One of the remaining plaintiffs wants Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson to testify again in a deposition before Aug. 1.

Site has no Description

The very first command God gives to the first humans is to be fruitful and multiply. If there aren’t people‚ then there are no commandments and no wisdom‚ for who would be there to contemplate or to act? But with ongoing human life‚ everything else follows in time — so long as people continue to invest in those who will follow them. Our generation is doing the opposite — ringing up debt that will saddle those who come after us.  If they come after us. For it has been evident for some time that humankind around the world has decided that it will observe the commandment about being fruitful and multiplying about as much as any of the other commandments — sporadically‚ as it may please us.  Opposing this suicidal trend is the deepest reason for my own political conservatism. We have known for some time that the replacement rate had been dropping. In 2011‚ David Goldman in his How Civilizations Die called our attention to the sharp drop in the birthrate around the globe‚ something he called a path of willed self-extinction. Things have only gotten worse since then. In 1960‚ the American birthrate was 3.65 per couple; by 2000‚ it was 2.06; and by 2020‚ it was 1.64. A small spike during COVID was only a brief respite; the birth rate continues downwards. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: The American People Know the Real Hamas) A recent article in the Free Press suggests an underlying cause. In her article this week‚ Rikki Schlott makes the case that as men trend increasingly rightwards and women increasingly towards the left‚ establishing a relationship between them becomes increasingly difficult and rare.  Why should that be so? It wasn’t terribly uncommon in America fifty years ago for husband and wife to have political differences. By and large‚ the structures of our communal life — our schools‚ our houses of worship‚ our service clubs‚ and our bowling league‚ and our bridge clubs embraced people of both parties and a range of political opinions. There was a broad consensus that was the atmosphere of the country. We thrived within a large‚ civil consensus‚ and believed that it was capable of working through life’s challenges successfully together.  Yes‚ it had its limits. But we accepted the need for rebellion‚ even as we tried to temper its rough edges. We knew we needed its enlivening energy and we made places for it. We had stable forms capable of constructively channeling an abundance of life energy. We believed we could grow and thrive‚ changing but always coherent. The greatest success was in being a religious land without religious coercion. Although religions make special claims on people‚ setting boundaries on behavior‚ on beliefs‚ and even on acceptable partners for marriage‚ the experience of the millennia embodied in our religions tempers the fanaticism that into which faith claims have been known to lapse. American religious freedom meant that our religious communities had to renounce the favorite ploy of the fanatic — using the power of the state to force doctrinal conformity. Separating religion and state is not something absolute. We are both religious and political beings‚ for religion means simply our addressing of the deepest issues of life‚ the place from which first principles and axioms spring‚ and politics is how we negotiate together the practical life of the polis‚ our lives together. Political freedom requires our own inner commitment‚ that which religion teaches and reinforces — that we must govern ourselves if we wish to be free of needing a tyrant to enforce order. The religious wars of Europe‚ and in particular‚ the bloody struggles over religion during the English Civil War‚ were a caution to the American Founders. The political differences of Charles I and the Parliament did not rise to out-and-out war until the struggle was successfully framed as religious. And so it was fought —  a war between the supporters of the episcopate on the King’s side‚ and an alliance of Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans on the other. The man who won the war‚ Oliver Cromwell‚ constantly framed the political and even military issues in fiery religious language. Here he writes in a letter about his triumph at the battle of Marston Moor: Truly England and the Church of God hath had a great favour from the Lord‚ in this great Victory given unto us‚ such as the like never was since this War began. It had all the evidences of an absolute Victory obtained by the Lord’s blessing upon the Godly Party principally. We never