Recent polls that showed Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in battleground states has caused a panic among those committed to a Democratic victory in 2024. Rather than reflecting on why the public‚ particularly…

Sunday Why do people hate Jews? The Jewish religion and faith is the oldest continuously practiced as such in mankind’s history. Jews — an immeasurably small percentage of the world’s population…

It’s almost Christmas‚ and‚ like most of us‚ you are probably behind on buying gifts for loved ones‚ co-workers‚ and others close to you. Skip the stores and the crowds this season‚ and choose from…

You heard it here first: Felons are the future of the Democratic Party‚ something predicted in these pages in April. Michigan’s irascible Gov. Gretchen Whitmer‚ a Democrat‚ adopted the felon-voting…

It has long been obvious that the Democrats badly want Donald Trump to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024. This may seem counterintuitive in light of a recent spate of polls showing the former president leading Joe Biden‚ but this is primarily an artifact of the latter’s weakness. The most reliable polls show Trump bumping up against a ceiling of about 47 percent of the popular vote‚ which is consistent with his performance in the last two elections. Moreover‚ in order to win in the Electoral College‚ he must recapture several swing states Biden narrowly won in 2020 — and that will be more difficult in 2024 than it was in 2016 due to the metastasis of mail-in voting.The RealClearPolitics average shows Trump leading Biden in general election polls by 3.5 percent. It’s not enough. In 2020‚ Biden was able to avoid a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College by a mere 42‚918 votes in three states (10‚457 in Arizona‚ 11‚779 in Georgia and 20‚682 in Wisconsin). Trump won these states in 2016 and is now outpolling Biden in all of them. In a new Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll‚ for example‚ “President Joe Biden trails former President Donald Trump in Arizona‚ Georgia‚ Nevada‚ North Carolina‚ Pennsylvania‚ Wisconsin and — for the first time since tracking began in October — Michigan.” This sounds bad for Biden‚ but few of these states have viable systems for ensuring the security of mail-in ballots. A new poll conducted for the Heartland Institute by Rasmussen Reports illustrates why this matters: One in five voters who cast mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election admit to participating in at least one kind of voter fraud … 21 percent of mail-in voters admitted they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member; 19 percent of mail-in voters admitted that a friend or family member filled out a ballot on their behalf; 17 percent of mail-in voters admitted they voted in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident; and 17 percent of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member with or without his or her permission. None of these votes were legally valid‚ of course. This is why the Commission on Federal Election Reform‚ co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker‚ presciently warned: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” And they have certainly lived up to their potential. About 43 percent of voters cast ballots by mail in 2020‚ according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That comes to about 66.5 million of 158.4 million total votes reported by the Federal Elections Commission. If 21 percent of those mail-in ballots were illegal‚ that comes to a whopping 14.3 million votes and there is no reason to believe that the 2024 election results will be any more legitimate. (READ MORE from David Catron: Dictatorship Is as Dictatorship Does) In fact‚ the Democratic Governors of several states mentioned in the Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll have vetoed election bills passed by their legislatures to render mail-in ballots more secure. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs‚ for example‚ has vetoed no fewer than 20 such election bills. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has similarly used her veto to kill election integrity bills. The same dynamic has manifested itself in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In North Carolina‚ the Republican legislature had to override Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of an election integrity bill. Nevada‚ meanwhile‚ adopted universal vote-by-mail. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) issued this scathing report on its disastrous debut: As states expand mail voting‚ Nevada’s 2022 midterm elections offer an alarming case study of close results as they relate to rejected‚ unreturned‚ and undeliverable ballots. Nevada’s U.S. Senate race was ultimately called four days late on a margin of 7‚928 votes‚ which determined party control for the chamber. In 2023‚ the Secretary of State finally published figures showing that 95‚556 ballots were sent to undeliverable or “bad” address and another 8‚036 were rejected upon receipt. Another 1.2 million ballots never came back to officials for counting. Nevada’s Republican governor‚ Joe Lombardo‚ introduced legislation last March that would have repealed universal mail-in voting and required voters to show a valid ID to cast a ballot. The Democrat-controlled legislature refused to hold hearings on it and accused Lombardo of “rolling back voting rights.” This illustrates the problem with recent polls showing former President Trump leading Biden in “swing states” like Nevada. He will inevitably suffer the same fate as Adam Laxalt in that state because the Democrats will manipulate the final tally with mail-in votes. Even in genuine swing states like Arizona‚ Georgia‚ Pennsylvania‚ Wisconsin‚ and Michigan mail-in voting will be deployed against Trump. (READ MORE: The Voters Versus the