Skip to content

Alain Guillot

Life, Leadership, and Money Matters

Home
Blog
About
Contact

Latest blog post

Why Distressed Commercial Properties Are a Double-Edged Sword
The Hidden Chasm Beneath Our Clicks
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett Admits She Was Hired Because She’s Black

Personal Finance

Financial Settlement Success: Innovative Tactics for Navigating Complex Deals
Signing Up for Your First Bank Account as a Gen Z’er: What to Look For
Should Taxpayers Fund NPR and PBS? The Left Bias Public Broadcasters

Business

4 Tips For Ensuring Your New Business Is Profitable
A Guide To Create A Positive Working Environment
Here’s How You Can Start a Zine for Your Business

Stock Market

Stay away from investing in alcohol companies
Which Companies Will Dominate the Next Decade? Insights from the Past 10 Years
How Trump’s Policies Inspired My Shift from Canadian Stocks to U.S. Small-Cap Investments

Politics

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett Admits She Was Hired Because She’s Black
Female Fencer Expelled for Refusing to Compete Against a Man
Trump’s Trade War: New Tariffs Reshape Global Commerce

Real Estate

Why Distressed Commercial Properties Are a Double-Edged Sword
The Future of Luxury Living: Trends in Custom Home Design
Perfect Stripes, Less Effort: How a Push Mower Can Transform Your Lawn

Law

Employment Law Essentials Every Entrepreneur Needs in a Changing Workplace
Navigating the Commercial Property Maze: Insights for Modern Business Leaders
Why a Free Consultation With a Wrongful Termination Lawyer Is Crucial

Marketing

The Hidden Chasm Beneath Our Clicks
Understanding the Different Types of Point of Sale (POS) Systems
The Power of Tailored SEO Solutions in Competitive Markets

Personal Development

How To Stay Calm And Think Clearly Under Pressure
Considering Going Back to School? Here’s What You Need to Know
Are You Comfortable At Home?

Side Hustle

5 Reasons To Consider Content Creation As A Career Path
5 Hobbies You Can Turn Into a Side Hustle Without Much Effort
Are You Cut Out for a Career in Fitness?

Opinion

Dear Government: Stop Wasting My Money Before Asking for More
Trump’s Common-Sense Policies: Gender, Sports, and a Showdown with Maine
Civilizational Suicide? How Europe’s Policies Are Undermining Its Future

Self Made

Elon Musk: Reshaping Government Efficiency, Not Chasing Wealth
How to save $9 million on a secretary’s salary
Creating a business from $0 to 8.75 Million in 2 years

Podcast

How to break bad habits and create good ones with Bob Savar
How to Tell Stories That Sell, with Matt Dicks
Johan Norberg, in defense of Capitalism

https://www.alainguillot.com/congresswoman-jasmine-crockett-admits-she-was-hired-because-shes-black/
On April 2nd, during a congressional session, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett made a shocking admission. Speaking about her early career as a public defender, she said:

“When I first became a public defender I had no experience, and I walked in and I told my boss ‘Listen, you should hire me because I’m Black.’”

Let that sink in.

A person tasked with defending individuals’ rights in court was hired not because of her legal knowledge or courtroom skills, but because of the color of her skin. This isn’t progress—it’s regression. And worse, it’s dangerous.

How can we, as a society, justify putting individuals in positions of power or responsibility based on anything other than their merit? When someone’s race becomes the deciding factor in their hiring, what message are we sending to the public? To future generations? To those who earn their spot through hard work and competence?

Congressman Wesley Hunt, a Black man and U.S. Army veteran, responded to Crockett’s comment with dignity and clarity:

“I never asked for a handout based on the color of my skin… There was no ‘skin color’ exam before I climbed into an Apache helicopter… Bragging about being a DEI hire isn’t the flex she thinks it is.”

And he’s absolutely right.

Hiring based on race, gender, religion, or sexual identity is not only immoral—it’s illegal. Affirmative action policies and DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) initiatives may have been created with good intentions, but they’ve evolved into a distorted system where identity often trumps merit.

