Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Please Watch & Share -Govt Misinformation on Scrapping Triple Lock -Proposed EU ‘Support Mission’ to Lebanon-Confirmed by Minister McEntee-Is a Peace Enforcement Mission Designed to Assist Leb Army Forcibly Disarm Hezbollah at USA/Israels Behest -A Civil War Ending Our Neutrality
Has the Epstein Class taken control of @fiannafailparty that it wants to assist the Zionist state plans for Lebanon.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Regardless of what you think about Irish neutrality or whether the triple lock is a sensible policy, it’s a fact that the govt is removing it simply because they want greater involvement of Irish troops in EU missions and the triple lock could prevent that.
Support its removal by all means but it absolutely goes against assurances given by previous govts during referendum on EU treaties. UNSC veto has always been there, this move to remove triple lock is about EU Defence Union and nothing more.
The idea that Micheál Martin cares about sovereignty, when he’s previously called it a “backwards idea” is laughable. It’s true the triple lock by its nature does impinge Irish sovereignty, but it also ties the hands of our europhile political class who want greater EU integration in all areas, including defence.
Irish troops should be deployed to Lebanon as part of a new EU mission and be involved in both peacekeeping and peace enforcement duties, minister says rte.ie/b/1596797
Europe’s Leaders: Big on Fear, Small on Courage.
European leaders constantly warn their citizens that Putin will not stop at Ukraine, that he dreams of rebuilding a "Great Russia", and that other European countries will be next.
They use this terrifying narrative to justify billions in military spending, fuel public anxiety, and demand that ordinary Europeans prepare for a future of sacrifice and fear.
But their rhetoric raises an uncomfortable question: if they genuinely believe Putin intends to conquer Europe, why are they so unwilling to send their own soldiers to fight him?
They speak as if the fate of Europe hangs in the balance, yet they draw a clear line between the danger they describe and the risks they are willing to take.
They warn of an approaching storm while insisting that someone else stand in the rain.
Ukrainian soldiers fight, Ukrainian families die, and Ukraine is devastated, while European leaders deliver speeches from the safety of their offices.
Let us be clear: refusing to enter a direct war with a nuclear power can be a rational decision.
But then these leaders must stop pretending that their own worst-case predictions are unquestionable facts. They cannot have it both ways: portraying Putin as an unstoppable imperial conqueror when they want public support, while treating direct military confrontation as too dangerous when the consequences become real.
If the threat is truly as imminent as they claim, where is their willingness to bear the ultimate cost?
And if the threat is not imminent enough to justify direct intervention, why are they so eager to frighten their populations with predictions of an inevitable Russian march across Europe?
Perhaps the answer is that fear is politically useful.
It justifies budgets, strengthens authority, silences inconvenient questions, and allows leaders to appear decisive without personally facing the consequences of the policies they promote.
It is so easy to preach courage when someone else is dying, easy to demand sacrifice when someone else is paying the price, and easy to invoke the survival of Europe when the risks are borne by Ukrainians.
European leaders owe their citizens evidence, honesty, and a coherent strategy,not endless fearmongering dressed up as statesmanship.
If they want people to believe that Europe faces an existential threat, they must explain precisely what they know, what they merely fear, and why their proposed response makes sense.
Otherwise, their grand speeches about defending Europe risk sounding less like the words of leaders preparing their people for the truth and more like the words of politicians using the prospect of war to consolidate power while ensuring that the heaviest price is paid by others.
(Wes Streeting , British Minister of Defence)
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Ben Scallan reacts to an absurd story from Longford District Court regarding Irish citizenship which "actually beggars belief".
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
I had a batshit crazy idea that I could just read government public consultation reports to find out who was consulted and what they said about a particular issue. Apparently, that’s not how it works. I encourage people to read the report ( linked in the replies) 👇… it's really short. I find this jaw-dropping to be honest.
The report does not provide:
- A list of the organisations or public bodies that submitted responses.
- The number of submissions from each category of respondent.
- A list of stakeholders directly invited to participate.
- The individual submissions or quotations attributed to named organisations.
- A breakdown of how many respondents raised each issue.
- A clear account of differing or opposing views.
