Russia.
A synthetic variant that combines elements of the first and second scenarios.
The profanation of the announced troop withdrawal and the sabotage of this policy by the Democrats who now dominate Congress.
These contradictory steps create a strategic "fog of war" that the US uses to conceal its true intentions.
At the same time, they seek to maintain a free hand to either significantly increase their military presence in Europe and their involvement in the Ukrainian conflict at any moment, or to use troop reductions as a tool of pressure and bargaining to exchange for other strategic benefits.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Leonid Tsukanov
[Regnum] In early November, former Israeli Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, who left his post in March 2025, spoke publicly for the first time since his resignation. He immediately sparked an international scandal by speaking out about the events of "Black October."
He not only called the Hamas attack on Israel preventable, but also acknowledged his country's responsibility for the deaths of some of the hostages.
Because perfection is possible in war? And omniscience as well?
The timing of the speech was no accident: in the difficult period following the difficult elections, the retired officers had an excellent opportunity to shift the blame to their superiors.
REVELATIONS FROM THE GENERAL STAFF
Speaking at the Shurat HaDin conference in New York, Herzi Halevi called the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, a "preventable catastrophe." He argued that the crisis had been building for years, and the government's deliberate policy of pressuring the Palestinian population, including numerous provocations on the Temple Mount, had only accelerated it.
A Jew with trembling knees?
At the end of September 2023, Hamas leaders were even prepared to roll back the already prepared Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which subsequently marked the beginning of a long-term war, but they did not see the Jewish state’s willingness to take reciprocal de-escalatory steps.
Uh huh. There's a really cute bridge in Brooklyn that I've had my eye on, a larger version of the one we have in Cincinnati...
Moreover, according to Ha-Levi, Israel clearly underestimated its opponents in the initial stages of the war in the Gaza Strip. Hoping to sow panic in the Palestinian exclave with decisive airstrikes against Hamas decision-making centers, the military leadership pushed the Palestinian movement to stay close to the hostages, leading to the deaths of some of them.
Hamas, et al kidnapping them led to the deaths of all who died, and the torment of all who survived. Don't remove agency from those ultimately responsible for what happened to whom.
The revelations caused quite a stir in the international press,
...looking, as they were, for any evil that could be blamed on Israel, with no concern about the truth of the matter...
as they marked the first time a high-ranking Israeli commander, albeit retired, had admitted to violating the laws of war. This contradicted the official Israeli government line, which insists that Hamas is responsible for the hostages' bloodshed.
It's all the more surprising that both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the most ardent defenders of the Gaza operation chose to ignore the New York speech. This is likely because Ha-Levi didn't focus solely on the accusations and instead praised the IDF's military victories in Lebanon, also pointing out the impossibility of defeating Hamas without a ground operation in Gaza.
So we're to cherry pick a single claim out of the entire speech, are we?
The only one in the government camp to respond to the former Chief of General Staff's remarks was National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. In his usual manner, he recalled that it was not the army, but the police, of which he was chief, that held back the initial Hamas attacks. However, his words should be interpreted merely as an attempt to bolster his image as the "defender of the country" and score additional political points.
We're to ignore the truth of the matter here as well, just because the writer loathes Minister Ben-Gvir? Got it.
The parliamentary opposition remained silent, apparently unwilling to dwell on the sensitive issue. The fate of the hostages was relegated to the background.
Israeli society reacted much more harshly: Ha-Levi was bombarded with threats and accusations of trying to "wash away the shame" and reboot his career.
OTHERS ARE NOT FAR BEHIND
At the same time, Ha-Levi was not the first of the “October retirees” (as officers whose jobs were lost in the war with Hamas are called in Israel) to recently try to turn the tragedy to his advantage.
Thus, a few days before the former Chief of General Staff's speech, the former head of Mossad intelligence, David Barnea, let it slip in an interview with American television that "certain Israeli officials" had secretly persuaded Qatar to increase funding for Hamas in exchange for a commitment not to attack Israel.
Although Doha warned that such a plan could backfire, a policy of appeasement of the Palestinian movement was agreed upon at the top. Furthermore, Barnea stated that his people had repeatedly passed on signals to the leadership from the intelligence services of friendly countries—the UAE and Egypt—but they had gone unheeded.
However, Ronen Bar, the former head of Shin Bet counterintelligence, went the furthest. Following the formula "every problem has a last name, first name, and patronymic," he publicly placed full responsibility for the failures in the war with Hamas on Netanyahu.
Israelis play hardball politics.
Back in mid-October, Bar filed a lawsuit against the prime minister for 3 million shekels (approximately $940,000). The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that counterintelligence not only repeatedly warned the government of Hamas's readiness for a large-scale attack on Israel, but also proposed options for preemptively defeating the Palestinian insurgency.