Let’s be clear: Diversity should be the result of fair and open competition, not the starting point. When a person is chosen solely because of how they look or identify, it delegitimizes their achievements and erodes trust in our institutions—whether it’s a law firm, a university, or Congress itself.

The problem here isn’t just Jasmine Crockett’s statement. It’s the growing trend—especially in left-leaning political circles—of normalizing and even celebrating the idea of “DEI hires.” This is not just a disservice to qualified individuals of all backgrounds, but also a strategic blunder that damages the credibility and effectiveness of the Democratic Party.

We should all be proud of our skills, accomplishments, and contributions—not of the box we check on a census form.

I believe in fairness, meritocracy, and individual excellence. The path forward isn’t through tokenism—it’s through empowering everyone to compete and succeed based on their ability, not their appearance.

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett Admits She Was Hired Because She’s Black

https://www.alainguillot.com/stop-wasting-my-money/
One of the things Elon Musk is famous for is Efficiency, whether in government, business, or space exploration. Recently, Musk and his DOGE team have been sounding the alarm on something that should concern every taxpayer: the massive levels of waste, fraud, and abuse inside the federal government.

Every few years, reports surface revealing billions of dollars mismanaged or spent without accountability. From duplicate programs and bloated budgets to outright fraud, we’ve seen countless examples of government failing to act as a responsible steward of our money.

Yet, what’s truly frustrating — and borderline insulting — is that whenever discussions arise about expanding social programs, many progressive politicians, especially Democrats, jump straight to one solution: raise taxes on the rich.

Why is that the default?

Instead of asking, “Where is the money going?” or “How can we make our systems more efficient?”, the conversation often becomes a moral crusade against the wealthy — as if that alone solves the structural issues within government.

If you listen to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that all you hear. Their first knee jerk reaction is to tax the rich, instead of trying to find efficiencies in the economy.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t an anti-welfare state rant. Helping the vulnerable is a noble goal. But shouldn’t our first priority be to clean up the mess before demanding more money from anyone?

If a private company were hemorrhaging money due to incompetence or fraud, investors would pull out. Executives would be fired. But in the public sector, the answer seems to be: raise taxes and hope people don’t ask too many questions.

We’re not talking about small numbers, either. The Department of Defense has failed multiple audits. COVID-era relief programs lost hundreds of billions to fraud. Medicare and Medicaid regularly see tens of billions lost annually due to overpayments or scams.

And yet… the solution is to raise taxes?

It’s not about defending billionaires. It’s about defending common sense. Any household, business, or nonprofit knows that before you go looking for more income, you cut the fat. You plug the leaks. You become lean and efficient.

Why can’t our government do the same?

Musk, love him or hate him, is at least asking uncomfortable questions that most politicians won’t. And that’s a conversation we all should be having — regardless of our political leaning.

Before you tax more, show us that you can manage what you already have.

Stop Wasting My Money Before Asking for More

https://www.alainguillot.com/female-fencer-expelled/
In a moment of courage, female fencer Stephanie Turner made a bold stand—and paid the price.

At a recent fencing tournament at the University of Maryland, Turner was scheduled to face Redmond Sullivan, a man claiming to be a woman competing in the women’s division. As the match was about to begin, Turner took a knee, removed her fencing mask, and refused to fence.

Her protest? That biological men should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports.

The response was swift and severe. Turner received a black card—the harshest penalty in fencing—effectively disqualifying her from the event and potentially jeopardizing her future in the sport.

The USA Fencing claim of being “inclusive,” is in fact exclusive. It excludes biological women from having a place of their own.

“This man can compete in the men’s category or in the mixed category, But by choosing to compete in the women’s category, he’s taking away a spot that belongs to a woman.”

USA Fencing, in a statement, reaffirmed its support for transgender participation and upheld Turner’s disqualification, ignoring the flood of concerns coming from female athletes and supporters on social media.

Turner, once a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat, says this moment was eye-opening.

“I voted red down the ticket this year. It was like waking up to the lies of the mainstream media.”