charged but we routed the enemy. The Left Wing‚ which I commanded‚ being our own horse‚ saving a few Scots in our rear‚ beat all the Prince’s horse. God made them as stubble to our swords. His “Godly Party” won the war and established what amounted to a military dictatorship for more than a decade. Renouncing tyranny‚ the American Founders rejected the idea that our own politics should settle whose is the Godly Party. Rather‚ we should place religion beyond the reach of politics‚ so that all would give the state their assent as citizens and their practical duty‚ to paraphrase part of Washington’s reassuring reply to the Jewish community of Newport in 1790. (READ MORE: The Story of Oct. 7 Is the Same as the Story of Dec. 7) But in America in the early 21st century‚ politics has again entwined itself in religion. Cultural Marxism holds sway over a large swath of America‚ and over one of its great political parties. Like all Marxism‚ it is a religion. Its faith is that its politics embody the ultimate truth‚ and whereas all the traditional religions are merely exploitative power-grabbers‚ hiding their motives and manipulating their followers with untrue and outdated narratives. They believe that tolerance and freedom of religion and of expression are negative‚ as there is no need to debate the truth which is theirs entirely. Their revolutionary politics believes our First Amendment freedoms are harmful and should be eliminated. Just as traditional religions in their heydays usually insisted and always preferred that their followers marry only within their community‚ the new religion of the cultural Marxists insists as well on no out-marrying. How could there be any true relationship of any sort between the awakened people of the light and the oppressors‚ i.e.‚ everyone who is not similarly awakened? And if that is true of relationships in general‚ how much the more so of intimate relationships.  The effect of that religious requirement of the cultural Marxism that has a grip on the young’s education fans out widely. The NY Post reports of a recent poll by a Bay Area research firm‚ Change‚ that showed “that 55% of women found it a turnoff for a partner to listen to ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ while 53% said it was offputting for a love interest to refuse to see Greta Gerwig’s summer blockbuster ‘Barbie.’” As political differences increase between the sexes‚ and as politics tries to become religion‚ we can see the power of this driver increasing in our birthrate stats. As a religion‚ Marxism in general is not family friendly. In the largest Communist country‚ the South China Post reports that “China posts record-low birth rate despite government push for babies.” In America‚ the higher the level of education and power‚ the lower the birth rate. Only natural when one feels part of an elite with more wisdom than the traditional institutions and inherited culture of the poor idiots over whom the elite have the right to rule with no accountability and less limitation. (READ MORE: Complicit Media Wants Israel to Spare the Children) In the section of the Torah read this week in Jewish synagogues around the world‚ God tells Moses that the people should “make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in them.” The text long ago drew attention — shouldn’t it have said “I will dwell in it‚” in that Sanctuary they are to build. But no. The Sanctuary and all outer structures exist for the purpose of Godliness within each one of us. That enables us to be right with each other. That enables us to build relationships‚ which enable us to build families‚ build societies‚ and build nations and a community of nations. Without it‚ we don’t even get to square one. With no relation to that which transcends us‚ we die with no one to follow us and carry on the shared vision. We perish in our isolation‚ in our chosen extinction on the altar of our own woke perfection. The transforming of politics into religious war is self-immolation. Opposing this suicidal trend is the deepest reason for my own political conservatism. We must conserve the place of religion in society and we must refuse to let politics swallow it up. We dedicate our lives to the Oneness that makes possible the bridging of human differences in loving relationships and gladly bring new life into the world. The post The Transformation of Politics Into Religious Wars appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Germany’s Catholic bishops may be preparing to defy the Vatican‚ despite Pope Francis’s efforts to rein in the heterodox prelates. The German Bishops’ Conference will meet tomorrow for its annual Spring plenary assembly‚ where the bishops may