Noble Gold
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com
Share this site:
Copyright 1987-2024
| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
8/4/25
.jpg)
8/3/25
Experts React: Starvation in Gaza
Experts React: Starvation in Gaza
Hunger in Gaza: Examining Claims About Malnutrition, Hamas, and Civilian Suffering
The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has drawn global attention, with reports of starvation, malnutrition, and severe food shortages affecting civilians—particularly children. However, some critics, as seen in social media posts, argue that Hamas members appear "well-fed" while civilians suffer. This raises questions about:
1. The reality of food distribution in Gaza
2. Hamas’s role in resource allocation
3. The broader humanitarian and political dynamics at play
This article examines these claims, analyzes available evidence, and explores the complexities of Gaza’s crisis.
1. The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: Facts and Figures
1.1 Malnutrition and Starvation
International organizations (UN, WHO, WFP) report severe food insecurity in Gaza due to:
- Blockades and restrictions on food, water, and medical supplies.
- Destruction of infrastructure, including bakeries, farms, and aid distribution centers.
- Over 500,000+ people (nearly a quarter of Gaza’s population) facing "catastrophic" hunger (IPC Phase 5).
1.2 Impact on Children
- UNICEF reports 1 in 3 children under 2 in northern Gaza suffer from acute malnutrition.
- Hospitals record cases of starvation-related deaths among infants.
1.3 Is the Crisis Exaggerated?
Some argue that aid diversion or Hamas’s control skews distribution. However:
- Independent agencies (Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders) confirm extreme shortages.
- Satellite imagery shows widespread destruction of food sources.
2. Hamas and Resource Control: Are Its Members "Well-Fed"?
2.1 Claims About Hamas’s Food Supply
The post suggests Hamas fighters are prioritized for food. While Hamas does control some resources:
- No verified evidence shows systematic overfeeding of fighters while civilians starve.
- Smuggling tunnels and underground networks may supply Hamas, but these do not sustain the entire population.
2.2 Hamas’s Role in Aid Distribution
- UNRWA and other agencies handle most aid, but Hamas has been accused of:
- Taxing or diverting some supplies.
- Prioritizing supporters in certain cases (per some reports).
- However, Israel’s blockade and military operations remain the primary cause of shortages.
2.3 Comparing Civilian and Combatant Conditions
- Hamas fighters may have stockpiles, but Gaza’s general population lacks access to basic nutrition.
- Urban warfare makes food distribution nearly impossible in conflict zones.
3. Geopolitical Context: Who Bears Responsibility?
3.1 Israel’s Restrictions on Aid
- Delays at checkpoints and bombing of aid convoys worsen shortages.
- Israel argues Hamas could misuse aid, but critics say collective punishment is unjust.
3.2 Hamas’s Governance Failures
- Hamas invests in military infrastructure (tunnels, rockets) rather than food security.
- Its refusal to surrender or release hostages prolongs the war.
3.3 International Aid and Its Challenges
- Airdrops and sea routes are insufficient for 2.3 million people.
- Ceasefire negotiations often stall over Hamas’s demands vs. Israel’s security concerns.
4. Ethical and Moral Considerations
4.1 Should Hunger Be Weaponized?
- International law prohibits starvation as a war tactic (Geneva Conventions).
- Even if Hamas hoards food, civilians (especially children) should not suffer collectively.
4.2 Media Narratives and Bias
- Pro-Israel voices argue Hamas exploits suffering for propaganda.
- Pro-Palestinian groups blame Israel for siege tactics.
4.3 What Would "Hamas Men Going Hungry" Achieve?
- Hamas leaders (in tunnels or abroad) may not feel shortages like civilians.
- Punishing all Gazans for Hamas’s actions is ethically questionable.
5. Conclusion: A Call for Nuanced Understanding
The post’s framing oversimplifies Gaza’s crisis. Key takeaways:
1. Children and civilians are starving—this is well-documented.
2. Hamas may control some resources, but the primary cause of hunger is war and blockade.
3. Solutions require:
- Increased humanitarian access.
- Political resolutions, not just blame-shifting.
Dismissing Gaza’s suffering based on Hamas’s actions ignores the human cost. Accountability should not come at the expense of innocent lives.