She’s not alone. A growing number of women in sports, particularly those on the front lines of competition, are beginning to question policies that, in the name of progress, may be undermining the very protections Title IX was designed to offer.

Turner has publicly criticized USA Fencing for “not listening to women’s objections”—a sentiment that resonates beyond just fencing. Across the sports world, female athletes are voicing concerns, but few seem to be heard.

This isn’t about hatred or discrimination. It’s about fairness, biology, and the integrity of women’s sports. If governing bodies continue to ignore female voices, what does the future of women’s competition look like?

Males are quicker
Males have longer reach
Males are much stronger
But in this tournament Stephanie Turner became more powerful than any male
By taking a knee
And refusing to fight a man

Female Fencer Expelled for Refusing to Compete Against a Man

https://www.alainguillot.com/trumps-trade-war/
The world has been anxiously waiting for clarity on President Trump’s new trade tariffs, and now, we finally have our answer. The administration has announced a mix of blanket and reciprocal tariffs that will impact global trade dynamics significantly.

Breakdown of the Tariffs
The United States will impose a baseline 10% broad-based tariff on its trading partners. On top of that, an additional reciprocal tariff will be applied based on a country’s trade practices. This calculation goes beyond just tariffs; it also takes into account non-tariff barriers, such as currency manipulation, dumping, and value-added taxes (VAT) in regions like the European Union.

Some of the announced retaliatory tariffs include:

China: 34%
European Union: 20%
Brazil: 10%
Canada and Mexico: 10%
India: 15%
Vietnam: 12%
Japan: 14%
President Trump has justified these tariffs on grounds of national security, rather than economic leverage, stating that the U.S. must protect its industries and supply chains from unfair foreign competition.

What’s Next? More Tariffs Coming
The administration has signaled that this is just the beginning. Additional tariffs will be introduced on key sectors, including:

Lumber
Copper
Semiconductors
Pharmaceuticals
Precious minerals
While Canada and Mexico will initially be spared from reciprocal tariffs, they will still face levies tied to border security and fentanyl-related concerns.

Timeline for Implementation
The 10% blanket tariff goes into effect on April 5th at midnight.
The reciprocal tariffs will follow on April 9th.
Impact on Global Manufacturers
Many multinational corporations are already responding by increasing their manufacturing presence in the U.S. to sidestep the tariffs. Some of the companies affected include:

Honda
Hyundai
Volkswagen
Volvo Cars
Stellantis
TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company)
Samsung
LG Electronics
Brazil’s Advantage in Agricultural Trade
One country that stands to benefit significantly from these tariffs is Brazil. If China retaliates by imposing tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, such as soybeans, it will likely increase its purchases from Brazil instead. As one of the world’s largest agricultural exporters, Brazil could gain a stronger foothold in the Chinese market, further cementing its role as a major supplier of food and raw materials.

Israel Drops All Tariffs on U.S. Goods
While most countries are dealing with new U.S. tariffs, Israel has taken a completely different approach—it’s dropping all tariffs on U.S. goods. This is exactly the kind of response Trump was hoping for. By removing trade barriers, Israel is strengthening its economic ties with the U.S. and avoiding any retaliatory measures. Trump has praised this move as an example for other countries to follow.

Canada’s Response
Canada has historically imposed high tariffs on certain industries, especially dairy products, where tariffs can reach 200%. Additionally, Quebec’s non-tariff barriers, such as requiring French-language labeling, remain a key trade issue.

In the wake of these negotiations, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been credited for securing a relatively favorable deal for Canada. Since Justin Trudeau’s resignation, diplomatic tensions have eased. Notably, President Trump has stopped referring to Canada as “the 51st state” and no longer calls its leader the “Governor of Canada.”

Conclusion
These tariffs mark a fundamental shift in global trade policy. While some industries may benefit from increased domestic manufacturing, others will face rising costs and supply chain disruptions. The coming months will reveal whether this aggressive stance will achieve Trump’s goal of reshaping global trade in America’s favor—or whether it will trigger a new wave of economic retaliation from affected nations.