Do remember that Hamas deliberately sent out false messages and conducted desensitization activities to fool Israel while preparing with Iran's aid for the invasion they started on 10/7. It was done as they'd trained -- they were just a bit early off the mark.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu considered the threat "media-blown" and repeatedly vetoed Bar's proposals. And when the chips were down, he accused him of incompetence and strategic failure.
This behavior is hardly surprising. Unlike Ha-Levi and Barnea, who formally resigned voluntarily, Bar left his post amid scandal after months of systemic pressure from Netanyahu and his allies. Therefore, he doesn't consider it shameful to blame his former boss for the national security crisis.
CHOOSE THE LAST ONE
It's no coincidence that the "October Resignations" have become increasingly active in the last month. Against the backdrop of difficult parliamentary elections that resulted in a Pyrrhic victory for the ruling coalition led by Netanyahu (his opponent, Gadi Eisenkot, ultimately received the mandate to form a government),
(yes, he did -- we'll see if he manages to make a go of it, or if his failure will allow the mandate to pass to Bibi)
the current prime minister has found himself especially vulnerable to criticism.
Any coordinated attack against him undermines the coalition's overall authority and forces Israeli society to think again and again about the causes of the crisis, as well as Netanyahu's role in it.
Considering that the former leaders of the army and intelligence services clearly express their disapproval of the prime minister's early end to their careers, the ruined post-election period could well pass for satisfaction. Moreover, each of the outspoken military leaders has their own hidden interest in quickly washing away the consequences of the war with Hamas.
For example, this legacy is preventing Bar from developing an academic career at the private Reichmann University, where the former head of counterintelligence previously attempted to establish his own department but encountered resistance from the hostages' relatives.
Ha-Levi is to work at the National Security College, where he planned to go after retirement but is now on the institution's unofficial blacklist. Barnea is to consult for Mossad operatives (he is currently the only living director of national intelligence to whom this option is not available).
Government positions and ministerial portfolios also remain beyond their dreams for the same reasons.
If the charges for the October 7 failures are officially dropped, the careers of the "October retirees" will once again take off.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Ilya Maximov
[Regnum] The results of the 2026 midterm elections have made support for Israel toxic for both American parties. The long-standing bipartisan commitment, which seemed unshakable until recently, is crumbling before our eyes from both sides—and this is no longer a change in rhetoric, but a structural shift in the political landscape.
Historically, the American-Israeli alliance has rested on a broad bipartisan consensus, dating back to the Harry Truman administration's initial recognition of Israel and the bipolar confrontation of the Cold War. For decades, the Jewish state enjoyed the favor of both Republican and Democratic presidents, and congressional votes on aid to the Middle Eastern nation proceeded smoothly.
After Israel won the Six Day War in June 1967, yes. From 1948 until June 1967, America was indifferent after they voted for Israeli independence at the UN. But do go on...
However, the scale of military and financial aid—approximately $3.8-4 billion per year—has increasingly become a political issue. Following the brutal strikes on Gaza in response to the Hamas attack in October 2023, and now amid the failed joint war with Iran, unconditional support has given way to deep domestic political divisions.
Not failed, unfinished.
As Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the influential Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted in a commentary for The Dispatch, the relationship has experienced serious crises before, but "never before has there been such a simultaneous decline in support from the progressive left and the populist right."
Sociologists claim that Americans' attitudes toward their ally have changed dramatically. A joint study by the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that 58% of US citizens believe the aid provided to Israel is excessive.
Yeah, yeah. How many Americans are financially illiterate or indifferent? Start the count with how many voted Democrat a week ago...
According to another Pew Research Center poll, 60% of Americans view Israel with hostility, up from just 42% in 2022. For the first time in 25 years of research, Gallup researchers found that Americans sympathize with the Palestinians more than with the Israelis (41% versus 36%).
How much is thanks to the anti-Israel bots and paid influencers posting vicious nonsense about Israel all over social media?
A poll by the independent Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that the majority favors reducing or completely ending aid to its Middle Eastern ally.
Already done. Quit whining already.
Parties adapt to the mood, and that's why the direction shifts so quickly.
Under these conditions, open hostility toward Israel, tinged with characteristic anti-Semitic stereotypes that, not long ago, would have irrevocably destroyed a candidate's career, has become the norm in some election campaigns.
Since the election results were announced, members of both parties have openly criticized both the country itself and the Israeli lobby. The Middle Eastern ally has found itself in a very difficult position: it has detractors both within the current Republican administration and in the newly Democratic-controlled Congress.