Vote Counters) As this is being written‚ the RealClearPolitics average shows Trump leading Biden in general election polls by 3.5 percent. It’s not enough. He will win the Republican nomination. Still‚ if the Democrats can pad their popular vote tally by 14 million mail-in votes — about 9 percent — he has little chance of reproducing Grover Cleveland’s aberrant election to nonconsecutive presidential terms. It’s not impossible‚ however. It can be done if Trump recaptures Arizona‚ Georgia‚ Pennsylvania‚ Wisconsin‚ and Michigan by double-digit percentages of the popular vote in each state. He must reproduce the 2022 victory of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or at least that of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp. Trump can’t win a close election in 2024. READ MORE from David Catron: The Scariest SCOTUS Case This Term Bidenomics: The High Price of Gaslighting The post Can Trump Really Win in 2024? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The private-eye hero of my just finished new political thriller‚ The Apocalypse Mask‚ is a 30-something ex-Army Ranger who left the military because of its increased wokeness. Mark Slade didn’t quit out of political conviction but for self-preservation. He just could no longer trust his life to unfit soldiers poorly trained by lowered physical standards‚ such as that for women. “You got a problem with women in the military?” a female character asks him. “Lot more than the Chinese will when they take us on‚” Slade replies. A new report on the dismal caliber of current U.S. military personnel‚ typically found only in a foreign newspaper‚ UK’s Daily Mail‚ makes Slade’s decision all the more believable. But it was the movies that elevated my love for the U.S. military‚ those made by Hollywood during and shortly after World War II. The article headline pretty much describes the problem: “US Army faces ‘TikTok mutiny’ as Gen Z recruits whine about low pay‚ ‘sh***y’ food and FITNESS TESTS while on bases in uniform.”  The story itself describes a total breakdown of military discipline and behavior. It’s full of punk soldiers whining about their service misery on video and social media while still in uniform — a court-martial level offense. One poster with a million followers on TikTok ‚ Anthony Laster‚ blasts his Army existence for its “No Privacy‚ Sh***y Food‚ Disrespectful Leadership‚ NO SLEEP!” (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Advent Versus Evil) Putting aside the fact that all of his complaints have been the military reality forever‚ if not the point‚ TikTok is programmed and controlled by China‚ the enemy these weenies may soon be called upon to fight. And I don’t set much store by our chances. Because the rot starts at the top‚ with simpering brass like General Mark Milley (“I want to understand white rage‚ and I’m white.”) and Secretary of State Lloyd Austin (“The fact that the Afghan army that we and our partners trained simply melted away — in many cases without firing a shot— took us all by surprise.”) No wonder the Army will likely be 15‚000 short of its 65‚000 recruit goal‚ the Navy and the Air Force ten percent short. Last year‚ when my nephew‚ Lucas‚ 21‚ asked for my advice about joining the Marines‚ I gave him the answer I once never thought I would‚ “No way!” Where once I would have pictured the Marine Corps War Memorial and the heroic leathernecks planting the U.S. flag amid the brutal Battle of Iwo Jima‚ a darker image came to my mind. Of Marines bearing the casket of their dead comrade (Lance Corporal Dylan Merola‚ 20)‚ one of 11 Marines (plus two other servicemembers) blown away at Kabul Airport during Joe Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Of the vegetative President‚ clueless First Lady Jill Biden‚ and inept  SecDef Austin standing by with hands on their hearts while wearing those stupid COVID masks. My answer to Lucas saddened me the second I said it. I grew up loving the United States military — patriotically‚ historically‚ and fictionally. The thought of men risking‚ and too often losing‚ their lives and limbs in war to defend our nation always stirred me. And America has been blessed by the best and bravest since its inception. This Christmas Day‚ for instance‚ while you’re feasting in warmth and comfort among family or friends‚ try to imagine General George Washington’s 1776 Christmas. At 4:00 a.m. on December 26th‚ Washington and his men were crossing the Delaware River in pitch darkness‚ snow‚ and frost‚ still ahead‚ a grueling march and the war-changing battle for Trenton. Shortly before this daring operation‚ Washington had his officers read to his men excerpts from Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis. These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will‚ in this crisis‚ shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now‚ deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny‚ like hell‚ is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us‚ that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. I devoured military histories more thrilling than fiction‚ like James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom about the Civil War. Consequently‚ whenever someone asks my opinion on slavery reparations for black people‚ I state that that they already got them — 360‚000 Union dead — and deserve not one cent more. I can’t recommend enough Craig Symonds’ The Battle of Midway (Pivotal Moments in American History) describing the tide-turning battle of World War II‚ and many other stirring chronicles. The same went for the gripping novels about the war‚ like James Jones’ From Here to Eternity and Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War (his Holocaust-focused continuation‚ War and Remembrance‚ is not as good). (READ MORE: All in the Homily: On the Death of Norman Lear) But it was the movies that elevated my