#Gaza #FoodCrisis #Israel #MiddleEast
8/2/25
Cheesy Cajun Chicken Penne in Garlic Parmesan Cream Sauce.
🔥 Cheesy Cajun Chicken Penne in Garlic Parmesan Cream Sauce.
Bold spice meets creamy comfort in this rich, cheesy Cajun chicken pasta — the ultimate flavor bomb in one skillet! 🍗🧄🧀
📝 Ingredients
◾️ 1½ lbs boneless, skinless chicken breasts (cut into bite-size pieces)
◾️ 12 oz penne pasta
◾️ 1 tbsp olive oil
◾️ 4 tbsp unsalted butter (divided)
◾️ 4 garlic cloves, minced
◾️ 1½ tsp Cajun seasoning
◾️ ½ tsp smoked paprika
#Cheesy #Cajun #Chicken #Penne #Garlic #Parmesan #CreamSauce
8/1/25
7/31/25
FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party, clears "Steele dossier" author of wrongdoing
They Got Fined, But Didn't Get Charged For A 'Clerical Error' ... Yeah Right ...
FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party, clears "Steele dossier" author of wrongdoing
MORE INFORMATION
FEC Fines Hillary Clinton Campaign and DNC, Clears Steele Dossier Author of Wrongdoing
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has issued fines to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for improperly reporting funds used to finance the controversial "Steele dossier." Meanwhile, the agency cleared Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who authored the dossier, of any wrongdoing.
The rulings mark the latest development in the years-long saga surrounding the dossier, which played a significant role in the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The FEC’s actions have reignited debates about campaign finance violations, political opposition research, and the broader implications for future elections.
Background: The Steele Dossier and Its Role in the 2016 Election
The Steele dossier was a collection of memos compiled by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, through his private intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence. The research was initially funded by the conservative website *The Washington Free Beacon* during the Republican primary but was later picked up by the Clinton campaign and the DNC through the law firm Perkins Coie.
The dossier contained explosive—and largely unverified—claims about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia, including allegations of compromising personal and financial dealings. These reports were later used by the FBI to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Republicans have long argued that the dossier was part of a politically motivated effort to undermine Trump’s campaign, while Democrats have maintained that it was a legitimate part of opposition research. The FEC’s recent rulings add a new layer to this contentious history.
FEC Findings: Clinton Campaign and DNC Fined for Misreporting Funds
The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance laws by failing to accurately disclose payments made to Perkins Coie, which then funneled money to Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele.
Key findings from the FEC include:
- Misreporting Expenses: The Clinton campaign and DNC classified payments to Perkins Coie as "legal services" rather than opposition research, obscuring the true purpose of the funds.
- Lack of Transparency: By not properly disclosing the nature of the payments, the entities violated FEC rules requiring detailed reporting of expenditures.
- Fines Imposed: The Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, and the DNC was fined $105,000—a relatively modest penalty given the scale of the spending involved.
The FEC’s decision was the result of a complaint filed by the conservative group Coolidge Reagan Foundation in 2018. While the fines are not substantial, the ruling confirms that the Clinton campaign and DNC misrepresented their spending, reinforcing Republican criticisms of their handling of the dossier.
Christopher Steele Cleared of Wrongdoing
Despite the penalties imposed on the Clinton campaign and DNC, the FEC dismissed complaints against Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, finding no evidence that they violated campaign finance laws.
The FEC determined that:
- Steele was a subcontractor for Fusion GPS and had no direct involvement with the Clinton campaign or DNC.
- Opposition research is a legal activity, and Steele’s work did not constitute an illegal campaign contribution.
- There was no proof that Steele knowingly participated in any reporting violations.
This aspect of the ruling has frustrated conservatives who argue that Steele played a central role in spreading what they claim was false information. However, the FEC’s jurisdiction is limited to campaign finance violations, not the accuracy of the dossier’s contents.
Political Reactions and Broader Implications
The FEC’s decision has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the political aisle:
Republican Criticism
- Republicans have seized on the ruling as evidence of Democratic misconduct during the 2016 election.
- Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called it "a slap on the wrist for a massive cover-up."
- Trump allies argue that the dossier was part of a broader "witch hunt" against his campaign.
Democratic Response
- Democrats downplay the significance of the fines, noting that opposition research is a standard practice in politics.
