John Warwick

Not sure if you know this, Martina, but for nearly 5 decades the UN has promised Israel that southern Lebanon would be kept free of terror orgs (PLO then, Hezbollah now) threatening northern Israel. That promise has been repeatedly broken. UN Resolution 425 was passed in 1978 after the PLO attacked civilians in northern Israel and deployed UNIFIL to secure the area south of the Litani River. The PLO returned under UNIFIL's watch and kept attacking northern Israel. In 2006, after a devastating war that Hezbollah started, the UN passed Resolution 1701 explicitly demanding Hezbollah withdraw north of the Litani River, which the Lebanese government even signed onto. Hezbollah ignored all of it and over the next two decades built thousands of rocket positions, tunnels, and bunkers right under UNIFIL's nose. UNIFIL did nothing. Lebanon did nothing. The UN documented the violations and did nothing. Hezbollah started attacking Israel on October 8, 2023 and for two years kept launching rockets, paralyzing all of northern Israel, displacing tens of thousands of Israelis (many of them Arab and Druze) seeking shelter, and turning cities like Metula and Kiryat Shmona into ghost towns. At the end of 2024, another ceasefire agreement made the same demand for Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani river. Hezbollah violated it again, joining the Iran War. Multiple guarantees. Multiple violations. All by these terror orgs. And Israeli civilians paid the price. Israel has had enough: neither the Lebanese government nor the UN have the capability nor the will to enforce these commitments. Israel is now justly taking matters into their hands, and anyone who's clutching their pearls about it needs to explain exactly what it is Israel should do instead. Otherwise, they're being either willfully ignorant or dishonest.

The propaganda machine once again gets caught. Hypocrite.

Ironically Canada says nothing about the fact that every Arab country in the region also has the death penalty for murder!

Keep asking yourself: Where are we on the axis? Who are our allies? Does this contradict security reports? Is this good? Are questions being answered about this? How well? Are there contradictions?

How does Megyn Kelly do it… “Who talked Trump into it? Bibi! Lindsey Graham! General Jack Keane???!!!” Versus LESS THAN A YEAR AGO “Trump has big balls. Spine of steel. He cannot be pushed around” Both comments in relation to Iran too… I kid you not - all on camera 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️👇

I will never take another SpaceX launch for granted again. This is a masterclass in every way. We are so lucky to have SpaceX.

Absolutely.

Please don't lie on Twitter. You pledged to arrest Netanyahu if he visits Canada. You recognized the "sovereignty" of a Hamas-controlled Palestine. You condemn Israel weekly, including repeating Hamas-sourced misinformation. And you support mass antisemitic immigration.

I've been doing a lot of @CNN lately and I have concluded the Democratic position on Iran is: 1. We should surrender 2. Iran, with enriched uranium, a Navy, an Air Force, and missiles was less dangerous than one without. 3. We can't afford to use our missiles 4. We are not for making more missiles 5. We should keep letting Americans die from Iranian terror forever instead of stopping it. 6. We should surrender It's totally nonsensical.

I'm trying to find the exact moment the Liberals discovered they could just announce things, do literally nothing to fulfill the thing, and nobody would care.

@govt_corrupt Government has no business being in the business of business. The job is creating an environment conducive to private business and investment and standing back.

High speed rail from Toronto to Quebec is dumb. It'll easily be a hundred billion dollar, multi-decade disaster. Govt insiders love it because of all the lucrative contracts they'd get. Liberals love it because of the millions they could skim. It's a money laundering project.

@ezralevant And Canada has also imposed 25% tariffs on many cars coming from the USA while allowing Chinese cars in at 6%. And yet, Canada expects to freely export cars to the USA ... CUSMA negotiations will be interesting, to say the least.

Canada is a net exporter of cars to the U.S. Our factories depend on trade deals for access. The U.S. has banned Chinese cars. So if Canada builds them, it will only be for domestic use -- a much smaller market. Is this the Elbows Up part or the New World Order part?

How to “build a nation”, Liberal edition: Privately funded, profitable, pipeline west? ❌ Privately funded, profitable, pipeline east? ❌ Privately funded, profitable, pipeline south? ❌ Taxpayer subsidized train from ON to QC ✅

National Post's international man of mystery, Adam Zivo, breaks down the hypocrisy of being "No Kings" without also being "No Ayatollahs."

Well well well Notice that the liberal justices suddenly refer to unborn babies as people with full rights when the subject changes from abortion to immigration Like magic

“Fair” in that framework isn’t about what’s earned, agreed to, or produced. It’s about what can be taken without immediate collapse. If you can remove $135 million from someone and they’re still standing, it gets labeled “reasonable.” If you can redistribute it and make others feel helped, it gets labeled “just.” The standard isn’t rights. It’s tolerance for extraction. That flips the moral question entirely. Instead of asking, “Who created the value?” it asks, “How much can we take before it hurts too much?” Instead of voluntary exchange, it becomes calibrated coercion. And once that’s the premise, there’s no limiting principle. Because “you’re still rich” is infinitely elastic. There’s always more that “won’t kill you,” which means there’s always more that can be taken. So fairness stops meaning equality before the law and becomes a moving target based on envy, optics, and political leverage.

Bernie thinks this is "fair" because he starts from the premise that your wealth belongs to the collective and you are permitted to keep what it decides you don't need. "You'd still have $2.5 billion" is not an argument for fairness. It is a looter calculating how much he can take before the victim fights back. Fairness is not determined by how much the victim has left. It is determined by whether the taking was justified. A man who robs you of $100 and leaves you $1,000 has not been "fair." He is still a thief. Rights are not proportional to net worth. They are absolute.

How the NYT covers Trump attending SCOTUS, lol.

I will be informing my provincial health authority that I am not an organ donor and advising my family the same. MAiD has put us on a slippery slope to a dystopian horror show and I no longer trust doctors to hold my best interests.