love for the U.S. military‚ those made by Hollywood during and shortly after World War II — in which most of the top male stars had fought. Some of the best are Destination Tokyo‚ Battleground‚ Stalag 17 (starring William Holden‚ USAF‚ 1942-1945)‚ Run Silent‚ Run Deep (starring Clark Gable‚ USAF‚ aerial gunner‚ five missions over Nazi Germany)‚ and The Longest Day‚ a magnificent depiction of the Allied Normandy Invasion. Yet I can never forget Fredric March’s wonderful closing speech as a Rear Admiral in The Bridges at Toko-Ri. “Where do we get such men? They leave the ship and they do the job‚ and they must find this speck lost somewhere in the sea. And when they find it‚ they have to land on its pitching deck. Where do we get such men?” The answer is not on TikTok or under the Biden Administration. One week left to order the perfect Christmas gift book – my romantic Yuletide ghost story‚ The Christmas Spirit‚ available at Amazon‚ Barnes &; Noble‚ and other fine bookstores. The post SNAFU in the Woke Military appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It was another bad week for Ukraine and the Western nations seeking to aid it in its fight against the nearly two-year war of conquest Vladimir Putin is waging against it. Biden needs to compromise on border security to get the financial and military aid we need to send to Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington to try to break the deadlock between President Biden and Republicans in the House and Senate who want to block more aid to Ukraine. Zelensky went home almost empty-handed‚ having received only another $200 million in U.S. military supplies that Biden agreed to send. He apparently can send “drawdowns” in U.S. military supplies without congressional approval. He did so‚ again‚ draining our own arsenals of munitions we would need for any fights‚ such as Taiwan‚ in which we could soon be engaged. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Foreseeable Consequences) None of Biden’s actions will break the stalemate that the Russian war on Ukraine has devolved to. Biden is entirely responsible for the congressional blockage. He wants another $60 billion for Ukraine‚ but Ukraine can probably do with less.  All Biden needs to do is agree to the enactment of real border security measures demanded by the Republicans. That is‚ to him‚ out of the question. Some Republicans have said that the money could better be spent here‚ which begs the question of Biden’s priorities. We can and must help Ukraine‚ but Biden is spending too much on too many other things‚ such as “climate change” that will only damage our economy. Spending cuts must be made but House Republicans cannot bring them about by themselves. It’s never been clear why so many Republicans are opposed to aid for Ukraine. Have too many Republicans given in to the isolationist strain in U.S. politics? Or do they want Putin to win his war? The European Union also denied more Ukraine financial aid. The EU‚ on the objections of Hungary‚ blocked a €50 billion package for Ukraine despite its earlier promises. Hungary’s Viktor Orban‚ Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest ally among the EU nations‚ not only blocked the aid package but also promised to block Ukraine’s application for EU membership. Orban is the only EU leader to have met with Putin this year. Orban and Zelensky have a personal animosity to each other. We can only guess at the reason for it. Orban has been quoted by Russian state television as saying‚ “Hungary never wanted to confront Russia. Hungary always has been eager to expand contacts.” He has apparently forgotten Hungary’s decades of slavery under the Soviet Union. Meanwhile‚ Putin gave some of his reasons for the war in Ukraine‚ answering questions in his annual marathon press conference in which all Russians and international press are supposedly able to ask questions. Putin said‚ “There will be peace when we achieve our goals. As for the goals‚ they are unchanged.” He defined those goals as the “denazification‚ demilitarization of Ukraine‚ and its neutral status.” Putin said in 2005 that‚ “The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russian people‚ it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and countrymen found themselves outside Russian territory. The epidemic of disintegration also spread to Russia itself.” Since then‚ Putin has been trying to revive the old Soviet empire. To understand him‚ it is necessary to understand the mind of Alexander Dugin‚ Putin’s primary ideological influence. Dugin‚ who is still alive and probably speaking with Putin‚ wrote his seminal book‚ Foundations of Geopolitics in 1997. It is not an understatement to say that Dugin’s book is a template for Putin’s thinking. In Foundations‚ Dugin wrote of a “New Empire” dominated by “Eurasians‚” i.e.‚ Russians. Dugin wrote‚ “The New Empire‚ the construction of which would be a global response‚ is the planetary civilizational mission of the Russian people … This New Empire‚ the Eurasian Empire‚ will have completely differentiated structures within which consisting of separate parts of varying degrees of interdependence and integration.” He wrote that the New Empire will not be the Russian empire or the Soviet empire but something greater. (READ MORE: Ukraine Is Stalemated Again) According to Dugin‚ “Greater Russia‚ for example‚ can be considered like a separate people or even ‘country’ within the framework of the Russian Empire together with Ukrainians‚ Belorussians‚ (sic) possibly the Serbs‚ and so on.’” Dugin‚ who can be accurately characterized as neo-fascist and anti-Semitic‚ believes in the Slavic peoples’ superiority. But despite U.S. and other nations’ sanctions‚ the Russian economy shows no signs of slowing down. On Ukraine he wrote in Foundations that‚ “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning‚ no particular cultural