- Some legal analysts argue that the reporting errors were minor and not indicative of malicious intent.
Broader Impact on Campaign Finance and Opposition Research
The FEC’s actions could have lasting implications for how campaigns report opposition research spending. Moving forward, political committees may face stricter scrutiny over how they categorize expenditures to avoid similar penalties.
Additionally, the ruling may fuel ongoing debates about the role of intelligence contractors in elections and whether stricter regulations are needed to ensure transparency.
Conclusion:
The FEC’s fines against the Clinton campaign and DNC, coupled with its clearance of Christopher Steele, represent a partial resolution to one of the most contentious subplots of the 2016 election. While the penalties are minor, they validate long-standing Republican claims that the funding of the Steele dossier was mishandled. At the same time, the dismissal of complaints against Steele leaves unresolved questions about the dossier’s credibility and its impact on U.S. politics.
As the 2024 election approaches, the legacy of the Steele dossier continues to loom large, serving as a cautionary tale about the intersection of intelligence, opposition research, and campaign finance. The FEC’s rulings may not be the final word on the matter, but they add another chapter to a story that remains deeply polarizing in American politics.
7/30/25
Putin knew Hillary Clinton had physical, ‘psycho-emotional’ problems — but kept it quiet during 2016 campaign: Gabbard
Putin knew Hillary Clinton had physical, ‘psycho-emotional’ problems — but kept it quiet during 2016 campaign: Gabbard
The READOUT:
Putin Knew About Hillary Clinton’s Alleged Health Issues but Kept Quiet During 2016 Campaign: Tulsi Gabbard
Former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard recently made headlines with a bold claim: Russian President Vladimir Putin was aware of Hillary Clinton’s alleged physical and “psycho-emotional” problems during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign but chose not to exploit this information. Gabbard’s remarks have reignited discussions about foreign interference in American elections, the role of disinformation, and the dynamics between global leaders.
This article explores Gabbard’s statement, the context behind it, and the broader implications for U.S.-Russia relations, election integrity, and political transparency.
Gabbard’s Claim: What Did She Say?
During a recent interview, Tulsi Gabbard suggested that Putin had compromising information about Hillary Clinton’s health but refrained from using it to influence the 2016 election. According to Gabbard, Putin possessed intelligence indicating that Clinton had both physical and psychological health concerns but decided against weaponizing this knowledge.
Gabbard, a former congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate, has often positioned herself as a critic of establishment politics and U.S. foreign policy. Her comments align with her broader skepticism of mainstream narratives surrounding Russian interference in U.S. elections.
Key Points from Gabbard’s Statement:
1. Putin Had Damaging Information on Clinton – Gabbard claimed that Russian intelligence knew about Clinton’s alleged health issues.
2. Russia Chose Not to Exploit It – Unlike the hacking and release of Democratic emails via WikiLeaks, Putin allegedly withheld this particular information.
3. Implications for Election Interference – Gabbard’s remarks suggest that Russia could have done more to meddle in the 2016 election but showed restraint in certain areas.
Historical Context: Clinton’s Health in the 2016 Election
Hillary Clinton’s health became a contentious issue during the 2016 campaign after she suffered a public medical episode. In September 2016, Clinton was seen stumbling and needing assistance while leaving a 9/11 memorial event in New York. Her campaign later disclosed that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia.
This incident fueled speculation about her fitness for office, with Donald Trump and his allies frequently questioning her stamina and health. Conspiracy theories, amplified by right-wing media, suggested that Clinton was hiding a more serious condition.
Did Russia Have Evidence of Clinton’s Health Issues?
While Gabbard’s claim is provocative, there is no publicly verified evidence that Russian intelligence had definitive proof of Clinton’s health problems. However, given Russia’s sophisticated cyber-espionage capabilities, it is plausible that they collected intelligence on key U.S. political figures.
The bigger question is: Why would Putin withhold damaging information?
- Strategic Calculation – Releasing unverified health rumors could backfire, making Russia’s interference too blatant.
- Leverage for Future Use – Holding onto compromising material allows for potential blackmail or influence later.
- Avoiding Overplay – Putin may have believed that the email leaks were sufficient to damage Clinton without adding health rumors.