- A submission-by-submission explanation of what was accepted, rejected or changed.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Replying to @thejournal_ie
Sign the petition: independentireland.ie/petiti…
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
NOW FREE TO READ: Please SUBSCRIBE to Gript for the stories other media won't cover: gript.ie/membership/
MATT TREACY: IPAS has a team that works with DePaul Ireland, the Local Authorities, and others to house people from direct provision, the Minister confirmed.
gript.ie/former-ipas-residen…
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
The fact that our resources are spent helping Israel do this is far more offensive than calling it out in a political ad.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Cuando los brasileños se dieron cuenta que Musk y Zuckerberg estaban manipulando el algoritmo para interferir en elecciones de su país se volcaron hacia las RRSS y la llenaron de videos de Lula elaborados con IA.
Fenómeno social a estudiarse por décadas.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
The Butchers – The Men Who Ran the Soviet Terror.
Moscow, a winter night in 1937. Long past midnight in the Kremlin, a man with a pipe sits at his desk under a lamp. In front of him, a stack of typed lists – names, one per line. He runs a blue pencil down the pages. A tick. A note in the margin. Sometimes a name crossed out, sometimes one added. The same pencil he uses to edit film scripts and poems.
His officials stay awake at home, next to the phone, in case he calls before dawn.
Hundreds of lists. Tens of thousands of names. On a single day, December 12, 1937, he and Molotov approved more than three thousand death sentences. Then, historians tell us, they went to watch a film.
But Stalin didn't invent the machine. He perfected it.
In August 1918, Lenin sent a telegram to his comrades: hang at least a hundred kulaks – hang them so that people see it for hundreds of kilometers around. Trotsky, the "good communist" of Western nostalgia, ordered the families of officers taken as hostages.
The founders gave the orders. Then the machine needed men – men who would build the apparatus, fill the camps, write the confessions and pull the triggers. And sooner or later, it devoured many of them.
1. Dzerzhinsky – the Founder. "Iron Felix," a Polish noble's son, who built the Cheka in 1917.
2. Trotsky – the Myth. The revolutionary Western intellectuals still romanticize, who wrote a whole book defending terror – until the machine he helped build killed him with an ice axe.
3. Stalin – the Editor. The man at the desk, with the blue pencil, long past midnight.
4. Yagoda – the Builder. The Gulag as an economy: canals dug by prisoners who died by the tens of thousands. Then shot by his own machine.
5. Vyshinsky – the Prosecutor. "Confession is the queen of evidence" – so he got confessions. "Shoot the mad dogs!" at the show trials, then the Soviet seat at the United Nations.
6. Yezhov – the Butcher. The Great Terror, the quotas, the Polish operation – then shot, and erased from the photographs.
7. Beria – the Strategist. Katyn, the atomic bomb, the deportations – and a predator. Shot by his own colleagues three months after Stalin's death.
8. Blokhin – the Executioner. In the spring of 1940, at Kalinin, he personally shot thousands of Polish prisoners over a few weeks, in a leather apron and cap.
9. Serov – the Hunter of Poland. He crushed the Home Army, lured the leaders of the Polish Underground State to "talks" and had them tried in Moscow. Then Hungary in 1956, and the first chairman of the KGB.
10. Andropov – the Modernizer. Dissidents sent to psychiatric hospitals instead of camps: softer, quieter – same goal: erasing people. The first secret police chief to rule the country.
11. Epilogue – The Chekists Never Left. From the KGB to the FSB to the Kremlin.
Why name them? Because their whole work was erasure – of people, of records, of memory. Remembering is the opposite of what they did.
And erasure didn't die with them. Today it rarely needs a bullet. It is called cancelling, deplatforming, debanking, lawfare. The inconvenient person isn't shot – he is removed: from his job, his bank account, his platform, the conversation. Yezhov needed a retoucher. Today a terms-of-service update does the job.
For Poles, these are not names from a history book. They are the names behind our grandparents' graves – and that is why we recognize their heirs.
Give Me the Man, I'll Find the Crime – How the Soviet Terror Machine Worked.
"Give me the man, and I'll find the crime." The line is attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin's secret police. Whether or not he said it, it describes the whole machine.
1. It began in December 1917, six weeks after the revolution: the Cheka, the "Extraordinary Commission." Its founder was Felix Dzerzhinsky – a Pole by birth. Twenty years later, the machine he built would make Poles its largest group of national victims.
2. The principle was set from the start. In 1918 a Cheka chief instructed his men: don't look for evidence of what the accused did. Ask what class he belongs to, what his origin, education and profession are – that decides his fate. Guilt was no longer a matter of acts. It was a matter of categories.
3. The machine changed its name – GPU, OGPU, NKVD – and kept growing. And it ran like the rest of the Soviet economy: on a plan. Regions received quotas of people to arrest, shoot or deport, and local chiefs asked Moscow for higher ones. Three-man tribunals passed sentences in minutes. Terror by quota – a planned economy of death.