We as Canadians, we have to congratulate our prime minister Mark Caney for a favorable negotiation with president trump. After WOKE Trudeau resigned, president trump stopped calling Canada the 51st state and he stopped calling the prime minister of Canada “Governor of Canada.”

Trump’s Trade War: New Tariffs Reshape Global Commerce

https://www.alainguillot.com/no-transgenders-in-womens-sports/
President Donald Trump has never been one to shy away from bold moves, and his latest directives are stirring the pot once again. In a series of executive actions and public confrontations, he’s tackling issues that many Americans see as plain common sense: defining gender as male and female, keeping boys out of girls’ sports, and flexing federal muscle to make it stick. Here’s how it’s all unfolding—and why it’s about time someone took a stand.

Two Genders: Male and Female, Period
Trump’s administration has made it clear: the federal government will recognize only two genders—male and female—based on biology at birth. This isn’t some radical new idea; it’s a return to the basics that most people have lived by forever. The directive cuts through the noise of modern gender debates, setting a firm line for federal policy. No more confusion, no more endless categories—just the reality of what’s on your birth certificate. For a lot of folks, this feels like a breath of fresh air in a world that’s gotten way too complicated.

Boys Don’t Belong in Girls’ Sports
Then there’s the sports issue. Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” banning biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s athletic events. It’s a no-brainer when you think about it. Women have fought hard for their own space in sports—Title IX didn’t come easy—and letting boys or men compete against them undermines that fairness. Strength, speed, muscle mass—biology matters, and pretending it doesn’t is just unfair to female athletes. Trump’s directive says schools and programs that don’t comply risk losing federal funding. Harsh? Maybe. Necessary? Absolutely.

The Governors’ Dinner: A Stage for Leadership
To drive his point home, Trump invited all 50 state governors to a dinner at the White House in February 2025. It wasn’t just a fancy meal—it was a power move. With the National Governors Association in town, he used the spotlight to push his agenda, laying out his vision for a country that sticks to traditional values. Picture it: governors from every corner of the U.S., red and blue states alike, sitting around the table as Trump makes his case. It’s the kind of bold leadership that gets people talking—and, in one case, arguing.

The Maine Standoff: Trump vs. Janet Mills
That’s where Maine Governor Janet Mills comes in. During the governors’ event, Trump zeroed in on her state’s refusal to follow his sports directive. Maine’s been digging in its heels, letting transgender girls (biological males) compete in women’s sports under state law. Trump didn’t mince words: “Are you not going to comply with that?” he asked Mills directly. She shot back, saying she’d follow “state and federal law.” Trump’s response? “Well, we are the federal law. You better do it, because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t. Your voters don’t want this either.” It was a classic Trump moment—blunt, unapologetic, and putting Mills on notice.

Mills didn’t back down right away, promising to “see him in court.” But here’s the kicker: Maine gets over $360 million a year in federal education funds. That’s not pocket change. Trump’s not bluffing when he says he’ll cut it off, and Mills knows it. The pressure’s real.

Maine Universities Cave—Common Sense Wins
Fast forward to March 2025, and the tide’s turning. After the feds paused some funding and gave Maine a 10-day ultimatum, the state’s universities blinked. They’ve agreed to ban biological males from women’s sports teams rather than lose millions in federal dollars. It’s a big win for Trump’s policy—and for fairness. Posts on X lit up with the news, with folks calling it “The Trump Effect” and a victory for girls across the state. Maine’s Governor Mills might still be grumbling, but the universities saw the writing on the wall. Money talks, and so does common sense.

Why This Matters
These aren’t just political stunts—they’re policies that hit home for everyday people. Most Americans don’t want to see their daughters lose scholarships or titles to someone with a biological edge. Polls back this up: a New York Times/Ipsos survey found only 18% think transgender females should compete in women’s sports. Trump’s tapping into that sentiment, and it’s resonating. Sure, critics will cry “discrimination,” but isn’t it discriminatory to female athletes to ignore the physical realities of sex?

The whole country should get behind this. It’s not about hate—it’s about fairness and sticking to what works. Trump’s drawing a line in the sand, and whether you love him or hate him, you can’t deny he’s making waves. Maine’s universities caving is just the start. Who’s next?