Gabbard’s Credibility and Motives
Tulsi Gabbard has been a controversial figure in U.S. politics. Once a rising star in the Democratic Party, she has since moved toward more independent and anti-establishment positions. Her comments on Putin and Clinton raise questions about her sources and intentions.
Possible Reasons for Gabbard’s Remarks:
1. Critique of U.S. Media and Intelligence – Gabbard has often accused American intelligence agencies and media of exaggerating Russia’s role in U.S. politics.
2. Defending Putin’s Restraint – Her statement could be seen as downplaying Russian interference by suggesting Putin showed discretion.
3. Political Positioning – As someone who has met with Putin and criticized U.S. foreign policy, Gabbard may be shaping a narrative that aligns with her views on diplomacy.
Reactions to Gabbard’s Claims
Responses to Gabbard’s assertion have been mixed:
- Critics argue that she is parroting Russian propaganda or attempting to rewrite the history of 2016 election interference.
- Supporters see her as a truth-teller challenging the mainstream narrative on Russia and U.S. politics.
Broader Implications: Election Meddling and Intelligence Warfare
Gabbard’s statement touches on larger issues of how foreign powers gather and use intelligence to influence U.S. elections.
1. The Role of Kompromat (Compromising Material)
Russia has a history of collecting kompromat—damaging information on political figures—to exploit later. If Putin had evidence of Clinton’s health issues, his decision not to use it could indicate a preference for subtler influence tactics.
2. The Ethics of Political Health Disclosures
Should a candidate’s health be fair game in political campaigns? While transparency is important, spreading unverified medical rumors can undermine democratic discourse.
3. U.S. Vulnerability to Foreign Influence
Gabbard’s claim highlights how foreign adversaries may possess sensitive information on U.S. leaders, raising concerns about national security and election integrity.
Conclusion: A Provocative Claim with Unclear Evidence
Tulsi Gabbard’s assertion that Putin knew about Hillary Clinton’s health problems but chose not to exploit them adds another layer to the complex narrative of the 2016 election. While intriguing, her claim lacks concrete evidence and may be part of a broader effort to reframe discussions on Russian interference.
Regardless of its veracity, the statement underscores the shadowy world of intelligence, disinformation, and geopolitical strategy that continues to shape modern elections. As the U.S. moves toward future elections, understanding these dynamics will be crucial in safeguarding democracy from foreign manipulation.
Final Thoughts
- Did Putin really have compromising info on Clinton? Unconfirmed, but plausible.
- Why wouldn’t he use it? Possibly to avoid excessive backlash or save it for future leverage.
- What does this say about election interference? Even restraint can be a calculated move in psychological and information warfare.
Gabbard’s remarks serve as a reminder that in the age of cyber-espionage and hybrid warfare, the lines between diplomacy, intelligence, and political strategy are increasingly blurred.
How Trump Fixed a Decades-Old Trade Imbalance Rooted in Post-WWII Economics
How Trump Fixed a Decades-Old Trade Imbalance Rooted in Post-WWII Economics
"In regards to Tariffs Trump fixed a decades old issue. After WWII the US was the only western country that was still financially solvent. European countries charged high Tariffs on our products and we charged low Tariffs on their products and helped Western Europe rebuild along with the Marshall Plan. Trump knew this and saw it for decades. BTW, Eastern Europe fell to the Soviet Union...Communism."
In the meantime, a correction is being made.
Introduction
For decades, the United States operated under a trade policy framework that was designed in the aftermath of World War II—a time when America was the only financially solvent Western power. The U.S. opened its markets to war-torn European nations, imposing low tariffs on their goods while accepting high tariffs on American exports in return. This arrangement was part of a broader strategy to help rebuild Western Europe through initiatives like the Marshall Plan and to contain the spread of Soviet communism.
However, what began as a temporary measure to stabilize the global economy became a permanent imbalance, putting American industries at a disadvantage for generations. President Donald Trump recognized this historical inequity and took bold steps to correct it through a series of strategic tariffs and trade policy reforms.