4. In 1937 Nikolai Yezhov – a small man, barely five feet tall, later known as "the bloody dwarf" – took the machine to its peak. He would not survive it. Confessions were extracted by torture, officially permitted. Neighbors denounced each other for an apartment, colleagues for a promotion. Being accused was proof enough: the accused confessed to plots that never existed, and named others, who confessed in turn.
5. Then came the anti-Polish operation – the clearest proof that the machine was never looking for the guilty. Order 00485, August 1937, targeted a "Polish Military Organization" that had been dissolved in 1921. The categories were written so that almost any Pole would fit, and in Leningrad officers combed the address registers for Polish-sounding names. A Catholic prayer book was evidence. A letter from a cousin in Warsaw was espionage. Interrogators wrote the confessions, torture got the signatures, and the verdicts came in "albums" – a few lines per person, signed in Moscow by the hundred. Killing as paperwork. Nearly four in five of those sentenced were shot: about 111,000 people. A Pole in the Soviet Union was some forty times more likely to be shot than an average citizen. The goal was not to find the guilty. It was to erase inconvenient people from existence. And the Poles, with their unyielding character and love of freedom, were always inconvenient for any totalitarian system.
Reminds you of anyone today?
6. The machine devours its own. Yezhov was arrested in 1939 and shot – and then erased even from the photographs, the same erasure he had applied to others. His successor, Beria, proposed in March 1940 the execution of Polish officers, policemen and intellectuals held as prisoners. Around 22,000 were shot – Katyn. At the same time, in the West, the Germans were murdering Poland's elites too. On this, the two totalitarian systems fully agreed. When Stalin died, Beria was arrested and shot too.
7. And the apparatus never really died. It became the KGB, then the FSB. Russia's security officers still celebrate "Chekist Day" every December 20. Its president is a former KGB officer.
The method outlived the regime as well. Find the man first – then search his life for the crime. In the West, the soft version is called lawfare: the process is the punishment.
The West reads about this in history books. In Poland, it is family memory. That is why we recognize the method instantly – in any language, under any name.
——
The picture below says it all. Literally erasing people: Nikolai Yezhov, the "Bloody Dwarf" – small and bloody in more than one way – walking beside Stalin. Then the same photograph, a few years later.
Now you see him. Now you don't.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
FF/FG and the Independents in Government are afraid to go to the people on the triple lock because they know the answer they will get
Speaking on Newstalk today about the triple lock and our campaign to #savethetriplelock
Sign the petition: independentireland.ie/petiti…
@MichaelC_IND_TD @RichardODonoghu @kenoflynnTD @ciaranmullooly
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
This is the Hillary Clinton I know.
As some of you know, I was the Air Force Military Aide for Bill Clinton, lived in the White House, traveled everywhere they traveled, and carried the “nuclear football.” As such, I was always in close proximity to both Bill and Hill.
Among the military who served in the White House and the professional White House staff, the Clinton administration was infamously known for its lack of professionalism and courtesy, though few ever spoke about it. But when it came to rudeness, it was Hillary Clinton who was the most feared person in the administration. She set the tone. From the very first day in my assignment.
When I first arrived to work in the White House, my predecessor warned me. “You can get away with pissing off Bill but if you make her mad, she’ll rip your heart out.” I heeded those words. I did make him mad a few times, but I never really pissed her off. I knew the ramifications.
I learned very quickly that the administration’s day-to-day character, whether inside or outside of DC, depended solely on the presence or absence of Hillary. Her reputation preceded her. We used to say that when Hillary was gone, it was a frat party. When she was home, it was “Schindler’s List.”
In my first few days on the job, and remember I essentially lived there, I realized there were different rules for Hillary. She instructed the senior staff, including me, that she didn’t want to be forced to encounter us. We were instructed that “whenever Mrs. Clinton is moving through the halls, be as inconspicuous as possible.” She did not want to see “staff” and be forced to “interact” with anyone. No matter their position in the building.
Many a time, I’d see mature, professional adults, working in the most important building in the world, scurrying into office doorways to escape Hillary’s line of sight. I’d hear whispering, “She’s coming, she’s coming!” I could be walking down a West Wing hallway, midday, busier than hell, people doing the administration’s work whether in the press office, medical unit, wherever. She’d walk in and they’d scatter.
She was the Nazi schoolmarm and the rest of us were expected to hide as though we were kids in trouble. I wasn’t a kid, I was a professional officer and pilot. I said “I’m not doing that.”
