Behind the Façades in France: What expats and the mainstream media (French and American alike) fail to notice (or fail to tell you) about French attitudes, principles, values, and official positions…
Never one to forget — as news of the Joe Biden Presidential Library prove extremely problematic (to use a well-worn Leftist term) — Damian Bennett has picked up the tomahawk and gone on the warpath again:
… the Biden zero-funded
Presidential Library's … funding woes
reveal just how completely Biden has been turned out and kicked to the
curb by his pals and kingmakers. Biden was never destined for greatness.
He has always been a small incapable man aching to be an accomplished
big man. It is telling that money, high office, state propaganda, and
the Dark Blue Powers could not save Biden from being Biden.
A
year of Trump has made it easy to forget four awful years of Biden. So
it is instructive to remind ourselves just how Biden improbably came to
be installed as a president. In any review two things jump out
immediately: Biden was never mentally fit for office, and he was never
popular enough to pull 80M+ votes.
The Secret History Of THE SHADOW CAMPAIGN THAT SAVED THE 2020 ELECTION February 4, 2021 [T]he
participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even
though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of
powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working
together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and
laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.
The 'fortifying' actually happened. Joe Biden went on to bring his not-there Chauncey Gardinerrevue to the White House. And the hard sell was sold hard.
Joe Scarborough: 'F-You' If You Don't Believe This Is The Best Biden Ever March 6, 2024 Scarborough: "But comparing that guy's mental state -- I've said it for years now: he's cogent. But I undersold him when I said he was cogent. He's far beyond cogent. ... Start your tape right now, because I'm about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I've known him for years. ... If it weren't the truth, I wouldn't say it."
Byron York On X December 13, 2025:From @nytimes: 'Biden Has Raised Little of What He Needs to Build a Presidential Library.' Raised exactly $0 in new donations in all of 2024.
Will
a Biden library ever be built? Big-money fundraising is punishing work.
The most effective fundraiser for a presidential library is a
president rattling
his begging bowl. Biden is 82, has the vigor of a man twice his age,
does not inspire the closed wallet to open, and has near nothing
to offer by way of political ROI. No doubt the Dark Blue Powers will
cobble something together to save face...
In
60 years the 2020 Election Steal story will finally 'break'. It will
glide from disputed snippets of conspiracy into a body of established
facts; the historical record will be scandalized but corrected. The
guilty, the Judases will be snug in the grave unindicted. The truth will
out, and another iteration of MoveOn.com
will materialize to tell all to 'move on', that is, eyes front and
STFU. Please. Yes, they will say 'please', and we will point triumphant
to the politesse and call it a day. But they will be back tenfold,
uglier, more hateful, more dishonest (if such is possible) than ever.
If there is one historical quote that could be used in every single post of this blog for the past 21 years, it is that of a French writer who traveled through America two centuries ago:
It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth — Alexis de Tocqueville
That also applies in the present post addressing the Left's
contention that Charlie Kirk "had it coming" due to his "insensitive"
declarations in favor of that "repulsive" Second Amendment (the full quote and the full context, including the omitted parts, are at the very end of this post) — such as (in the words of Fox's Hanna Panreck) Far-left podcast host Jennifer Welch [claiming] Charlie Kirk 'justified' his own death.
Far-left podcast host Jennifer Welch
claimed on her show Saturday that Charlie Kirk "justified" his own
killing, reacting to a clip of his widow, Erika Kirk, condemning people
for mocking or rationalizing his assassination.
"The person that I heard that justified his death was him," Welch said.
"He’s the one that said on tape that if school kids die, but it means
he gets to have a Second Amendment, then that’s what it’s going to be.
He’s the one that justified it."
"And I believe at the time of
shooting, he was talking about gun violence at the time. That’s wild to
me, number one. And then for her — I want to get your opinion on this as
a Black man — for her to say that people are dehumanizing Charlie
Kirk," Welch told former CNN host Don Lemon on her "I've Had It" podcast.