import or universal significance‚ no geographic uniqueness‚ no ethnic exclusiveness … Its certain territorial ambitions represent an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and‚ without resolving the Ukrainian problem‚ it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics.” In other words‚ Ukraine is the foundation stone of any new Russian empire and without it‚ Putin may as well not bother with the rest. Hence‚ Putin’s intense desire to conquer Ukraine. In his Thursday remarks‚ Putin said that Russia had over six hundred thousand troops fighting in Ukraine. That’s probably an exaggeration. He added that it meant a further mobilization of troops would be unnecessary‚ in a sop to Russians who are fleeing the country to avoid conscription. According to a Wall Street Journal report 315‚000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded since the invasion began in 2022‚ which amounts to about 87 percent of the pre-invasion Russian force. Ukrainian casualties‚ according to U.S. estimates‚ are about seventy thousand killed. That number is dwarfed by the number of civilians killed in Ukraine which is over 130‚000. Putin has shifted the Russian economy to a wartime status‚ lessening the production of civilian goods. But despite U.S. and other nations’ sanctions‚ the Russian economy shows no signs of slowing down. Ukraine’s economy has slowed greatly. Russia is concentrating its missile and drone attacks on civilian populations and industrial facilities. Ukraine’s population‚ at about 37 million‚ is not comparable to Russia’s more than 147 million. That means Putin can continue to feed troops into his war of attrition. Ukraine cannot. (READ MORE: Wars Raise Two More Critical Issues) Putin won’t end his war on Ukraine. Even if there is a U.S. and EU-forced cease fire‚ Putin is sure to use it to rearm and re-equip his forces. We cannot leave Ukraine to Putin’s conquest. Biden needs to compromise on border security to get the financial and military aid we need to send to Ukraine. Unless he does‚ Putin will win.     The post Zelensky’s Dismal Week appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Wednesday last‚ the Federal Reserve committed an act of raw politics. After admitting that high interest rates had failed to bring inflation down to its target of two percent‚ the Fed announced (albeit through the Delphic fog of bureaucratic pronouncement) its intention to cut rates three times next year. So much for wringing inflation out of the system with a “higher for longer” policy on rates. The problem here is that Ms. Harris‚ the affirmative-action hire‚ must be seen by progressives to be going peacefully. The markets — stocks‚ bonds‚ REITs‚ commodities — soared. As I write these words‚ all three major equity indexes — the Dow‚ the S&;P 500 and Nasdaq — are up six days in a row. Small caps‚ which tend to carry heavy debt loads and are thus rate-sensitive‚ have bounced even higher. (READ MORE from Neal B. Freeman: The Political Superstate Has Emerged) Why did the Fed move now? Why would it seem to give away much of its hard-won independence for nothing? For three reasons‚ I surmise. First‚ the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is‚ relatively speaking‚ a time of low concentration by informed citizens and high absenteeism among media types. From the Fed’s point of view‚ the less scrutiny of this decision the better. The second and more compelling reason is that the market surge will be reflected in year-end brokerage and retirement account statements. The “wealth effect” will radiate its good vibes: With the concomitant increase in Required Minimum Distributions‚ as just one example‚ every senior in the country will get a raise in 2024. All in‚ tens of millions of voters will‚ at least for a time‚ feel more positively inclined toward Bidenomics. The third reason is the rigidities of the political calendar. Time is short and‚ for the Biden campaign‚ desperate measures are called for. (You know that time is short when both David Axelrod‚ speaking for Barack Obama‚ and Albert Hunt‚ speaking for the conventional soft-Left‚ say that Biden looks like a loser and should step aside. And a desperate measure can be defined in this context as the willingness to risk destruction of the nation’s legal tender.) Will it work? Will the Fed be able to levitate the leaden Biden campaign? In the very short term — early January polling‚ say — Biden may get a bump that the media will hail‚ predictably‚ as a surge. But what then? Some of my political friends‚ long in the tooth but deep in experience‚ think the “401K bounce” will be ephemeral and that the “ultimate desperate measure” must then be taken by senior (and notoriously unsentimental) Democrats. It might unfold this way. Biden would say that (his troubled son‚ his troubled domestic economy‚ his troubled global allies – take your pick) require his undivided attention and that he will not be running for re-election. Before he makes that grand sacrifice‚ however‚ he must replace Kamala Harris‚ who has‚ among a broad range of constituencies‚ given affirmative-action hiring a bad name. The replacement candidates have been identified: Gavin Newsom‚ Michelle Obama‚ Gretchen Whitmer‚ in one order or another. The problem here is that Ms. Harris‚ the affirmative-action hire‚ must be seen by progressives to be going peacefully. Which‚ left to her own wits‚ she would doubtless do next Tuesday — to‚ say‚ an endowed chair at UCLA. Gender Studies‚ perhaps. (READ MORE: The Buckley Legacy: Now It’s Controversial on the Right?) Enter Doug Emhoff‚ the second gentleman‚ or whatever he goes by in Washington these days. In real life‚ he’s a Hollywood lawyer‚ a good one‚ which is to say that he’s a dealmaker. What happens next? We can say this much with confidence: Those senior and notoriously unsentimental Democrats will not be negotiating her departure with the