move forward with establishing a Synodal Council. Last year‚ as the German Synodal Way concluded‚ the idea of a Synodal Council was proposed‚ a permanent body of mostly laity who would democratically vote on matters ecclesial and administrative‚ replacing the authority of the bishop. If Germany’s bishops approve those statutes‚ too‚ the Church in Germany will officially be in schism. The Vatican vehemently opposed and outright banned the creation of any such council‚ stating that the German bishops do not have the authority to contradict the ecclesial hierarchy of the universal Catholic Church. However‚ Bishop Georg Bätzing‚ the president of the German Bishops’ Conference‚ rejected the ban and announced that he would try to negotiate with the Vatican instead. Catholic laity in Germany are calling on their bishops to be obedient to Rome. The group Neuer Anfang (New Beginning) published an open letter to “once again express our concern for the course of the Church” in Germany. They wrote: [W]e would like to invite you — in a good biblical way — to take stock and see whether there is still something right about the overall “Synodal Way” project. The Pope and his Roman authorities have rejected almost all of their demands and decisions as incompatible with the teachings of the Church. Neuer Anfang noted that the Synodal Council and the Synodal Way have been “built on sand.” The Synodal Way was originally intended to be a means to address the “power structures” in the German Church which resulted in the clerical sexual abuse crisis. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Virginia’s Bishops Speak Out Against Euthanasia) However‚ the program began operating under the misconception that the abuse was facilitated by the specifically and uniquely Catholic organization of the Church. Of course‚ as countless abuse crises and studies have demonstrated‚ abuse is not rooted in the Catholic Church: any organization which has hierarchical “power structures” is susceptible to abuse. Since the Synodal Way began operating on flawed and faulty principles‚ the creation of a Synodal Council‚ Neuer Anfang argued‚ is unnecessary and “cannot be reconciled with the sacramental structure of the Church.” “Why‚ dear bishops‚” the laity asked‚ “do you openly disobey the Pope? … Who gives you‚ dear bishops‚ the right to renounce your apostolic authority based on the Gospel?” The letter notes that the bishops are wasting their time and energy on committees and meetings‚ neglecting their duty to shepherd their flocks. “Do you still notice that you‚ as courageous shepherds and bold leaders‚ are urgently needed somewhere else?” the laity asked in their letter. “There is war outside. The country is facing a demographic‚ economic‚ and social catastrophe. Germany is in danger of slipping into ungovernability. Hundreds of thousands of people are leaving their spiritual home disappointed — a Catholic Church that has lost its spiritual substance‚ its intellectual relevance and its prophetic luminosity.” “Lent is a time of examination of conscience‚ purification and new beginnings‚” the letter concludes. “Nobody has to continue the old patterns. You as bishops don’t have to do that either. With the ‘bold freedom of speech’ that Cardinal Bergoglio called for the Church in 2013‚ we say to you: Bishops‚ be honest!” (READ MORE: Understanding Pope Francis’s Comments on Hell) Currently‚ a “Synodal Committee” is preparing the way for the banned Synodal Council. The powerful Central Committee of German Catholics has already approved the statutes of the Synodal Council. If Germany’s bishops approve those statutes‚ too‚ the Church in Germany will officially be in schism and in direct defiance of the Roman Pontiff. The post Germany’s Bishops Are Approaching Schism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Despite recent claims that the Academy Awards excluded women from coveted categories — claims made by none other than #Hillary Barbie — the nominations suggest an unprecedented appreciation of films made by or for women.  Sure‚ Barbie’s Greta Gerwig is missing from Best Director‚ but four out of ten Best Picture nominees are female-centric films. The one topping nominations‚ director Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things‚ is a subject of fascination. By nominating Poor Things for 11 awards‚ the Academy has implicitly endorsed the vision of womanhood in a film true to Mary Shelley’s source material. In grafting the Sexual Revolution onto Victorian England‚ Poor Things‚ like Frankenstein‚ creates a frightening amalgam.  