I would like
to start with a question for those, foreign as well as American — not a
few of them among my social media contacts — making jokes about,
laughing about, or otherwise celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination:
Besides the fact that your attitude is heinous, how — how on Earth —
do you propose to convince a sizable of citizens in future elections —
not just Republicans but also Independents and even your own fellow
Leftists (Democrats, Socialist Democrats, outright Communists, etc) —
that a would-be leader supported by somebody like yourself (by somebody
as childish and as vile as yourself) deserves to be elected to office
and be put in charge of the well-being and the welfare of the country
and its population?!
Incidentally, I will add that I am not in favor of Elon Musk taking
down these videos on X/Twitter — I think that all people should know
exactly the childish, the wicked, and the abhorrent attitudes of the "tolerant" locofocos on the Left.
In that perspective, I will add a message to those — again,
foreign as well as American — who seem (slightly) less partisan and more
thoughtful, "simply" calling the founder of TPUSA (or his speeches)
hateful. As many others have pointed out, if you call Charlie Kirk odious and the perpetrator of hate speech — the epitome of a conservative seeking an honest debate — then there is no hope for what you claim to seek, a bridge to connect with any of you.
In addition, your homilies about a "divided America" — when Charlie Kirk did nothing but try to engage in dignified debate
with you and, indeed, try to unify America — are nothing but a
deliberately passive description of a rift that is entirely caused by
you yourselves and by your (by the postmodern left's) own pedantic didacticism and depravity.
1) Two Basic Attitudes of Liberals That They Are Totally Oblivious About
Let
us examine the holding that Charlie Kirk deserved to die because of his
statements. One in particular stands out: The speech claimed to be the
most controversial is that in which he is described as allegedly
ignorant or uncaring about the country's murder rate, specifically
school shootings of kids.
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths
every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect
our other God-given rights."
As usual, with the Left, it can only be described as a lie: they omit the entire context,
which ends by addressing the very school shootings that CK was supposed
to be criminally ignorant and/or repulsively uncaring about. (This will
be examined in detail at the end of this post.)
Having said that: has it occurred to you that, first of all,
you are engaging in superstition? You people of the Left don't believe
in religion, you claim, and you instead prefer rationality — pure
rationality. Then in the very next breath, the drama queens that
you are claim that some so-called invisible force in the universe —
whether it is (some type of) God or karma or whatever — that, like a
deity from a pagan religion, unleashes his (or her) wrath on people and
reigns down injustice on evil capitalists (see also 9-11 and Gaia and
tsunamis along with various other natural catastrophes).
A more general observation about karma (and superstition) is
the extent to which the charge proves too often to be remarkably
one-sided and the source of double standards. For instance, when
Canadians vowed to boycott U.S. products because of Donald Trump's
controversial comments about their
country last winter, leftists and anti-Americans the world over cheered,
saying that the conservative Yankee president was getting his just
desserts. Now
that populations the world over, not least the Canadians,
are holding memorials for a conservative Yank — even singing America's
national anthem! — the karma aspect is suddenly nowhere to be seen.
Second of all, ask yourselves this, Leftists: what are we doing, exactly, by pursuing this line of thought?
Think about it…
Aren't you validating the need for the… very Second Amendment that a certain… Charlie Kirk defended?!
There
are millions of people who, rightly or wrongly, hold the same opinions
and viewpoints as the husband of Erika Kirk. If
you say that the founder of TPUSA deserved to die, then millions of
other Americans presumably also deserve to die — by being gunned down or
by any other means. Well, guess what: since we disagree with you
(rather vehemently) about this, I would suggest that this makes our
desire for weaponry rather more rational than (as you claim) irrational.
Indeed, if one of you were to (God forbid) be elevated to a position of
power in this country, how — how on earth — are we to trust you to be
in any way benevolent towards us (i.e., towards that part of the
population that does not agree with you)?!