ditzy Kamala but‚ rather‚ with the wily Doug. And what would be on the table? Might it be the World Bank? President of the Obama Foundation? Chairman of the Disney board (which‚ quite by chance‚ would make the wily Doug King of Hollywood)? This would be a sticky situation for lots of people. But not for Doug Emhoff. He would be the most powerful man in Washington‚ making the deal of the century. So‚ buy those Emhoff futures. But investors should note: The distinguishing feature of a futures contract is that it carries a rock-hard expiration date. Doug Emhoff can’t afford to wait even a day too long. The clock is ticking. The post Political Markets Signal Buy Emhoff Futures appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On August 12‚ 2022‚ a 24-year-old California-born Islamist named Hadi Matar rushed the stage of the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York where novelist Salman Rushdie was about to speak‚ stabbing Rushdie ten times‚ in the chest‚ neck‚ stomach‚ thigh and eye‚ leaving the author gasping in a pool of blood onstage before the attacker was subdued. Now Matar stands accused of attempted second-degree murder and‚ if convicted‚ could spend the next 25 years in the clink. Rushdie survived but was permanently blinded in his right eye and lost use of his right hand. Iranian media gloried in the attack though denied any involvement. We know Matar visited Lebanon in 2018‚ where Iran has a large presence‚ and his family reported that he seemed to have changed after the trip. He is known to have been an admirer of Khomeini‚ and was vocally anti-Rushdie in online fora. Matar claims he had read only two pages of The Satanic Verses before deciding to mount the attack on its author. He also said he was surprised Rushdie survived the attack‚ making it clear‚ in my view‚ that Matar’s intent was to kill Rushdie. Which begs the question why he wasn’t charged with first-degree murder instead of second. But that’s New York for you. (READ MORE from Erik Lewis: Anne Rice: The Good Witch Cancelled) Matar’s trial begins on January 8 in Chautauqua and‚ whatever its outcome‚ will have reverberations far beyond the courtroom. The Rushdie Affair gallops on. The Rushdie Fatwa In 1988‚ the young‚ award-winning novelist from India named Salman Rushdie‚ a British citizen since his teens‚ published a novel called The Satanic Verses whose parallel stories and uses of “magical realism” reimagined‚ and at times‚ satirized‚ the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Iran’s Supreme Leader was not amused. He claimed Rushdie’s novel had been the brainchild of Jews trying to discredit Islam and‚ on Valentine’s Day 1989‚ put out a fatwa‚ or death order‚ on its author and publishers for blasphemy against Islam. A $6 million bounty was offered to any Muslim who would do the deed. Ironically‚ Khomeini’s son claims his old man never read the book. Rushdie went into hiding and was given police protection by the British government. He would continue to live in full or partial subterfuge for the better part of the next twenty years. The Archbishop of Canterbury‚ a Mr. Carey‚ sided with the Islamists‚ declaring Rushdie’s novel to be “an outrageous slur” against the “Prophet Mohammed‚” The Satanic Verses took on a life of its own‚ its reputation and sales only buoyed by Khomeini’s making it an Official Book Club Selection. There were anti-Rushdie riots in India and Pakistan. People were killed. The book was banned in more than a dozen countries‚ including in Rushdie’s homeland of India‚ and burned in his adopted one‚ Britain‚ where Muslims railed against their fellow Brit who dared use his right of free expression to blaspheme. Some called for his Snuffing Out while Khomeini’s minions claimed that the kill order and bounty were themselves “free speech.” In Muslim countries‚ Rushdie’s novel was used as a rallying cry against so-called Western “racism‚” even though the Indian-born Rushdie was neither white nor Western‚ and used as a diversionary tactic by unpopular‚ unelected regimes in countries where free speech rights do not exist‚ and where — I have to say it — literary matters are generally not a major concern of most people. A report from the American writer Paul Bowles‚ then in his 70s and living in Morocco‚ reveals how the Rushdie Affair was being exploited in the Caliphate. On February 25‚ 1989‚ Bowles reports that his Moroccan driver angrily informed him that Rushdie’s evil novel had arrived for him at the Tangier post office: He came out to the car where I was waiting and in great excitement began to upbraid me. “A book that is killing people all over the world‚ and you want it” … I got out of the car and went into the building‚ where I saw them all fixing me with baleful stares. One of the employees came to me and explained. “You have a book here that’s forbidden.” I asked him if I could see it‚ but he said it had already been repacked‚ and no one could see it. “Can’t you show me the parcel so I’ll know where it came from?” He went behind a counter and held up a package in the dark by its string‚ not wanting to touch it with his hands. By this time I’d guessed that the book was the one that was making all the trouble‚ thanks to the dictator of Iran. Still I had no idea who had sent it. Another official came up frowning. “‘This is contraband goods. You cannot have it.’ ‘I don’t want it‚’” Bowles shot back‚ and walked out. The next day‚ Bowles wrote: “Today at the post office the clerks wanted to know if the police had been to see me. I said they had not. ‘They came here and wanted your name and address‚ and they took away the book to deliver it to the government in Rabat.’” Such is the way books are treated in a dictatorship — as something forbidden‚ talismanic‚ dangerous‚ deadly. Because they are. (READ MORE: Canceling Philip Roth … And His Biographer) While Rushdie had police protection‚ the personal cost to him would be high. There were several foiled attempts on his life. Threatening letters and phone calls haunted his circle. Strangers showed up at his door and tracked his every move. Bookstores and libraries that carried his book were threatened. Appearances and readings were cancelled. Flying commercially became impossible as airlines banned him from flying‚ including some American ones. He could not leave the house or go anywhere‚ do anything‚ without his protectors first scoping it out‚ a situation he quickly tired of. While they hadn’t yet succeeded in assassinating Rushdie‚ his pursuers had succeeded in taking away his freedom. His life‚ much as he wanted it‚ would never be normal again‚ nor those of his publishers. Rushdie’s Japanese translator was stabbed to death in Tokyo. A few days earlier his Italian translator was stabbed and badly injured at his apartment in Milan‚ but survived. Rushdie’s Norwegian translator was shot several times outside his home and nearly died. In Britain‚ reactions to Rushdie’s plight were mixed. The Archbishop of Canterbury‚ a Mr. Carey‚ sided with the Islamists‚ declaring Rushdie’s novel to be “an outrageous slur” against the Prophet Mohammed‚” and held that Muslim rage was understandable. Margaret Thatcher‚ whose government had given Rushdie full-time security‚ kept her distance‚ while stateside‚ the administration of George H.W. Bush lifted not a finger of support to aid the embattled writer. President Clinton would eventually host Rushdie at the White House‚ but refused to be photographed with him‚ as would British PM John Major when he hosted Rushdie after Thatcher’s exit. A Tory politician‚ giving a speech at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies‚ where I would later get a Masters in Middle East Studies with a dissertation on Gaddafi‚ publicly blamed Rushdie for his extant troubles and ordered him to shut up‚ to the delight of Iranian dignitaries in attendance. An editorial ran in the Daily Mail that suggested Rushdie return to his homeland and spare Britain the trouble and expense of his presence. In his memoirs‚ Rushdie looked back on this event‚ saying‚ “If any other Indian immigrant to Britain had been told to go back to where he came from it would be called racism‚ but it was apparently permissible to speak of this particular immigrant any way one chose.” Among the literati‚ writers like Harold Pinter‚ Ian McEwan‚ Paul Auster‚ Susan Sontag‚ Margaret Atwood‚ and others‚ held firm for Rushdie. More than a hundred Arabo-Islamic writers made public statements of support. This included Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz‚ who would himself be stabbed in the neck by an Islamist in 1994 for his “blasphemous” writings‚ and survive. Norman Mailer‚ never one to give up a fight‚ suggested a fatwa be put out on Khomeini. Rushdie’s most vicious literary critic would turn out to be spy novelist John le Carré. “He insulted a great religion‚” le Carré wrote in The Guardian. “There is no law in life or nature that says great religions can be insulted with impunity.” In 2016‚ Iran suddenly increased the kill bounty‚ making clear it had no intention of giving up on getting Rushdie. In one sense‚ he was right. There is no First Amendment in England. Free speech is a tradition there‚ but not a guaranteed right. That’s the problem with not having rights written down. Eventually some John le Carré will come along and remind you that nowhere is it written that you have such a right‚ and you’ll be thrown in the dungeon. Rushie’s reply to le Carré was succinct: “I happen not to feel that priests and mullahs‚ let alone bombers and assassins‚ are the best people to set the limits of what it is possible to think.” Things would not get better anytime soon. In his 2012 memoir Joseph Anton‚ a dark chronicle of the fatwa years‚ Rushdie recounts how British politicians attempted to earn Brownie points with Muslim voters by proposing to revivify an old blasphemy law that would have made it a criminal offense to blaspheme religion — any religion. A most incredible proposition to be made by a Western government‚ and one which Rushdie &; Friends fought hard against. Rushdie recalls comedian Rowan Atkinson going to Whitehall in protest and asking what would happen under the proposed new law‚ were he‚ as a comedian‚ to even lightly satirize‚ say‚ the Ayatollah of Iran? (I’m paraphrasing.) Would such comedy be acceptable under the new law‚ Atkinson asks a panel of government bigwigs who favor the proposal. Oh‚ yes‚ they say‚ we love comedy! But how can I be sure of that‚ Atkinson says. To which they respond‚ “You’d just submit the script to a government department for approval.” Atkinson replies in his famously wry way‚ “Why do I not find that reassuring?” (READ MORE: Anne Rice: The Good Witch Cancelled) The proposed law failed by one vote. That is how close Britain under Tony Blair came to throwing Western civilization under the bus. The Honorable  The 2007 announcement by Buckingham Palace that Rushdie would be knighted by the Queen for Services to Literature did nothing to quell the fires of Rushdie Hate. The decision drew protests in the U.K.