In Israel itself, these changes are seen and perceived with alarm. "Democrats and Republicans are competing to see who can distance themselves from us the most," Israeli journalist Amir Tibon noted in response to questions from CNN.
"Israelis don't understand the depth of the hole the country has fallen into and the grave consequences that are approaching," Yedidia Stern, an expert on relations between the two countries, stated in Ynet.
Yes, they do. They've just survived worse, so they aren't panicking they way you'd hoped. So sorry.
In recent years, the Republican Party and its supporters remained the main bastion of Israeli support in the United States. However, after the election, many senior party members cited this as a key factor in their defeat.
Principles have costs, but that doesn't mean they should be abandoned.
On the day the results were announced, US Vice President J.D. Vance released an analysis of his defeat, citing poll results. They showed that relations with Israel were one of the main reasons voters turned away from conservatives. Other reasons included the war with Iran, which the Israeli lobby also contributed to, the cost of living, and the administration's failure to always put the country's interests first.
There are things JD is very, very good at analyzing. This is one where he stopped partway through, ignoring the big picture. But he is still young as a politician. Let's see how he thinks about such things four years from now.
"Our voters showed up. And these four reasons are why many of them voted Democrat," Vance wrote on social media.
The day before, the American leader also supported this view. In an interview with CBS, Donald Trump noted that Americans have "tremendous animosity" toward the Middle Eastern state, which was one of the reasons for his party's defeat.
Moreover, he hinted that the Israelis would now have to repay the US for many years. "Without us, Israel would not exist," Trump remarked.
The media notes that Benjamin Netanyahu has effectively become persona non grata in Trump's circle, and their ostentatious friendship was merely a media asset.
However, the Israelis themselves are far more terrified of the loss of billions of dollars in military support, without which the IDF risks losing its combat capability, as it relies heavily on American weapons and equipment. And, of course, the loss of its diplomatic status as the United States' main Middle East ally, which provided even better protection than the F-35 and other modern developments.
Times of Israel editor Haviv Rettig Gul regularly points out that without American support, Israel will be a bit weaker. And as a result, they will not have the leaway to be so kind and careful when fighting their enemies. Israel will still win overwhelmingly, because the other choice is being annihilated, but they won't warn the Gazans or Hezbollah civilians to get out of the way before the bombs drop, and they won't bother to be as precise in their targetting, and so more of the enemy will die in the process of being defeated. No doubt Mr. Maximov will whine about that, too.
"Our entire aviation fleet is American military aircraft; we depend on American parts and weapons. The last three years have shown how dependent we are on American missile defense systems," said Yakov Katz, former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.
No doubt. But how many of those parts and those airplanes contain considerable Israeli feedback in their development? Israel can back-engineer the parts if America chooses to cut off the supply. and is already bringing manufacture of all sorts of interesting things in house because current suppliers have chosen to demonstrate Israel cannot trust them, with more to come. And after supplying the home front, Israeli manufacturers will become competitors on the world market -- and everyone knows about Israeli quality.
It's not as if Republicans haven't tried to capitalize on the electorate's growing hostility toward Israel. On Election Day, the US president announced the end of annual aid to his ally, amounting to approximately $4 billion, beginning in 2027.
Formally, it's unclear whether he has the legal authority to do so, as such matters are overseen by Congress, which has been re-elected to the Democrats. However, in practice, there's little doubt the initiative's success, as the Jewish state has even more detractors within the Democratic Party.
In practice, Bibi has been trying for decades to end America's ability to restrict Israeli actions through threatening to cut off funding and delivered supplies. So it doesn't matter whether President Trump has the authority to cut off the funding, when Israel is perfectly capable of refusing to accept it.
New members of Congress from the so-called progressives, representing the party's left wing, are already promising that Israel will suffer greatly. "We're just getting started," said Megan Romer, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.
F*ck off.
This means that Congress's hostility toward the Jewish state will only grow in the future. New lawmakers are already calling for an arms embargo against the country.
Their loss.
One of the most radical newly elected congressmen, Michigan Senator Abdul El-Sayed, declared in his victory speech: "Palestinian children should be able to grow up in the land of their ancestors without being murdered at our tax expense." Many of his colleagues supported this idea.
So that'd be Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and ultimately Arabia, because Arabs come from Arabia just like Jews come from Judea. Fine: get going to where you came from, y'all.
California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna said in a video statement: "We will change policy when we regain control of Congress. No aid to Israel and no military sales."
That one goes both ways -- the War Department has bought Iron Dome and a number of other things from Israel, including an amazing clotting agent for battlefield first aid kits. Israel will deeply regret the necessity, but it's clear where the blame goes for that decision.