The Post-WWII Economic Order and America’s Sacrifice
After World War II, the United States emerged as the world’s dominant economic power. Europe lay in ruins, and the Soviet Union was expanding its influence over Eastern Europe. To prevent the further spread of communism and to rebuild Western Europe, the U.S. implemented two key strategies:
1. The Marshall Plan (1948-1952) – The U.S. provided over $12 billion (equivalent to about $150 billion today) in economic aid to Western Europe to help rebuild infrastructure, stabilize currencies, and revive industrial production.
2. Asymmetric Tariff Policies – The U.S. allowed European nations to impose high tariffs on American goods while keeping its own tariffs low on European imports. This was meant to give European economies a competitive edge so they could recover faster.
At the time, this arrangement made sense. A strong Western Europe was seen as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. However, as Europe recovered and eventually became an economic powerhouse (culminating in the formation of the European Union), the U.S. never adjusted its trade policies accordingly.
The Lingering Problem: Unfair Trade Practices
By the late 20th century, Europe had fully recovered, yet the U.S. continued to operate under the same lopsided trade framework. Key issues included:
- High European Tariffs on U.S. Goods – While the U.S. maintained low tariffs, Europe (and later China) continued to impose steep tariffs on American products, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing.
- Non-Tariff Barriers – European nations used regulatory hurdles, subsidies for domestic industries, and other protectionist measures to disadvantage American companies.
- Exploitation of U.S. Market Openness – Foreign industries thrived in the U.S. market while American businesses faced restrictions abroad.
This imbalance led to a steady decline in U.S. manufacturing, lost jobs, and a growing trade deficit. Successive administrations—both Republican and Democrat—failed to address the problem adequately.
Trump’s Realization and Policy Shift
Donald Trump, long before his presidency, was vocal about America’s unfair trade deals. As a businessman, he saw firsthand how foreign tariffs and trade barriers hurt U.S. competitiveness. Upon taking office, he made trade policy reform a cornerstone of his economic agenda.
Key Actions Taken by the Trump Administration:
1. Imposing Tariffs on China – Recognizing China’s exploitative trade practices (including intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers), Trump levied tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, forcing Beijing to the negotiating table.
2. Revisiting Trade Deals – Trump renegotiated NAFTA, replacing it with the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), which included stronger protections for American workers and industries.
3. Challenging Europe’s Unfair Trade Policies – The Trump administration imposed tariffs on European steel and aluminum, citing national security concerns under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. He also targeted EU agricultural subsidies and digital taxes that unfairly targeted U.S. tech companies.
4. Withdrawing from the TPP – The Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiated under Obama, would have further exposed U.S. industries to unfair competition. Trump’s withdrawal protected American jobs.
The Results: A Long-Overdue Correction
Trump’s policies were controversial, but they achieved several critical outcomes:
- Reduction in Trade Deficits – The U.S. trade deficit with China decreased significantly during Trump’s tenure.
- Renegotiated Trade Terms – For the first time in decades, the U.S. demanded reciprocity in trade, forcing other nations to lower barriers.
- Revitalized Domestic Manufacturing – Tariffs on steel and aluminum helped revive struggling U.S. industries.
- Global Recognition of U.S. Resolve – Foreign nations realized that America would no longer tolerate one-sided trade deals.
Conclusion: A Necessary Rebalancing
The post-WWII trade framework was never meant to be permanent. What began as a strategy to rebuild Europe and contain communism became an entrenched system that disadvantaged American workers and industries. Donald Trump was the first president in decades to acknowledge this imbalance and take decisive action to correct it.
While critics argued that tariffs would spark trade wars, the reality is that they forced a renegotiation of terms that had been unfairly stacked against the U.S. for too long. The long-term benefits—stronger domestic industries, fairer trade terms, and reduced dependency on adversarial nations—demonstrate that Trump’s policies were not just politically bold but economically necessary.
The lesson is clear: Trade policies must evolve with global economic realities. What worked in 1945 does not work in the 21st century. Trump’s tariffs were a crucial step in resetting the balance and ensuring that American workers and businesses are no longer held back by outdated and unfair trade practices.
#Tariffs #Tariff #Trade #FreeTrade
OPEN THE ROAD, Oprah Winfrey!
Roads on Maui are GRIDLOCKED as people try to escape the incoming Tsunami.