‚ and in several Muslim-majority countries. Pakistan and Iran summoned their U.K. ambassadors to protest the decision. The Iranian Speaker of Parliament went on television and promised that the bestowed honor guaranteed that violence that could be expected from “the Muslims of the world. A prominent cleric in Tehran openly said during Friday prayers that Khomeini’s fatwa against the blasphemer Rushdie was still on. In Malaysia and Pakistan‚ Rushdie was burnt in effigy‚ and the Pakistani Parliament unanimously passed a resolution demanding the knighthood be rescinded. Pakistan’s Religious Affairs minister made a speech in his country’s Parliament saying the knighthood decision could be grounds for suicide bombings inside Britain‚ statements for which he was rebuked by Benazir Bhutto‚ who said that calling for a foreigner to be murdered was not just wrong: it hurt the world’s image of both Pakistan and Islam. Six months later‚ Bhutto herself‚ long despised by Islamic fundamentalists in her homeland for her secularist‚ pro-democracy and pro-American positions‚ would be assassinated by radical elements. In Britain‚ protesters gathered outside Regent’s Park‚ chanting “Death to Rushdie! Death to the Queen!” and held signs saying‚ “Rushdie should be punished.” But the government did not backtrack‚ showing laudable courage just two years after homegrown suicide bombers had attacked London. Rushdie was ennobled with the Queen’s Honor. The investiture ceremony went unannounced due to security concerns. Salman Rushdie was now Sir Salman Rushdie. Land of the Free In 2016‚ Iran suddenly increased the kill bounty‚ making clear it had no intention of giving up on getting Rushdie. A statement issued by Iran’s Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance‚ Mr. Abbas Salehi‚ set the tone: “Imam Khomeini’s fatwa is a religious decree and it will never lose its power or fade out.” The announcement prompted Sweden’s Nobel Prize Committee to finally make a public statement of support for Rushdie‚ after all these years‚ affirming that the fatwa was wrong and that the right of free expression is inviolable. A welcome‚ if belated‚ realization on the part of the Swedes. By now‚ Rushdie was living in the United States‚ beneath whose spacious skies he had more freedom to move‚ to create‚ and to be. He began going out in public again‚ without security‚ and lived a more or less normal life in New York‚ that city of great writers. Rushdie’s memoir Joseph Anton ends with him giving a goodbye party in London for his personal protection officers with whom he had existed‚ in whole or in part‚ for some thirteen years (1989-2002). A premature celebration‚ but one altogether necessary for a man who hated living with bodyguards‚ and the limitations it — they — placed on him.  The end in sight‚ Rushdie strikes a dolorous chord: “He chose to believe in human nature‚ and in the universality of its rights and ethics and freedoms‚ and to stand against the fallacies of relativism that were at the heart of the invective of the armies of the religious (we hate you because we aren’t like you) and of their fellow travelers in the West‚ too‚ many of whom‚ disappointingly‚ were on the left.” (READ MORE: La Dolce Vita: The Moral Dichotomy of the Middle Class) Enter that fateful‚ nearly fatal‚ day in Chautauqua in August 2022‚ when Rushdie took the stage to speak to a packed house at the Chautauqua Institution‚ a venue with no visible security‚ and no bag checks for attendees. The reaction to Rushdie’s knifing was one of shock‚ if not surprise‚ and revealed how uncomfortable people are these days to be thought defending an “Islamophobic” NVNP (Not Very Nice Person) and PB (Possible Bigot). The clumsy news reports from major media made clear the kids in the newsroom had no idea who Salman Rushdie was‚ or of the historical context — The Satanic Verses‚ the ’89 fatwa and the decades-long feud with Islam‚ Inc. Only a handful of prominent writers and celebrities issued any kind of statement of support‚ and those that did offered statements that were‚ for the most part‚ of the thoughts and prayers variation. Even the normally loquacious Stephen King could only bring himself to tweet‚ “I hope Salman Rushdie is okay‚” and “What kind of asshat stabs a writer‚ anyway? Fucker!” Any work of art may be created under our First Amendment‚ no matter how offensive. We know very well what kind‚ Mr. King‚ but who dares say it in the current lynch-mob environment? Who wants to be canceled‚ their lives and livelihoods ruined‚ or worse? These are the consequences now for defending freedom.  J.K. Rowling‚ herself having recently been banished from Nice Personland for daring to say she thought gender was a fact‚ put out a fuller‚ more heartfelt statement wishing Rushdie well. She received death threats.  Perhaps the best‚ most intelligent statement came from Rushdie’s old pal Ian McEwan: “This appalling attack on my dear friend Salman represents an assault on freedom of thought and speech. These are the freedoms that underpin all our rights and liberties.” Writing for the Sunday Times the week after the attack‚ McEwan warned that an anti-freedom spirit is growing and quickly spreading‚ even in the free nations‚ and called on the West to stop playing pussy about its core values and freedoms. He wrote: Sometimes it seems that the world has forgotten how to disagree without resorting to a weapon or‚ in the mildest of cases‚ cultural suppression … The fatwa of 1989 appeared as a last desperate attack on modernity and its secular self-confidence. Now that the illiberal spirit is gathering its full strength‚ the attempt on Salman Rushdie’s life seems sickeningly in keeping with our times. Our defense of the open society has to be even more forceful. Well said. So how did we get here?  Rushdie himself‚ writing years before the attack‚ may have provided an answer: “Respect for Islam‚” he states in his memoir‚ “which was fear of Islamist violence cloaked in Tartuffe-like hypocrisy‚ gained legitimacy in the West …. the cancer of cultural relativism had begun to eat away at the rich multicultures of the modern world.” His late friend Christopher Hitchens‚ an even more indefatigable defender of liberty‚ who quit the U.K.