Trump’s Common-Sense Policies: Gender, Sports, and a Showdown with Maine

https://www.alainguillot.com/civilizational-suicide/
Europe’s Existential Dilemma: Immigration, Free Speech, and Sovereignty
Europe is at risk of engaging in what U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has described as civilizational suicide. Through a combination of political choices and ideological rigidity, European governments are failing to uphold the fundamental pillars that have historically defined the continent—sovereignty, cultural identity, and the right to free expression.

The Border Crisis and Cultural Clashes
European nations have been unable—or unwilling—to control their borders effectively. Over the past two decades, millions of immigrants from vastly different cultural backgrounds have arrived, many from regions where values regarding democracy, secularism, and individual freedoms differ significantly from those of Europe.

This has resulted in huge cultural clashes, as Vance warned, where European values are undermined, and parallel societies emerge. These communities often reject key Western principles such as gender equality and free speech, creating deep societal divisions.

Meanwhile, European governments have shown a shocking leniency toward crimes committed by certain groups. In Austria, the ringleader of a gang of 17 migrant men who raped a 12-year-old girl was sentenced to only 15 months’ probation and a $1,000 fine, ensuring that he remains free in society. In Germany, a woman was given a harsher sentence than her rapist of her friend after she called him a “disgraceful rapist pig” on social media. The rapist, part of a gang that sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl, received a suspended sentence and served no jail time, while the woman who criticized him was sentenced to a weekend in jail. These cases exemplify how the justice system often appears more focused on protecting criminals than victims.

The Suppression of Free Speech
Rather than addressing these legitimate concerns, many European governments have taken a different approach: silencing dissent. Under the banner of combating “hate speech” and “misinformation,” authorities have enacted strict regulations limiting what citizens can publicly express.

The UK, for instance, reportedly arrests more people for social media posts than Russia, raising significant concerns about free speech. Germany has also cracked down on speech, even arresting individuals for sharing memes. These policies prevent the public from openly criticizing immigration policies or cultural conflicts, fueling resentment and undermining democratic discourse.

A Call for Sovereignty and Cultural Respect
If Europe is to survive as a distinct civilization, it must first respect itself—its history, its people, and its foundational principles. This means enforcing border controls and ensuring that those who immigrate are willing to integrate and embrace European values. It also means reaffirming the right of European citizens to express their concerns without fear of persecution.

A nation that does not control its borders ceases to be a nation. A civilization that silences its own people while allowing criminal behavior to go unchecked is on the path to decline. As Vice President J.D. Vance warned, Europe must respect its own people and its own sovereignty—or risk losing both.

Civilizational Suicide? How Europe’s Policies Are Undermining Its Future

https://www.alainguillot.com/fabricated-racism-when-false-hate-crimes-shape-the-narrative/
Today, we are going to talk about the false hate crime report involving LaTarsha Brown. When I see how many fabricated racial incidents exist, it makes me realize that the U.S. is not as racist as some people wish it were.

There is even a website that reports fake hate crimes. Take a look, it’s called, drum roll please, “FakeHateCrimes.org.”

When people who constantly complain about racism run out of real incidents to highlight, some resort to making them up.

LaTarsha Brown is an employee at City of Allentown’s Department of Community and Economic Development, Pennsylvania, and also serves as a school board member.

In January 2025, she reported finding a noose on her desk at City Hall. Immediately, the situation escalated.

“We have to take this absolutely seriously because, obviously, this is a serious threat, and it’s also potentially a hate crime.”

Protesters gathered outside, believing the police were not handling the case seriously enough.

The media covered the story extensively, activists and community leaders made speeches, and outrage spread over racism in the workplace. Under mounting pressure, the police decided to escalate the investigation and called in the FBI for assistance.

At this point, LaTarsha Brown started to panic. She had sought attention, but she hadn’t expected the case to gain so much traction that federal authorities would get involved.

As the investigation progressed, Brown became uncooperative. She gave vague statements, and detectives noted that she appeared deceptive.