If the film industry offers a glimpse into our culture‚ then Poor Things indicates that we’ve ridden this wave of feminism to its peak. Though the characters are hedonistic‚ the film itself is secretly prudish. If Poor Things wins big at the March awards show‚ then the Academy will‚ perhaps unwittingly‚ embrace a return to traditional values.  (READ MORE from Shelby Kearns: Let Kids Drop Out: Why Compulsory Education Harms Even the Most Gifted Students) On its surface‚ Poor Things celebrates women’s sexual freedom through its heroine‚ Bella Baxter (Emma Stone).  Bella is the creation of Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe)‚ or “God‚” and the pair reside in a futuristic Victorian England. She has an infant’s brain in a woman’s body‚ so Godwin charts her progress as her motor skills and cognition rapidly shift from child to woman. To control the experiment’s variables‚ Godwin gives Bella a cloistered existence in his home and lab‚ making her a blank slate unshaped by social convention. Before Bella is even mature enough to consent to marriage‚ Godwin promises her to his sensitive apprentice Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) — one of her few contacts with the outside world.   The marriage plans are thwarted by Godwin’s lawyer‚ Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo)‚ a dandy who takes after Shelley’s friend‚ Lord Byron. With prurient intentions‚ Wedderburn invites Bella on his travels‚ and she eagerly accepts to see what life is like outside the Godwin home.  As Wedderburn and Bella traverse colorful‚ steampunk versions of Lisbon‚ Alexandria‚ and Marseille‚ the result of Godwin’s experiment is revealed. Godwin never poses this question‚ but the film seems to ask the audience‚ “What would women be like if they weren’t controlled by men?”  One reading suggests that the uninhibited woman would have sex like a man.  Bella has such an appetite that it even surprises Wedderburn‚ whose confessions suggest that he doesn’t stay with anyone longer than three months. Wedderburn is so intrigued with Bella that he decides to marry her‚ but to his chagrin‚ she takes on additional partners. What follows is a lengthy second act of sex scene after sex scene.  Poor Thing’s supposed celebration of Bella’s sexual freedom has polarized critics. One review in Slate sees “a kinky delight‚” while Vulture’s Angelica Jade Bastién considers the sex scenes part of a male fantasy — albeit one with admirable craft — that gazes upon Bella’s body with no interest in her interior life.  Though the takes in Slate and Vulture diverge‚ they share an assumption: Poor Things conflates sexual experience and enlightenment. Bastien says as much when she notes the transition from black and white to full color‚ perhaps a stylistic choice showing that Bella is in the dark until shrugging off sexual restraint.  What the critics miss‚ however‚ is a searing indictment of the Sexual Revolution. The look and feel of Poor Things imply that not all Bella’s choices are good‚ and they’re not all her own. Like other Lanthimos films‚ Poor Things evokes the uncanny‚ disgust‚ and what young people call “cringe” through wide-angle lenses‚ a dissonant score‚ and shots exposing the body’s every nook and cranny. In other words‚ sexual freedom can be ugly.  Those encouraging Bella’s appetite reveal their self-interest‚ including the brothel owner who temporarily employs Bella and tells her that “[a] woman planting her own course to freedom” is “delightful.” It reminds one‚ for example‚ of how late Playboy founder Hugh Hefner supported birth control and abortion‚ as Louise Perry astutely observed in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. People who support casual sex without consequences often have something to gain‚ including‚ in Hefner’s case‚ a steady supply of girlfriends 60 years his junior. (READ MORE: These Policies Could Help Vulnerable Women Who Are Turning to OnlyFans) Poor Things‚ then‚ is arguably more evocative of Mary Wollstonecraft than Mary Shelley. Wollstonecraft‚ Shelley’s mother‚ has reentered the feminist imagination thanks to legal scholar Erika Bachiochi’s The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision (2021).  Bachiochi argues for a return to the first wave of feminism ushered in by Wollstonecraft with her 1792 treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Wollstonecraft’s feminism‚ Bachiochi writes‚ held men and women as equally rational and thus equally dignified. Contrary to the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and the accompanying ideology of second-wave feminism‚ the equal rights of men and women didn’t exist so that women could act like the most vicious men. No‚ Wollstonecraft thought that equal rights enabled men and women to exercise equal virtue‚ helping both sexes fulfill familial obligations. In prioritizing the family‚ Wollenstonecraft hoped to forestall fatherlessness‚ a phenomenon that has risen to epidemic proportions.  