There are also those who believe that simply cutting off military aid is no longer enough, including new Representative Avila Chevalier of New York. "We need to stop funding Israeli war crimes with American taxpayers, impose a complete arms embargo, and grant the Palestinians the right of return," she proposed shortly after the election.
Israel is not your country, Ms Chevalier. Your ability to make decisions stops at the water's edge.
The right of return is a call to open the country to millions of Palestinians who claim refugee status due to the displacement of their ancestors during the 1948 war. Accepting these millions would end Israel's existence as a state with a Jewish majority.
Which is why Israel has never and will never do so, though they ran a small scale experiment a while back. it didn't go well.
While the moderate part of the party is trying to downplay such attacks, it is expected that the divisions will continue to intensify, and ultimately, left-leaning Democrats will win over the rest of the party.
Both Israelis and American Jews understand this perfectly well. Israeli President Isaac Herzog noted that anti-Israel sentiment "is in the air of our great friend and ally."
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, a leading figure in Reform Judaism in the United States, stated that a change of era is taking place in relations between the two countries. "The golden age of American Jewry, defined by the years when most members of the older generation of millennials, Generation X, and baby boomers grew up, built careers, and started families, has ended," he stated in his sermon last Friday.
Yes, he did. Both the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel had articles, which I did not think necessary to post here.
It must be said that the changing attitudes toward Israel are evident not only in polls, political decisions, and statements, but also at the everyday level. According to the New York City police, more than half of the hate crimes committed in October involved harassment of Jews, even though they comprise only 12% of the city's population.
No doubt Mayor Mamdani is frustrated that his people are underachieving in this area versus expectations.
And over the past week, 179 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in the United States, which is 26% more than the week before.
Support for Israel has ceased to be the default position for American politicians. If this shift isn't recognized by the Israeli leadership, the erosion of support will continue regardless of who wins the next election, and sooner or later, Israelis will finally lose their most powerful and influential ally.
Que sera, sera. If it gets bad enough, the Jews will leave, taking their knowledge, skills, and culture of innovation elsewhere. Look at Spain, Afghanistan, Iraq, among many others, to see what it looks like afterward.
After 47 years, "Death to America" can no longer conceal the result.
The public was ordered to sacrifice for the Islamic Republic while its rulers enriched themselves and secured their families and fortunes abroad.
Iran’s former football federation president says the Islamic Republic has spent 47 years looting Iran, sending its rulers’ children abroad with money stolen from the country and using “Death to America” to distract Iranians from its corruption and failure.
Mohammad Hossein Dadkan said:
“You’ve done nothing for the country for 47 years. Go and leave the country. If there was no ‘Death to America,’ what were you going to say? What would you use to keep the people distracted?
“Other than filling your own pockets, what have you done? You sent your own children abroad and took the privileges for yourselves.”
Dadkan identifies three foundations of the Islamic Republic’s survival: manufactured enemies, elite enrichment and public distraction.
The scale of money leaving Iran supports his indictment:
▪️ Approximately $27 billion left through the capital account in 2025, following $20.7 billion the previous year.
▪️ Spring 2025 alone recorded an outflow of roughly $9 billion, putting the projected annual pace near $36 billion.
▪️ Approximately $145 billion left between 2015 and spring 2025.
▪️ From 1997 to 2025, roughly $228 billion of Iran’s current-account surpluses either left as capital or never returned to the domestic economy.
▪️ Estimates of unreturned non-oil export revenues since 2018 range from approximately $95 billion to $200 billion.
These figures overlap and cannot simply be added together, but they reveal an enormous and sustained extraction of national wealth.
The real total is likely higher because official statistics cannot fully capture cash, cryptocurrencies, hawala networks, shell companies, foreign property and false invoicing.
This is not primarily ordinary Iranians moving their limited savings abroad. Most foreign trade is controlled by state-owned, semi-state, IRGC-linked or politically connected entities possessing the access and protection needed to transfer billions.
Sanctions have damaged Iran, but they do not explain why so much export income disappeared, why decades of oil wealth failed to produce lasting prosperity or why regime families accumulated privileged lives abroad.
The Islamic Republic tells ordinary Iranians to endure hardship for “resistance” while its ruling networks move their money and children to the same Western countries they publicly condemn.
It spends Iran’s wealth on missiles, drones, proxy militias and ideological expansion while the country’s currency, infrastructure and living standards collapse.
After 47 years, “Death to America” can no longer conceal the result.
The public was ordered to sacrifice for the Islamic Republic while its rulers enriched themselves and secured their families and fortunes abroad. https://t.co/PYofMNeCWm
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