In any case, your attitude about karma proves nothing less than — get this — the very necessity of private citizens to own and bear arms.
But
the Left is ignoring (and the mainstream media never covers) the
numerous instances of mass shootings where only two or three people
died. (And for the sake of brevity, let's not get into the many
instances of killings that the MSM refrains from covering because they
don't further the Left's narratives — see, e.g., Iryna Zarutska.) And
here you are bound to ask: If only two or three people were killed, why
should the media, American or foreign, cover it?
And, besides: why would anyone call it a "mass shooting" in the first place?
Because the "mass" part of the shooting was prevented
by an armed citizen (aka "a good guy with a gun") who subdued and
neutralized the shooter (either by killing him outright or by holding
him in check).
Think of another mass shooting unreported
in America and across the globe, the one in December 2019 where only three
people were killed in Texas. Hold on, you ask: Three people? Certainly a tragedy,
but why, then, call the West Freeway Church of
Christ event a "mass" shooting? Well, because that low figure was due
only to one parishioner pulling out his weapon and gunning down the
(would-be) mass shootist. Jack Wilson is what we call "a good guy with a
gun."
In the comments section of a Herschel Smith piece, a person named David writes that
The other factor here is when a concealed carry holder intervenes
it often means the number of victims is not as high as waiting for
police. In that situation it doesn’t make the list of “mass shootings”.
I saw another analysis that said if you look at just the incidents
that don’t occur in gun-free zones, 46% of mass shootings end because of
intervention by a civilians.
As for Gary Griffiths, he goes on to note to what extent the logic is skewered (bold and italics by myself):
Part of the problem is, it is impossible for an armed citizen to
stop a mass shooting. Here’s why: If the shooter is stopped before
three victims are shot, it is, by definition, not a mass shooting. If
the shooter is not stopped before three victims are shot, then by
definition, the citizen did not stop the mass shooting. Liberal logic
at it’s finest!
How
many mass shootings did NOT happen because of someone with a legal
firearm? How many crimes and of what kind prevented by someone with a
legal firearm - if they only threaten to use it and do not shoot?
Police/FBI do not keep any statistics on this, but the NRA publishes a
page full of such incidents every month in their magazine.
Events like this one happen every day in America, but
because they don’t fit the narrative of liberal gun control activists,
they rarely get the attention mass shootings do. Instead of advocating
for ways by which citizens can empower themselves, rather than wait
around as sitting ducks for the police to show up, the left-wing media
habitually uses tragic events as a political platform by which to
trumpet for more gun control. Stories of armed citizens brandishing
their weapons to deter a criminal are also not as sensational as a mass
gunman killing innocent people, and, to borrow an analogy from crime prevention researcher John Lott, “Airplane crashes get news coverage, while successful take-offs and landings do not.”
An armed civilian doesn’t have to fire his weapon to stop a tragedy.
Many shootings or mass shootings have been prevented by an armed citizen
brandishing a weapon or simply revealing it to someone threatening
others. No shots were fired. There was no need. This is far more common
and just as heroic as the actions taken by Mr. Dicken.
3) Wouldn't Gun Control, European-Style, End Shootings in the First Place?
But
all of this hardly addresses the call to imitate Europe and the
contention that with gun control of the European type, there would be no
shootings, and certainly no mass shootings, to begin with.
On May 25, 2022, I was on a train to Switzerland that morning when I was called back to Paris to participate in a debate on the BFMTV channel after the atrocious Uvalde school shooting.
That
evening, naturally, I was the first guest asked to speak, in response
to the question, "shouldn't Americans change their views on the 2nd
Amendment?" or on the free sale of firearms, a question that they didn't
think any person could answer other than Yes.
I responded as follows (slightly redacted):
Every
time there is a shooting, we are told — both by Europeans and by
Democrats in America — that these American neanderthals ought to imitate
the rational Europeans, and notably they are told that they ought to
imitate those nice countries like the ones in Scandinavia, a country
like Denmark or Norway — Norway, where in 2011, a person gunned down 77
people, most of them teen-agers. Therefore, European-type legislation,
i.e., gun control, did nothing to save the children of Utøya.