With its pro-family undercurrent‚ Poor Things makes a journey of its own from the third (fourth?) wave of feminism to the first. The film begins as a sex-positive Frankenstein but has an ending that would please Wollstonecraft. Yes‚ Bella makes unconventional choices‚ and the final scene shows her lounging on the lawn‚ clinking martini glasses with Toinette (Suzy Bemba)‚ the friend and lover who she met at the brothel. However‚ Bella also makes a decision that’s radical in  today’s anti-marriage culture: she retreats behind the walls of the Godwin home with her betrothed‚ Max. To paraphrase a Victorian concept‚ Bella is the angel with a crooked halo in the house.  For all its raunch‚ Poor Things is most at ease with Bella’s quiet and relatively chaste domestic life. By the end‚ Lanthimos has dropped the warping camera lenses and replaced the grating score with a triumphant chorus. At last‚ Bella’s enlightenment has arrived.  Poor Things’ critical acclaim could mean that the Academy is similarly awakened to the problem with the Sexual Revolution: its false promises undermine marriage and family‚ the ultimate sources of happiness. If the film industry offers a glimpse into our culture‚ then Poor Things indicates that we’ve ridden this wave of feminism to its peak‚ and it’s about to come crashing down. The post The Oscars Unwittingly Celebrate Sexual Morality With <;i>;Poor Things<;/i>; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As Vladimir Putin talked to Tucker Carlson about the “Russian soul” last week‚ his troops were breaking through Ukrainian defenses in a key sector of the besieged city of Avdiivka‚ which has become the latest pivotal battle of the war.  When Putin agreed to give the interview seen by millions around the world‚ he may have known that his intelligence services were dusting off Soviet era maps  showing  a pipeline close to  Russian positions‚ through which “Spetnaz” could crawl into the city center. A specially selected “storm” unit composed of Wagner group veterans‚ now incorporated into the regular Russian army‚ managed to sneak up behind some Ukrainian positions and catch them by surprise. Their collapse allowed an advance into  the destroyed city neighborhood by Russian troops whose siege has lasted four months‚ at a cost of over 20‚000 casualties‚ 300 main battle tanks‚ and thousands more combat vehicles and artillery pieces. Ukraine’s highly pressured position in Avdiivka was causing simmering disagreements between president Volodymir Zelensky and elements of his military high command arguing for a tactical withdrawal to more defensible fortified lines 16 miles west of the city. The Russian breakthrough brought matters to a head and Zelensky  replaced the chief of his armed forces‚ General Valery Zalushny‚ with the more aggressive general Oleksandr Syrsky‚ signaling his continued refusal to concede territory to Russia — even as Putin was telling Tucker that he would negotiate peace once “Russian objectives are met.” Europe’s military shortcomings and the currently fractured leadership in Washington make a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine seem inevitable. With the capture of Avdiivka‚ Russia can solidify its central front and  move towards the industrial heartland of the Donbass‚ Kromatorsk‚ an engineering hub with a population of  over 100‚000‚ steel plants‚ iron mines‚ and gas fields. It would be Russia’s biggest strategic prize since launching its invasion two years ago and may be central in any future peace discussions. (READ MORE from Martin Arostegui: Putin’s March to the Red Sea) Upon taking his new command‚ Syrsky  committed  key  reserves to reinforce positions in Avdiivka including the crack 3rd Brigade freshly trained in American M1A1 Abrams tanks which started arriving  last October. Any relief effort would involve sharp armored thrusts to counter Russia’s pincer movement to surround the city from the north and south‚ in order to secure its western supply route that Russian forces have almost cut off in recent days. It was  Syrsky’s strategy when he directed the defense of Bahamut last winter and Russia will probably fall back  on the attritional tactics its so far used to  capture cities with its numerically superior army;  flooding in troops from all directions to overwhelm the defenders. Ukraine has  advantages it lacked last year. It’s much enhanced armored capabilities — including the Abrams‚ British Challenger tanks‚ German Leopards‚ as well as hundreds of U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles and German Marders that keep arriving in steady numbers — more than match refurbished vintage T-55 and T62s with which Russia is largely replacing  modern T-72s‚ T-80s‚ and T-90s being destroyed in great numbers. Ukraine has  vastly increased its drone capabilities with domestic mass production of copies of Iranian Shahed 136 and Russian Lancet FPVs‚ that they use with lethal effect against artillery positions. Defense contractors are even working on  jet powered loitering munitions to throw against strategic targets inside of Russia‚ such as  oil and gas refineries  hit in the most recent attacks. Ukraine has also greatly expanded its electronic warfare capabilities‚ significantly catching up to Russia in this critical area. According to Ukrainian defense spokesmen‚ EW equipment is now being distributed to field units down to company level to disrupt swarms of enemy drones by interfering with the signals from their operators. Zelensky and his newly appointed high command may be hoping to hold off the Russians long enough for the 40 to 60 American F-16s‚ committed by European NATO allies‚ to get in theatre and give Ukraine some tactical air superiority to push the Russians back from Avdiivka and possibly rout their 50‚000 strong force concentrated there. Gen. Syrsky  routed the Russian invasion force of 100‚000 trying to take Kyiv two years ago. (READ MORE: Zelensky Responds to Putin’s Missile War) Russia may even be planning for such a worst case scenario. It’s erected a barrier of over 2000 freight wagons along a 30 mile stretch of railroad east of the Avdiivka called “ Tsar Train” which analysts believe is intended as a barricade against Ukrainian forces that may pursue a retreating army into occupied lands. Pictures of F-16s with Ukranian markings are already circulating on social media but the planes are probably still  in Romania or other countries where pilots are undergoing training. Their highly complex  instruction has a way to go yet‚ according to experts like retired British air vice marshal Sean Bell who told Times Radio that it will be “several months to a year” before the pilots are combat ready. Zelensky is taking a huge gamble in Avdiivka. Success much depends on whether a previously rejected $62 billion military aid package that was finally approved by the US Senate this week makes it past the House of Representatives where Republican Speaker Mike Johnson says it’s “dead on arrival.” Despite pledging to defend Ukraine at any cost‚ the Biden administration refuses to adopt measures to shut the U.S. border with Mexico proposed by Republicans who condition new aid for Zelensky on stemming the migrant “invasion” that’s a far bigger security concern for most Americans than Ukraine‚ according to  polls. The European Union is trying to fill the void created by the cut throat power struggles between globalist democrats and isolationist republicans. After approving $55 billion in Ukraine aid last week‚ top EU officials have announced plans to step up supplies of 155 mm artillery shells of which Ukraine is critically short. Over 500‚000 are being delivered  next month ‚ according to EU Commission president Ursula Von Der Leyen. This falls way short of the one million artillery rounds sent to Russia by North Korea‚ but Europe’s chief commissioner says that EU countries will “coordinate efforts to draw from existing stocks and increase ammunition production” for further deliveries. Norway is also replenishing missiles for Ukraine’s NASAM medium range air defense systems which could run out by next month‚ according to the Pentagon. This other critical shortage could give Russia the window it needs to unleash its hypersonic missiles such as the X-22 also known as Kh-22‚ with speeds of up to 4‚000 kph for a blitz that could dwarf anything suffered by Ukraine so far. (READ MORE: Russia Mounts Its Comeback) “It’s impossible for Russia not to win” Putin told Tucker in their two hour interview and he could be proved right in Avdiivka. A growing sense of urgency is palpable in Europe where the prospect of a Russian victory  is finally forcing governments to step up military preparedness as Donald Trump pushed them to do when he was president over scathing criticism from the liberal media and bureaucratic pundits. Europe’s military shortcomings and the currently fractured leadership in Washington make a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine seem inevitable at this point. The battle for Avdiivka may well decide whether Putin deals from a position of strength or from behind his “Tsar Train.” The post Ukraine and Russia Battle for Avdiivka appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.