Today’s guest is Dr. Anne Speckhard, Director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. She is an expert in rehabilitation and repatriation of terrorists and their families, and has consulted with foreign governments on issues of terrorist prevention, interventions and repatriation; and the rehabilitation and reintegration of ISIS foreign fighters, wives and children. Her latest book, Homegrown Hate: Inside the Minds of Domestic Violent Extremists, examines the deepening threat of domestic violent extremism in the U.S. through more than 50 in-depth interviews with current and former members of a wide range of domestic hate groups.
In this episode, we discuss the psychological and psychosocial dimensions of violent extremism, what attracts people to these ideologies, how terrorists and violent extremists have been able to utilize social media to draw people into their ideologies, and what can be done to try to prevent people from falling into these extremist ideologies.
Listen now; link in bio.
Global violence today is metastasizing, not contained; over 180,000 violent events are reported globally, signaling a world in which conflict has become a baseline condition rather than an exception. Yet the UN system and democracies appear increasingly paralyzed—trapped in vetoes, geopolitical rivalries, and hollow declarations—offering gestures of concern instead of enforcing accountability, which is desperately needed.
I recently spoke with Dimitris Eleas, a political scientist, writer, and independent researcher, on my podcast, discussing the human impact of global wars and violence. As Dimitris poignantly observes, the poor, the children, and women are those who suffer the most.
Listen to this and more in my latest podcast episode; link in bio.
Human rights groups warn that deporting people to countries experiencing armed conflict violates international law and fundamental humanitarian protections. As the war in Ukraine continues, governments should prioritize human dignity and civilian protection instead of facilitating removals that could place vulnerable people directly in danger.
Trump’s approach to Iran is not just misguided—it is dangerously delusional. Bombing Iranian military facilities, including water and civilian infrastructure, to “speed up” negotiations betray a profound ignorance of Iran’s strategic culture and national psyche. His defense secretary’s claim that “we negotiate with bombs” reduces diplomacy to coercion tantamount to demanding surrender—something Iran, with its 2,500-year history and fierce sense of sovereignty, will never accept. This reckless posture guarantees escalation, not compliance. Iran will respond to force with force, as it has repeatedly demonstrated. Serious negotiations with Tehran require patience, credibility, and respect for mutual interests; the original nuclear deal took years, not months. Trump’s impulsive timeline and coercive tactics are not just unrealistic—they are a formula for prolonged conflict. The priority must be to sustain the ceasefire and pursue steady, disciplined diplomacy.
1 CommentComment on Facebook
Iran's nuke program gone bye bye
No words are strong enough to condemn the extent to which the Department of Justice has been co-opted under Trump. Reports that his administration secured protections shielding him, his family, and his business interests from IRS scrutiny are not merely improper—they are an affront to the rule of law. No individual, let alone a sitting president, is entitled to exemption from lawful investigation. Such arrangements represent a dangerous abuse of power, placing Trump above the very laws he is sworn to uphold. This is not governance; it is systemic corruption carried out in plain sight. What makes this moment especially alarming is its normalization. If institutions like the Justice Department and IRS can be bent to serve personal and political ends, the foundation of democratic accountability is at risk. Public outrage is not optional—it is essential to preserving the integrity of the law.
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
My earlier Facebook post was widely criticized because many wrongly assumed I oppose lawful gun ownership. I do not. I support the rights of responsible, law-abiding citizens to own a firearm guaranteed by the First Amendment. But I also believe we must reduce the nearly 50,000 American lives lost each year to gun violence. Commonsense measures—universal background checks, safe storage laws, red flag provisions, waiting periods, closing loopholes, and limits on weapons designed for mass killing—can prevent mass shootings and make firearms less accessible to those who pose a risk, without confiscation. This is not about partisanship; it is about responsibility. Behind every statistic is a shattered family—a parent burying a child, a spouse facing irreversible loss, communities living in quiet fear. Preventing avoidable deaths is a shared moral duty.