Then
I went on to try to ask a question, indeed two questions: Wouldn't it
have been a good thing if someone on the Oslo island had had a gun and
shot back at Anders Breivik (perhaps not to kill him, but at the very
least to get him to seek cover, thereby interrupting his killing spree)?
Furthermore — to take on a different progressive talking point — didn't
Breivik deserve the death penalty?
All of which was an expansion of what I wrote in my response to a New York Times gun control editorial ten years ago:
It is easy for leftists, American as well as foreign, to tout the
success of the gun control laws in the rest of the Western world … when
you (deliberately or otherwise) ignore:
the 1996 massacre of 16
children at a Scottish primary school; the 2000 killing of eight kids
in Japan; the 2002 deaths of eight people in Nanterre, France; the 2002
killing of 16 kids in Erfurt, Germany; the 2007 shootings to death of
eight people in Tuusula, Finland; the killing of 10 people at a Finnish
university less than a year later; the 2009 killing of 15 people in
Winnenden, Germany; and, needless to say, Anders Breivik's 2011 mass
murder of 77 Norwegians, most of them teenagers.
Is it
unreasonable (or perhaps politically incorrect) to wonder whether the
death tolls might have been lower in any of those places — or in the
Bataclan concert hall in 2015 (137 dead) — had a few of the adults (or
some of the eldest teens) carried a weapon and tried to shoot back at
the respective killers?
In the 18th century — the century at the end of which the Second
Amendment was being passed in the newly-born United States — the biggest
problem for the majority of the world's population was not the right to keep and bear arms.
It was the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.
In the 19th century, likewise, the greatest problem for most people on this planet was not the absence of gun control.
It was the presence of gun control.
In the 20th century, most people did not suffer from the right to keep and bear arms.
They suffered from the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.
As can be attested by the victims (assuming they could talk) of the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin,
Pol Pot, and Milosevic, along with the Hutus…
As an aside, one of the first measures taken by each of the
aforementioned (ahem) leaders after coming to power — for the good of
the people, needless to say — was to impose or to tighten arms control.
And it is no different today.
Look at Saddam's Iraq, at Khadaffi's Libya, at the Assads' Syria…
(Would not the average Iraqi citizen, the average Libyan citizen, the
average Syrian citizen over the past 30 to 40 years have been better off
with the right to keep and bear arms?)
And all of this brings us back, full circle, to Charlie Kirk's "controversial" statement, with locofocos and fire-eaters
falling over themselves and going ballistic with regards to school
shootings — which he is accused of (carelessly) ignoring or (despicably)
minimizing. Except that his reply is far less controversial if you take
the TPUSA founder's full reply (tak til Thomas Petersen) into context,
not least the issue of school shootings, the most important part of
which he addresses forthrightly in his conclusion, notably the final
paragraph's final sentence (duly emboldened below + video at very bottom of this post):
Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment
fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending
why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good
politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my
mind.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second
Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The
Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself
against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow,
that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have
not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number
two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in
Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be
wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart.
So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just
don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and
that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their
communities and their families.
Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty.
Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the
road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have
50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of
driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is
worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be
very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not
happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers
in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should
have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should
not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and
you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I
am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost
of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have
the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do
you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at
baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games.
That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed
guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks?
We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings
at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows,
there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
Take a break by listening to the Elwood's Recital at Longwood University Music Department in the Old Dominion. We have two performances accompanied by Sarah Gates at the piano: Theresa Bennett, voice. Yasmin Lopez, voice.
Imagine you're enjoying a quiet evening in the public city pool late at night (most people have gone home) when — all of sudden — a car crashes through the bay window and lands with a huge splash in the pool, sinking to the bottom with its two passengers aboard. Hard to believe, eh? Well, that is exactly happened this week over in a town not far from Marseille, explains the Morandini news website.