Oprah Winfrey responds to backlash over alleged claims of private Maui road closure
#Oprah #OprahWinfrey #Hawaii #Sunami #Earthquake
7/29/25
The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Critics on Epstein and Border Crisis
"The same people accusing Trump of hiding the Epstein files and supporting pedophiles are the same people who didn't have a problem with Biden losing track of 300,000 unaccompanied minors crossing the border...ILLEGALLY...also are the same people who didn't ask about Epstein when they had the Whitehouse, House, and Senate.
Those people are a JOKE!!!"
The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Critics on Epstein and Border Crisis
The same people who loudly accuse Donald Trump of hiding Jeffrey Epstein’s files and supporting pedophiles are the very same individuals who had no problem with Joe Biden losing track of 300,000 unaccompanied minors who crossed the border illegally. These critics also didn’t seem to care about Epstein when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. The hypocrisy is staggering—and these people are a complete joke.
Selective Outrage Over Epstein
For years, the left and the mainstream media have pushed the narrative that Trump was somehow complicit in Epstein’s crimes, despite the fact that:
- Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after he allegedly harassed a young girl.
- Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s "Lolita Express" 26 times—far more than Trump ever did.
- Epstein had deep ties to Democratic elites, including former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and other high-profile liberals.
Yet, when Democrats held full control of the government (Obama-Biden administration, 2009-2011), they did nothing to investigate Epstein. In fact, it was Trump’s DOJ that arrested Epstein in 2019—long after his sweetheart plea deal under the Bush administration.
Where was the left’s outrage then? Nowhere. Because their interest in Epstein was never about justice—it was always about smearing Trump.
Biden’s Border Disaster: 300,000 Missing Children
While the left hyperventilates over Epstein (only when it’s politically convenient), they have zero concern for the 300,000 unaccompanied minors who have disappeared under Biden’s open-border policies.
- HHS admits it lost contact with 85,000 migrant children in just one year.
- Many end up in forced labor, sex trafficking, or worse—yet Democrats don’t care.
- Biden dismantled Trump’s border policies, leading to the worst child migrant crisis in history.
Where are the protests? Where are the CNN headlines? Silence. Because the left only cares about children when they can use them as political weapons against Republicans.
Conclusion: The Left Doesn’t Care About Kids—They Care About Power
The same people screaming about Epstein today ignored him when their own leaders partied with him. The same people who clutch their pearls over Trump’s past associations have no problem with Biden’s border catastrophe, which has put hundreds of thousands of children at risk.
This isn’t about morality—it’s about political manipulation. And anyone who falls for it is either naïve or complicit.
These people are a joke. And America is waking up to their lies.
#Epstein #Trump #MissingKids #SexTrafficking
Hunger in Gaza: Examining Claims About Malnutrition, Hamas, and Civilian Suffering
Hunger in Gaza: Examining Claims About Malnutrition, Hamas, and Civilian Suffering
The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has drawn global attention, with reports of starvation, malnutrition, and severe food shortages affecting civilians—particularly children. However, some critics, as seen in social media posts, argue that Hamas members appear "well-fed" while civilians suffer. This raises questions about:
1. The reality of food distribution in Gaza
2. Hamas’s role in resource allocation
3. The broader humanitarian and political dynamics at play
This article examines these claims, analyzes available evidence, and explores the complexities of Gaza’s crisis.
1. The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: Facts and Figures
1.1 Malnutrition and Starvation
International organizations (UN, WHO, WFP) report severe food insecurity in Gaza due to:
- Blockades and restrictions on food, water, and medical supplies.
- Destruction of infrastructure, including bakeries, farms, and aid distribution centers.
- Over 500,000+ people (nearly a quarter of Gaza’s population) facing "catastrophic" hunger (IPC Phase 5).
1.2 Impact on Children
- UNICEF reports 1 in 3 children under 2 in northern Gaza suffer from acute malnutrition.
- Hospitals record cases of starvation-related deaths among infants.
1.3 Is the Crisis Exaggerated?
Some argue that aid diversion or Hamas’s control skews distribution. However:
- Independent agencies (Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders) confirm extreme shortages.
- Satellite imagery shows widespread destruction of food sources.
2. Hamas and Resource Control: Are Its Members "Well-Fed"?
2.1 Claims About Hamas’s Food Supply
The post suggests Hamas fighters are prioritized for food. While Hamas does control some resources:
- No verified evidence shows systematic overfeeding of fighters while civilians starve.