There was also a period of time when she attempted to ban military uniforms in the White House. It was the reelection year of 1996, and she was trying to craft the narrative that the military was not a priority in the Clinton administration. As a military aide, carrying the football, and working closely with the Secret Service, I objected to that. It simply wasn’t a matter of her political agenda; it was national security. If the balloon went up, the Secret Service would need to find me as quickly as possible. Seconds matter. Finding the aide in military uniform made complete sense. Besides, what commander in chief wouldn’t want to advertise his leadership and command? She finally relented because the Secret Service weighed in.
The Clintons are corrupt beyond words. Hillary is evil, vindictive, and profane. Hillary is a bitch.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Lula's reelection in Brazil is not just a domestic victory. It is the single biggest geopolitical defeat the US empire has suffered in Latin America in decades.
Here is what was actually at stake:
The Resources:
Brazil holds the world's second-largest rare earth reserves — nearly a quarter of the global supply. The US military-industrial complex is desperate for these minerals to break its dependence on China. The Bolsonaro dynasty was ready to hand them over. A US government-linked company already bought Brazil's only active rare earth mine from Bolsonaro-aligned oligarchs for $2.8 billion. They wanted Petrobras privatized next. Lula said no. These are our minerals. We will build our own economy.
Palestine:
Lula lost a finger in a factory at 17. He is the working class. The Bolsonaros are the landlords, the oligarchs, and the cheerleaders of settler colonialism. They waved Israeli flags at their rallies. They held Zoom calls with Netanyahu on stage. They posed with a map of Israel colonizing ALL of historic Palestine — Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights. Lula stands with Palestine and calls the genocide what it is.
The Multipolar World:
Lula co-founded BRICS. He is building parallel financial systems to bypass the weaponized US dollar. He called for a new global reserve currency. He wants Latin America to trade in its own currency, free from Washington's sanctions. The empire cannot tolerate a continent that refuses to pay rent in dollars.
So how did Washington respond to a sovereign democratic choice?
Trump slapped Brazil with 50% tariffs — even though the US has a trade SURPLUS with Brazil. The tariffs were never economic. They were punishment.
Meta censored Lula's accounts and boosted Bolsonaro.
The Bolsonaro campaign hired a US AI company to spread disinformation.
Eduardo Bolsonaro literally called on Trump to send the US military to attack the Brazilian government.
They threw everything at him. Tariffs. Censorship. Disinformation. Coup attempts.
And they still lost.
The American empire tried to enforce the Monroe Doctrine with algorithms, tariffs, and a puppet dynasty. But the Brazilian working class just voted to keep their minerals, defend Palestine, and build a world where Washington doesn't get to decide who eats.
You can tariff the economy. You can censor the candidate. You can beg for a military coup.
But you cannot colonize a people who have already decided they belong to themselves.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
It’s very easy for politicians to send other people’s children to war. My response to the bloodthirsty elite?
You first.
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín TD has questioned the effectiveness of Ireland’s citizenship requirements after establishing 26,400 people were granted Irish citizenship through naturalisation in 2025, compared with 377 refusals recorded in the response.
gript.ie/almost-full-approva…
The #EU has put #democracy under attack. Here we have the Italian Defence Minister deciding to ignore the wishes of the vast majority of the Italian people in the same way @fiannafailparty @FineGael @MichealMartinTD @@HMcEntee are ignoring the #Irish people by scraping the #TripleLock. These people are dangerous and not serving the #Ireland's interests.
Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto tells the BBC: “We fully understand that a majority of the public opposes aid to Ukraine. But we cannot give in to public opinion when we believe it is wrong.” And right after, he announces new aid packages for Zelensky...
#Democracy?
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
Govt Betrayal of Gen Z - If Ireland deploys DF to *EU Support Mission to Ukraine or Lebanon without Triple Lock -NOT Blue Helmet Peacekeeping -It will be EU Peace ENFORCEMENT Mission to Disarm Hezbollah (Trilateral Deal With Israel US & Leb)-Foreign Wars? share.google/FOnhM4QwGwNbXcu…
Michael C. Murphy retweeted
If, as Helen McEntee has proposed, Irish troops are deployed to Lebanon as part of the EU Security Mission, then they'll be de facto participants in a Lebanese civil war against Hezbollah, at the behest of the Israeli government.
Via Senator @TomClonan
Link below



