In the final analysis, the news turns out be pretty good. In the pool (or around it), nobody was hit by the vehicle as it plowed through the window at around 8:50 PM. Nobody was hurt in the luxury sedan either, and two swimming instructors — one male, one female — at La Ciotat immediately jumped in, dived to the bottom, and managed to open the doors of the Jaguar for the mother, aged 38, and her little daughter, 5. Later, the mom explained that she had gotten the accelerator and the brake pedal mixed up.
The headline of 20 Minutes (video at link) reads, A Car Takes a Dip at La Ciotat's Swimming Pool while the town hall of the city, more serious, calls the outcome "Miraculous." Meanwhile, the pool is closed for several weeks while locals try to figure out how to remove the vehicle.
While on a visit to Israel with a couple of journalists from the CNews TV station and the Valeurs Actuelles magazine (Naïma M'Faddel and Amaury Brelet) to see the destruction of kibbutzes and barbarism from October 7, Philippe Karsenty spoke with the editor-in-chief of La gAZette de Hanouka (also shortened to La gAZette), Avraham Azoulay.
Macron's France has become the only "Arab country" — I mean the only country [in Europe] under the influence of its Muslim minority — to support the creation of a Palestinian state. Emmanuel Macron uses the "Palestinian cause" as a political hammer. [During World War II, Marshall] Pétain deported France's Jews, Macron is making them flee. In France, anti-semitism is the product of state propaganda nourished by the French president and relayed by public media and the AFP [Agence France-Presse] who make Jews suffer an almost daily media pogrom.
There is an urgent need for elected officials on the left and right to confront antisemitic falsehoods and declare without fear that America is right to stand with Israel for the sake of our own national security and theirs.
… leftists denounce Israel’s actions in the Gaza War as genocide. In fact, in the history of modern warfare, no army has taken more steps to avoid civilian casualties than Israel’s has, often to the detriment of its own soldiers and war goals. Its troops have been killed because Israel has painstakingly tried to save the civilians whom the terrorists hide behind.
Here’s another truth.Worldwide protests against Israelbegan on Oct. 8, 2023. That’s one day after Hamas invaded Israel and massacred over 1,200 innocent men, women, and children, including 46 Americans, and took 254 hostages, including 12 Americans. It was also weeks before Israel took any military actions in response. Obviously, these protests weren’t in response to Israeli actions in Gaza. There hadn’t been any yet.
In reality, the cries of "occupation" aren’t about Gaza. They’re about the entirety of Israel, the Jewish people who live there, and the antisemitic belief that there should be no Jewish State whatsoever. And the cries of "genocide" aren’t about human rights. If that were so, the outrage would be directed not at Israel but at Russia and China. They are the world’s worst human rights violators, both of which are engaged in actual genocide.
The criticism of Israel is a plain attempt to defame and delegitimize the country to promote its extinction. Yet the left’s leaders either repeat this hateful language or allow it to continue unchecked.
A week after the Charlottesville protest(s) degenerated in the summer of 2017, I was inspired by the best conservative protest sign ever written to pen a post title stating that
Over at Instapundit eight years later, Glenn Reynolds reports on a new term invented in 2025 by a "Programmer, wandering philosopher, accidental anthropologist, [and] troublemaker for liberty" by the name of Eric S Raymond:
Bludgeonspeak.
Bludgeonspeak is the use of invented terminology, or historical terminology that has been hijacked and corrupted, and then emptied of all meaning except as an attempt at moral blackmail.
Here are some notable bludgeonspeak items in 2025: "racist", "fascist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "islamophobe", "far-right". Also, the term "genocide" might not be quite there yet, but it's being pushed in that direction pretty hard.
HOW SHOULD YOU REACT WHEN BEING CALLED A RACIST?
I have been meaning to return to this issue for a long time, so now is as good a time as any.