- Smuggling tunnels and underground networks may supply Hamas, but these do not sustain the entire population.
2.2 Hamas’s Role in Aid Distribution
- UNRWA and other agencies handle most aid, but Hamas has been accused of:
- Taxing or diverting some supplies.
- Prioritizing supporters in certain cases (per some reports).
- However, Israel’s blockade and military operations remain the primary cause of shortages.
2.3 Comparing Civilian and Combatant Conditions
- Hamas fighters may have stockpiles, but Gaza’s general population lacks access to basic nutrition.
- Urban warfare makes food distribution nearly impossible in conflict zones.
3. Geopolitical Context: Who Bears Responsibility?
3.1 Israel’s Restrictions on Aid
- Delays at checkpoints and bombing of aid convoys worsen shortages.
- Israel argues Hamas could misuse aid, but critics say collective punishment is unjust.
3.2 Hamas’s Governance Failures
- Hamas invests in military infrastructure (tunnels, rockets) rather than food security.
- Its refusal to surrender or release hostages prolongs the war.
3.3 International Aid and Its Challenges
- Airdrops and sea routes are insufficient for 2.3 million people.
- Ceasefire negotiations often stall over Hamas’s demands vs. Israel’s security concerns.
4. Ethical and Moral Considerations
4.1 Should Hunger Be Weaponized?
- International law prohibits starvation as a war tactic (Geneva Conventions).
- Even if Hamas hoards food, civilians (especially children) should not suffer collectively.
4.2 Media Narratives and Bias
- Pro-Israel voices argue Hamas exploits suffering for propaganda.
- Pro-Palestinian groups blame Israel for siege tactics.
4.3 What Would "Hamas Men Going Hungry" Achieve?
- Hamas leaders (in tunnels or abroad) may not feel shortages like civilians.
- Punishing all Gazans for Hamas’s actions is ethically questionable.
5. Conclusion: A Call for Nuanced Understanding
The post’s framing oversimplifies Gaza’s crisis. Key takeaways:
1. Children and civilians are starving—this is well-documented.
2. Hamas may control some resources, but the primary cause of hunger is war and blockade.
3. Solutions require:
- Increased humanitarian access.
- Political resolutions, not just blame-shifting.
Dismissing Gaza’s suffering based on Hamas’s actions ignores the human cost. Accountability should not come at the expense of innocent lives.
#Gaza #FoodCrisis #Israel #MiddleEast
True Story of Carol Burnett
True Story of Carol Burnett:
From 'TRUE STORIES'
Carol Burnett grew up sneaking into movie theaters to escape the sound of her mother drinking.
She didn’t come from Hollywood — she came from a one-room apartment near a boarding house, raised by her grandmother while her parents disappeared into addiction.
But even when her stomach growled and the rent was unpaid, Carol found a way to laugh.
At UCLA, she couldn’t afford the tuition for drama school — until a stranger handed her a $50 bill and told her to “pay it forward.” She did. By becoming one of the most important comedic voices in television history.
When The Carol Burnett Show debuted in 1967, networks told her variety shows were for men. That no one wanted to watch a woman in slapstick. That physical comedy wasn’t “ladylike.” Carol laughed — and then created a series that ran for 11 years, won 25 Emmys, and shattered every rule about what women could do on TV.
She didn’t play sexy or cute. She played ugly, absurd, vulgar, ridiculous — and brilliant. Eunice. Mrs. Wiggins. Nora Desmond. Her face could fold into 10 expressions in a single second. Her laugh breaks were legendary — not mistakes, but moments of pure joy caught on camera.
Off-stage, though, the grief lingered. She lost a daughter to cancer. She stayed quiet during public heartbreaks. But onstage, she showed up for millions of Americans like a friend who never flinched when things got dark.
What made Carol Burnett extraordinary wasn’t just her talent — it was her generosity. She gave other performers space to shine. She ended every show by tugging her ear — a secret “I love you” to her grandmother.
Carol didn’t just make people laugh.
She made it okay to be a mess, to be loud, to be too much — and to survive it with grace.
And for every little girl growing up with pain in the next room, she offered proof:
You could turn it into art. And joy. And something that lasts.