69 CommentsComment on Facebook
You don’t seem to grasp the idiocy of imposing firearms restrictions on law abiding people while doing absolutely nothing about people who don’t abide by the law. Object restrictions do not affect behavior of the lawless. 70% of guns used in crime are obtained by unlawful means.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” —Thomas Jefferson We are not giving another inch, in fact we are reclaiming our protected right because of past overreach by people like you that prey on emotions instead of strict adherence to the supreme law of the land.
And since you want to campaign on reducing preventable death, in an attempt to appear virtuous by compromising with a protected right, how about alcohol and tobacco use that contributes to the over 600,000 lives lost in the US annually? Those products aren’t protected by the constitution and if you really are sincere about your crusade to preserve human life then apply the restrictive actions proposed for firearms— or do you like booze and cigarettes too much?
None of those laws prevent criminals from getting and using guns. We already have well over 22,000 gun control laws in this country, and every criminal that wants a gun has a gun. Those laws affect the law-abiding, not the criminal. Your post is correctly criticized because your policies are both unconstitutional and ineffective.
And what about automobile accident that claim around the same numbers? Are you willing to give up your car?
How do you plane to enforce UBCs and safe storage? No one is selling guns designed for mass shootings. You seem to be trying to use interest balancing to support your gun laws. That's unconstitutional.
The FBI data lists 11,000 to 12,000 firearm homicides per year. Where does he get 50,000. Gun grabbers throw out these big numbers and never explain how they get them.
The reason they use the term "gun-violence" is so they can avoid discussing the PEOPLE who are actually responsible for the violence. The ENTIRE gun-control legislative agenda REQUIRES GUN-VIOLENCE against peaceful people to implement and enforce. Gun control legislation is meant ONLY for disarming the targets of the criminally violent. Anti-rights politicians--and the anti-rights voters who empower them--would have you shot dead JUST for exercising and protecting your rights. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803); "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1956); "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law Arrest them, prosecute them, convict them, and put them in jail.
Weird how you ✡️s are always trying to "regulate" our gun RIGHTS? Bolshevik ✡️s genocided over 60 million Russian and Ukrainian Christians between 1917 and 1935. Donmeh ✡️s genocided 2.2 million Greek, Armenian, and Syrian Christians between 1915 and 1923. Kaifeng ✡️s genocided about 40 million Chinese between 1958 and 1962. And Zionist ✡️s are currently genociding Palestinians and Ukrainians for their "Greater Israel" and "Second Israel" projects.
So tell me what infringe means!
Yes. This month is "National Gun-Violence Awareness month." Be aware of "gun-violence" all day today. Be aware that the reason they use the term "gun-violence" is so they can avoid discussing the PEOPLE who are actually responsible for the violence. Also be aware that the ENTIRE gun-control legislative agenda REQUIRES GUN VIOLENCE to implement and enforce. Remember folks, the people selling guns (of any description), buying guns (of any description), making guns (of any description), and carrying the guns (of any description) they sell, buy, and make are all exercising a specifically enumerated and constitutionally protected right. Anti-rights politicians--and the anti-rights voters who empower them--would have you shot dead JUST for exercising and protecting your rights. Gun control WORKS everywhere its implemented... it works EXACTLY as the authors of such "common sense" measures intend. I submit Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Pulse Night Club, Luby's Cafeteria, Parkland, the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, San Ysidro, Thousand Oaks, Virginia Tech, Sutherland Springs, Santa Fe High School, the El Paso WalMart, Dayton OH, the Tops Market in Buffalo NY, Uvalde TX, the Covenant Elementary School, Lewiston ME, etc. as EVIDENCE. The TARGETS of those atrocities were obeying the "common sense" gun laws governing the possession of guns at those venues. They were complying with the "reasonable" measures they were told were necessary for their own safety. These consequences of gun-control legislation are PREDICTABLE; and HAVE BEEN predicted by the opponents of such legislation every time they're brought up. I contend it is then FAIR TO CONCLUDE that those consequences are the ACTUAL OBJECTIVE of the measures demanded, advanced, and enacted by gun-control advocates and the politicians they enable. NOBODY--including those who draft gun-control legislation or those who support such legislation--REALLY believes that any level of gun prohibition/control will prevent the criminally violent from obtaining the means to their mayhem. Gun-control politicians and mass murderers share a common desire: THEY want to be the ones who decide if you (or your children) are going to be a survivor or a victim of their violence. Gun control legislation is meant ONLY for disarming the targets of the criminally violent. There is only ONE motive in the desire to disarm the targets of criminal violence. There is only one kind of person who desires to see the targets of criminal violence defenseless. These people, who seek to disarm the TARGETS of criminal violence, and who desire to see them defenseless--these VIOLENT degenerates are the problem. They are the ENTIRE problem, and they are making their violent intentions CLEAR. Don't be one of them. And don't vote for them either. Because there is NO reason to believe that anti-rights politicians--and the anti-rights voters who empower them--will limit their anti-rights agenda to the 2nd Amendment. Also, they are criminals: 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law Arrest them, prosecute them, convict them, and put them in jail.