Eventually, law enforcement conducted DNA tests on the noose. Every City Hall employee willingly provided a DNA sample—except Brown. While others complied to avoid being labeled racist, she refused.

In the U.S., being accused of racism is one of the worst reputational stains a person can face.

Due to her refusal, the police obtained a warrant to compel her to provide a DNA sample. The results confirmed that her DNA was on the noose—not only on the outside but also embedded within the rope fibers.

As a result, she was charged with filing a false police report and tampering with evidence. Both are misdemeanors, meaning she will likely face minimal legal consequences. However, despite her actions, she has retained her job. If a white person had staged a similar hoax, they would likely have faced hate crime charges and immediate termination.

If a white person would have done it, they would have gotten fired. I think the same standards should be applied to her and I think she should lose her job. She has brought disgrace to the black community and to the antiracist movement growing in the U.S. Also, if a hate crime is a felony, hoxing a hate crime and involving the police should also be a felony.

This fake racism is not new news. NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace claimed fake racism over a rope that was used to pull the garage door.

It seems Brown wanted attention—but not this much. She may have sought to portray herself as a victim to gain sympathy and influence public opinion in her favor. Perhaps she believed this would help her politically, encouraging people to support her causes and decisions. However, she didn’t anticipate the case spiraling out of her control and attracting federal scrutiny.

Most Americans are not racist, but some individuals try to convince us otherwise. They gain attention by exaggerating racism and embracing a victimhood narrative. It seems that when it comes to racism, the demand is greater than the supply.

As a society, we would be far better off if we focused on overcoming real challenges rather than fabricating oppression for personal gain.

Fabricated Racism: When False Hate Crimes Shape the Narrative

https://www.alainguillot.com/should-taxpayers-fund-npr-and-pbs-the-left-bias-public-broadcasters/

March 26, NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger testified before the House Subcommittee on a hearing called: “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable,” focused on allegations of partisan bias within public broadcasting and the ongoing debate over federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which received $535 million from Congress for 2025.

The Accusations Against NPR and PBS
Republicans, accused NPR and PBS of left-wing bias, citing examples such as NPR’s initial dismissal of the Hunter Biden laptop story and PBS’s inclusion of a drag queen on a children’s program.

Among those calling for defunding public media, Representative James Comer (R-Ky.) argued that CPB has become a “left-wing echo chamber” that no longer serves the interests of all Americans. Marjorie Taylor Greene took it a step further, stating that NPR and PBS should be entirely defunded and dismantled, as taxpayer money should not be used to fund what she sees as partisan news organizations.

Adding fuel to the fire, Senator John Neely Kennedy criticized public broadcasting, claiming, “We all know what public radio and public TV are like today: They run from slightly communist to very communist.” He argued that taxpayer money should not subsidize any form of media, regardless of political stance. Representative Eric Burlison echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the U.S. is $36 trillion in debt and should not be allocating funds to media organizations.

NPR’s Response and the Challenge of Perceived Bias
During the hearing, NPR’s Maher acknowledged past missteps, including her own 2020 tweets where she called President Trump a “racist” and a “sociopath.” She also admitted that NPR’s lack of coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story was an error. However, Maher maintained that NPR is committed to journalistic integrity and pointed out that accusations of bias should be weighed against the broader contributions public media makes to civic discourse.

Yet, when confronted with the fact that all 87 members of NPR’s editorial board are registered Democrats, Maher conceded that this was “concerning.” This acknowledgment has fueled conservative arguments that public media is not politically neutral.

The Future of Public Broadcasting
Despite the heated exchanges, no immediate funding changes were enacted, as CPB funding is secured through 2027. However, this hearing signals that public media will continue to face intense scrutiny. Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for NPR and PBS to be defunded, stating, “NPR and PBS, 2 horrible and completely biased platforms, should be DEFUNDED by Congress IMMEDIATELY.”

Should Taxpayers Fund the Media?
The fundamental question at the heart of this debate is whether taxpayer money should be used to fund any form of media. Public broadcasting supporters argue that NPR and PBS provide essential educational and cultural programming that would not survive in a purely commercial environment. Detractors, however, see public media as an outdated model in the digital age, where news and entertainment options are abundant and privately funded alternatives exist.