#CarolBurnett #Comedy #Hollywood
7/28/25
Obama's Mama, A Women The Left Won't Celebrate
.jpeg)
Obama's Mama: A Women The Left Won't Celebrate
"In reality, we should show Obama's Mama some respect. She was a 17 year old SNOW WHITE Girl who got pregnant by a 36 Year Old MARRIED Black Man from Kenya. She would be the typical Abortion client. She could have had an abortion. Instead, she went on with the pregnancy and gave birth to a little boy who became the 44th President of the United States of America. Those on the LEFT should be celebrating her as if she was Harriet Tubman or a Lady who didn't give up her seat on a bus. Instead, they don't mention her. It would be too much of a PRO LIFE STORY."
.jpeg)
Stanley Ann Dunham: A Story the Left Should Celebrate—But Won’t
Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency was historic, groundbreaking, and a testament to the American dream. Yet, the story of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, is one that the modern Left rarely celebrates—and for reasons that expose their ideological contradictions.
Dunham’s life defies the narratives that progressives often push. At 17, she became pregnant by a 36-year-old married Kenyan man, Barack Obama Sr., while attending high school in Hawaii. By today’s standards, she would have been a prime candidate for abortion—young, unmarried, and facing an uncertain future. Yet she chose life, and that decision brought forth America’s first Black president.
The Left’s Conundrum: Why They Can’t Celebrate Her
The Left champions abortion rights as a fundamental freedom, often framing it as essential for women’s empowerment. Yet Dunham’s story undermines their rhetoric in several ways:
1. She Rejected Abortion Despite the Circumstances
- A pregnant teenager in the early 1960s, with no financial stability and a father who abandoned her, could have easily been persuaded to terminate the pregnancy.
- Instead, she embraced motherhood, raising a child who would change history.
2. Her Story Undermines the Victim Narrative
- Progressives often portray single mothers—especially those impregnated by older men—as victims of exploitation. Yet Dunham was independent, intellectually curious, and resilient.
- She later earned a PhD, worked in international development, and raised a future president.
3. She Was White—And That Doesn’t Fit the Left’s Racial Politics
- The Left prefers narratives where Black success stems solely from Black struggle, not from interracial relationships or white parents.
- Dunham’s whiteness complicates their racial storytelling. Obama’s success is often attributed to his Black identity, while his mother’s influence is downplayed.
4. The Left’s Hypocrisy on Power Dynamics
- If a 36-year-old conservative man impregnated a 17-year-old girl today, the Left would call it "grooming" or "abuse."
- Yet because Obama Sr. was a Black African immigrant, progressives ignore the power imbalance—revealing their double standards.
The Democrats’ Selective “Carve-Outs”
The Democratic Party excels at making exceptions to fit their agenda. They claim to support women’s autonomy, yet they dismiss Dunham’s choice as insignificant. They preach racial justice, yet they erase the white woman who raised a groundbreaking Black leader.
- If Dunham Had Aborted Obama: The Left would mourn the loss of a potential leader but defend her "right to choose."
- Because She Didn’t: They ignore her, because her story proves that unplanned pregnancies can lead to extraordinary outcomes.
Why the Right Should Claim Her Story
Conservatives and pro-life advocates should celebrate Stanley Ann Dunham as a testament to the power of life and resilience. She:
- Chose life despite societal pressures.
- Raised a child who shattered racial barriers.
- Proved that single mothers can defy expectations.
Her story is an antidote to the Left’s abortion absolutism. It shows that even in difficult circumstances, giving life can lead to greatness.
Conclusion: The Left’s Uncomfortable Silence
The Left can’t celebrate Stanley Ann Dunham because her existence undermines their political narratives. She was a white woman whose unplanned pregnancy produced a historic Black president—something that doesn’t fit neatly into their boxes of victimhood and identity politics.
Her life is a rebuke to abortion advocates, a challenge to racial essentialists, and a reminder that greatness often comes from unexpected places. The fact that Democrats ignore her speaks volumes about their selective outrage and ideological rigidity.
Stanley Ann Dunham should be a feminist icon—a woman who defied expectations and changed history. Instead, she remains in the shadows, because her truth is too inconvenient for the Left to acknowledge.
#Obama #StanleyAnnDunham #Abortion #Kenya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)