What should be your reaction when called a racist? Anger? Fury? Outrage?
No, not at all: you should be happy — be grateful. (No, I am not kidding…)
Remember that whenever you are called "(a) racist", you should always be grateful. Not because there is any truth to the matter. (Au contraire.) But because this means that the Left has run out of arguments.
Indeed, Margaret Thatcher said as much when she mentioned that in being attacked personally, the long-serving PM not only felt grateful but was positively delighted:
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Not that leftists have many — any? any at all? — arguments to begin with. In a recent post on the subject of the Left's Concept of "Talking Points", I mentioned that while the Left complains of such conservative talking points as lower taxes, basic rights, strong defense, patriotism — which are nothing but party policy goals — the question arises, what are the Left's own talking points (or policy goals)?
Indeed, do they have any at all? Don't the only talking points that the left's drama queens have is calling their adversaries, real or perceived, some of the above-mentioned names — racists, sexists, fillintheblank-phobes, a "basket of deplorables," etc…
Then come the "fascist", the "Nazi" insult, most of them words which happen to be just as recent as the "racism" charges and only a few of which (such as socialist) are much older than the turn of the 20th century… (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah>)
Here is how the left works:
HOW THE LEFT'S MIND-SET WORKS
Initially, constant self-praise by calling themselves tolerant and compassionate and humanitarian and generous and sophisticated and forward-looking (progressive) and — last but (certainly) not least — open-minded, more specifically (as they like to put it), open to debate and discussion.
When someone (usually a conservative) disagrees with them, their first reaction is utter surprise, aye, disbelief — disbelief that anyone might… (wait for it) disagree with them.
This was famously described by William F. Buckley as “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
Their third reaction is… anything BUTdebate and discussion. It is to respond by raining down a hail of invective — all of it disguised under a veneer of objective scientific-type descriptions and respectability.
But all of them are invented. In the cases of "homophobia" and "transphobia," it is clear-cut how recent those terms were born. Indeed, Eric S Raymond writes that some bludgeonspeak terms,
like "homophobe", "transphobe", and "islamophobe", were bludgeonspeak from birth.
Where i disagree with him, albeit slightly, is when he says that other
bludgeonspeak terms, like "fascist" and "racist" and "genocide", used to have substantive meanings which have been destroyed by persistent abuse.
I would argue that some of the older (and more generally accepted) expressions — such as "sexism" and "misogyny" and "reactionary" — are mainly made-up BS terms as well.
With the top award going to "racism", which was reportedly thought up around the year 1900 by none other than Vladimir Lenin (you know, the person who also stood behind the term "useful idiots").
There seems to be a veneer aura of respectability behind the term "racist", as if it were an objective description of something tangible and real. Which explains why it tends to anger people so much when they are accused of it.
But racism and sexism and misogyny are simply older terms than homophobe and transphobe and Islamophobe. It is all BS. It is nothing more than a sophisticated way of playground taunts, You're a jerk, He's a retard, She's an idiot.
The only way to win is not to play. When somebody throws bludgeonspeak at you, call it out. State that you will not be controlled by their language, and you refuse to be assigned to a category you reject.
You don't hate women, you miserable misogynist, do you? Correct? Not anymore than you're frightened of gays, you wretched homophobe, are you? Or of Muslims, you wicked Islamophobe? You just don't want to be shamed endlessly in order to be silenced when those groups' wishes are used to become the epitome of national (or local) policy. All the while having those allegedly oppressed victims and martyrs, along with the country's politicians, believe the worst of you.
Be like Maggie Thatcher.
Speaking of which, let us end this post with another smashing quote from the Iron Lady.
Monday, Philippe Karsenty was the guest of Sud Radio's Facing the Truth, where the spokesman for the France Trump Committee had a back-and-forth with The Great Morning's Jean-François Achilli (0:00-17:45) about the Trump administration's warning of a "civilizational erosion" of Europe.
.jpeg)