I align with Senator Kennedy’s perspective: the government should not be in the business of funding media. If a news organization cannot sustain itself through voluntary contributions, advertising, or subscriptions, then it may not be providing content that people truly value. Public broadcasting should stand on its own merit, rather than relying on taxpayer dollars.

The future of NPR and PBS may not be decided overnight, but one thing is certain—this debate is far from over.

Should Taxpayers Fund NPR and PBS? The Left Bias Public Broadcasters

https://www.alainguillot.com/palestinians-rise-against-hamas-the-largest-protest-since-war-began/
Hundreds Join Gaza’s Largest Anti-Hamas Protest Since War Began

Since Oct 7th, 2023, the people of Gaza have endured immense suffering. Their voices have often been drowned out by war, political agendas, and the iron grip of the terrorist group Hamas. However, in an unprecedented moment of defiance, hundreds of Palestinians took to the streets in northern Gaza this week, demanding that Hamas step down and allow them to live in peace.

A Cry for Liberation
The protest, the largest anti-Hamas demonstration since the war with Israel began, saw young men marching through the streets of Beit Lahia, chanting “Out, out, out, Hamas out.” Their demand was simple: an end to the rule of Hamas, whose control has only brought destruction, economic collapse, and war.

Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, masked Hamas militants quickly intervened. Armed with guns and batons, they forcibly dispersed demonstrators, assaulting several. This violent crackdown reflects Hamas’s longstanding intolerance toward dissent. Instead of addressing the grievances of the people, Hamas chose to silence them through brute force.

Hamas Chooses War Over Peace
The timing of these protests is crucial. Hamas recently rejected an extended ceasefire and the continued exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli hostages, leading Israel to resume its military campaign. This rejection raises a critical question: If the release of hostages could lead to peace, why would Hamas refuse?

The answer lies in Hamas’s priorities. While ordinary Palestinians long for normalcy—food, water, shelter, and safety—Hamas thrives on perpetual conflict. The group’s leadership remains disconnected from the daily struggles of Gazans, prioritizing its political and military objectives over the well-being of the very people it claims to represent.

Voices from the Rubble
Mohammed Diab, a resident of Beit Lahia who lost his home and his brother in an Israeli airstrike, voiced his frustration: “We refuse to die for anyone, for any party’s agenda or the interests of foreign states. Hamas must step down and listen to the voice of the grieving, the voice that rises from beneath the rubble – it is the most truthful voice.”

Diab’s words resonate with countless Gazans who have lost everything. Most of the 2.1 million people in Gaza have been displaced, some multiple times. With 70% of buildings damaged or destroyed, critical infrastructure—healthcare, water, and sanitation systems—has collapsed. The population faces extreme shortages of food, fuel, and medicine. Yet, amid this devastation, Hamas continues to prioritize its survival over the needs of the people.

The West’s Double Standard
As Palestinians in Gaza risk their lives to protest against Hamas’s oppression, one must wonder how Western protesters will respond. Will they stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza in their struggle for freedom, or will they continue to romanticize Hamas as a “resistance movement,” ignoring the voices of those suffering under its rule?

The world must recognize that true support for Palestinians means advocating for their freedom from all forms of oppression—including Hamas. It is time for international communities to listen to the voices rising from the rubble and stand with those demanding peace, dignity, and self-determination.

The question remains: Will the world hear their cries, or will it turn a blind eye once again?

Palestinians Rise Against Hamas: The Largest Protest Since War Began

Load More… Subscribe

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.

Get the latest economic, financial, and political trends—straight to your inbox. No fluff, no noise—just clear, insightful analysis to help you stay informed.

We write and publish a YouTube video about three times per week. Be the first to find out.

Subscribe Now – Unsubscribe anytime.

Type your email…

Alain Newsletter

Life, Leadership, and Money Matters

Search

Social

Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter/X

Lightbox image placeholder

Previous Slide

Next Slide