Now , I have a Question for those against Firearms and use children's schools safety as a punch line for more Firearms Control by the State... Know I am going to really step on those toes of those whom claim you are well Educated and Critical Thinkers. Lol on Critical Thinkers, So let's Dance Critical Thinkers, I will bet anyone of you will pay money and sometimes pay really high money to go to a Concert, Professional sports event, College Sporting event, Political Benefit and many other things you pay that dollar bills for. Now at these events you will expect security teams and police to make sure of you and your family are safe RIGHT!!!! BUT yet ( YOU CHOOSE ) " You " ... not to have the same "Safe Security " inside children's schools, Now Go Figure That ONE Out ! Now here's the Normal Response many of you will say We meaning "You " don't want armed Police officers there or We meaning " You " say we don't have the Resources. My Response to your on these answers you tend to say " AT WHAT COST ". NOW LET'S look as parents and grandparents Real Critical Thinkers but, think outside of the box. There is a Major Wasted Resource that absolutely none of you can see right in front of your Faces. The Resource are Retired Military Police or those Military security teams individuals men and women. Now I know what you want to say about uniforms, Stop they can be in Civilian Attire ,with Body armor under their shirt or suit. The resource can be VFW ,AMERICA LEGION, THE BIKERS THAT RIDE DURING Funerals and Get this every Unemployment offices each Unemployment office has a Military representative . Now the last Question is how many think you can get on any of military bases easily without face to face Interaction with one of those individuals. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
Lol. You can't be taken seriously when you think the right to own firearms is guaranteed by the first amendment.
Nope, your list of “commonsense measures” is still fascistic, totalitarian bullshit. GFYS, authoritarian.
Naaa. You are anti American and anti constitutional rights.
Shut the fuck up, tyrant.
There are more lives lost every month through abortion than all numbers of other violent deaths put together per year.
So you know that laws only effect those that abide by them....criminals don't care if you make things illegaler. There are 0 "common sense gun laws" all of them are 100% illegal and those making them should be arrested for treason.
Your numbers are fictional.
So then you ought to know the difference between the First and Second Amendments. If you really want to save lives, you will vote to limit abortion, since abortion kills 20 times more Americans per year than firearms (by all causes combined). But I'll bet you haven't done one thing about abortions.
🐂💩
How is this post different. You do realize many behind anti gun legislation want confiscation and are willing to use folks with this point of view to be useful idiots to facilitate total confiscation.
How many of these 50000 were law abiding citizens and how many were criminals killed in the act of committing a crime How many were criminals killing criminals. If you defend yourself or someone else with a firearm and kill an armed criminal who is 18 years old the anti gunners look at it as a bonus for their statistics, it will be classified as gun violence, a citizen was killed but the biggest bonus was it was a child that was killed. Doesn't matter if you save your life or someone else's.
The Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, were widely condemned and initially generated international sympathy for Israel. However, as the war in Gaza intensified, global perceptions began to shift dramatically. Images of devastated neighborhoods, overwhelmed hospitals, mass displacement, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians have led many governments, human rights organizations, and members of the public to question whether Israel’s response has remained within the bounds of international humanitarian law. What was once viewed primarily as a security conflict is now increasingly seen as a moral and political crisis. As civilian suffering continues and diplomatic criticism grows, Israel faces mounting international isolation and a profound challenge to its global reputation. Link to the article
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
