This is just how her game works. Her audience doesn't care if she lies. And she knows that, so she doesn't have to admit to anything — no matter how much evidence there is. Same thing happened with her husband's DUI crash and arrest. She tried to keep it from becoming public, but once it was out there, she never felt any obligation to come clean. Nothing is steering her toward honesty. Not her audience, and certainly not her conscience.

What is the likelihood that the person who did this could be successfully rehabilitated and participate in civil society?

The establishment demanded that we “unite” with this.

He's not just a boy. He's a terrorist.

It's as urgent now as it was then.

Thank you for your service, @nikitabier.

Al Qaeda calls for copycats to target US citizens on planes while praising Dubai flight hijacker: America will end' trib.al/U6wSAjR

I genuinely don't know which of Tucker's three statements in Vanity Fair is most egregious

I’d say the same about Hamas.

What happened at Cornell is disgusting But if you think it’s bad, go look into what the migrant rape gangs in Europe have been doing

"I’m against war and killing." Yeah, and that’s why Hitler had to be defeated.

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." — C.S. Lewis

So... she raped those guys?

This is absolutely priceless. Tucker just states as fact that Russia has a much larger economy than the UK, is completely wrong and gets schooled.

Tucker’s premise — that because Britain and America have experienced moral and political decay in the eight years since winning WWII, it would have been better to let the totalitarian fascist win — fails on every level. It assumes, for one, that Hitler’s regime would have fared better in success than we have. But the totalitarian USSR also won the war, and has been gone forty years already. Strongman regimes are even less durable than liberal ones. It also assumes Hitler’s regime would have BEEN better than ours. Morally better. Hitler didn’t want to fight Britain. He just accidentally built up a massive military and invaded all his neighbors. He didn’t want to invade Poland. He didn’t mean for all the Jews in those camps to die. He was a great leader. Obviously. Better than our own. But he was always stumbling into world wars and committing genocide on accident. The truth is that victory in civilizational crises often precedes decay. This is the story of history. Humans are not built for victory. We are lessor sons of greater fathers, and the long defeat comes for us all. And even still, we have agency and are not doomed to let it all fall in our generation just as they did not let it fall in theirs. The wounded west ever been thus. We are not the first generation that will have to redeem her anew.

You should have said "than," not "then." You don't even know English. And I'm sure speaking German would be the only downside of a Nazi victory. Great point.

This is catnip for anti-semites. Why? Because Tucker can't seem to think of a single reason why it benefitted Britain to oppose Hitler. I don't know, Tucker. Maybe because Hitler was a lying egomaniac who had territorial ambitions beyond Czechoslovakia and Poland, who invaded and took over France, and who made plans to conquer Britain as well. Maybe it was because Hitler's ambition for the "master race" was THE sole cause of the war in Europe, which caused the death of about 50 million people, 35 million of which were civilians. Or maybe it was because Britain didn't want to be ruled by a dictator who murdered his political opponents without trial, who persecuted and subjugated Jews, and who by 1941 would inflict the "final solution" on Europe, which led to the extermination of 6 million Jews. Can you not think of a single reason why Britain benefitted from opposing Hitler's territorial ambitions, including a planned invasion of Britain? What a morally and historically obtuse thing to say, Tucker. The idea that there was no reason for Britain to oppose Hitler is beyond repugnant to decency and reason. But again, it's catnip for the antisemites.

"Despite the ban, the pilot was hired by FlyDubai . . ." Who would ever fly this airline again?

Outstanding news! A Houston pediatric hospital has been required to pay $650,000 after firing a worker who refused to perform sex-rejecting procedures on kids. billboardchris.com/news/2026…

Maybe the airlines can't legally prevent Islamists from becoming pilots. But can they at least give us some options so we can decide for ourselves if it's worth the risk?