‚ moved to the states and became an American citizen‚ went further‚ writing in his 2010 memoir that multiculturalism was being used as “one of the disguises for a uniculturalism” —  emphasis his — “based on moral relativism and moral blackmail … whereby the Enlightenment has been redefined as ‘white’ and ‘oppressive.’” The same Enlightenment philosophy in which the American Founders‚ and Founding‚ were steeped‚ and which gave us the U.S. Constitution‚ the most liberal document in the history of humankind‚ whose Bill of Rights engraved in marble for all time that certain human freedoms were fundamental and non-negotiable‚ most of all the right of free speech and expression. That today’s left and their Islamist allies find such a right offensive is as telling as it is disturbing. (READ MORE: UK Criminalizing Speech Through Culture‚ Media‚ and Sport) Though Rushdie’s attacker failed in ending his life on that fateful day in Chautauqua last year‚ he did come the closest of anyone yet to fulfilling Khomeini’s orders set out in 1989. Matar’s upcoming trial shows what’s at stake in these strange times‚ and offers an opportunity to reaffirm one of our nation’s core beliefs and founding principles: that any work of art may be created under our First Amendment‚ no matter how offensive‚ and no one has the right to physically harm the artist who created it‚ whatever their feelings or motivations. A good stiff sentence for Salman Rushdie’s would-be assassin will make these points very well.  The post The Trials of Salman Rushdie appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In his new book Deception: The Covid Cover-up‚ Sen. Rand Paul notes that Dr. Anthony Fauci‚ in government for more than 50 years‚ was never once confirmed by the Senate. Other powerful federal officials also evaded Senate confirmation through a partisan process that demands exposure and reform. In 2020‚ the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled that Chad Wolf‚ acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security‚ and Ken Cucinelli‚ senior official performing the duties of the deputy secretary‚ were both “serving illegally‚” according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). GAO officials deferred to the DHS on who should serve and “the consequences of actions” taken by Wolf and Cuccinelli. As California labor commissioner Su supported Assembly Bill 5‚ a frontal assault on workers’ independence. Democrat Reps Bennie Thompson and Carolyn Maloney charged that “GAO’s damning opinion paints a disturbing picture of the Trump administration playing fast and loose by bypassing the Senate confirmation process to install ideologues.” (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Lessons from the EPA’s Agent 007) According to the Constitutional Accountability Center‚ at least 15 Trump officials “do not hold their positions lawfully.” This figure “surely understates the severity of the problem” and “this pervasive evasion of the Senate’s advice-and-consent requirement is deeply troubling — and hugely consequential.” Contrast that with the record of the Biden administration. In February‚ the GAO ruled that appointees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement‚ Office of Management and Budget‚ Office of Violence Against Women‚ the Federal Labor Relations Authority‚ and the Agency for International Development were “serving unlawfully.” The GAO was not concerned whether appointees were performing their duties effectively‚ and it was all a matter of labeling. ICE simply changed “acting director” Tae Johnson to “senior official performing the duties of director‚” and ICE was no longer in violation of the Vacancies Act. By contrast‚ Ken Cuccinelli held a similar “performing the duties” title‚ but the GAO ruled him to be serving unlawfully under the FVRA. Politicians did not complain that Johnson was an ideologue‚ that Biden officials serving unlawfully was deeply troubling and hugely consequential‚ and that the administration was illegally filling an office with an “acting” official. That happened with Julie Su‚ Biden’s pick for Labor Secretary. Several Democrats were dubious and the Senate never held a vote. Then on September 21‚ GAO general counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez ruled that the Vacancies Act’s time limitations did not apply to Su’s service‚ so she could remain atop the labor department without Senate confirmation. This was bad news because Julie Su is an anti-worker ideologue. As California labor commissioner Su supported Assembly Bill 5‚ a frontal assault on workers’ independence. As Californians know all too well‚ she is an administrator of stunning incompetence. (READ MORE: Trans-Forming California) Su headed California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)‚ which oversees the Employment Development Department (EDD) responsible for unemployment claims. On Su’s watch‚ the EDD sent out more than $31 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims‚ many to criminals out of state‚ and out of country. A federal government “accountability” office empowered the most unaccountable person American workers could imagine. Democrats and their media allies did not complain that this particular evasion of the Senate’s advice-and-consent requirement was deeply troubling. For all but the willfully blind‚ it is hugely consequential. Joe Biden is a big fan of California’s AB-5 law‚ and hopes to impose something similar on workers nationwide. By greenlighting Julie Su‚ the GAO helps make that possible. In effect‚ the GAO functions as a supreme court for the federal bureaucracy‚ and the Vacancies Act as an ersatz constitution. GAO attorneys deploy the Act to oppose those they dislike and support those they approve. The Act should be amended to ensure that destructive ideologues such as Julie Su cannot serve without Senate confirmation. Dr. Anthony Fauci did so for decades‚ but his case is different. Dr. Fauci twice declined the offer of President George W. Bush to become head of the National Institutes of Health. In that office‚ Fauci knew he would face confirmation hearings and have a limited term. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which Fauci headed since 1984‚ had no such limitations. The NIAID boss‚ whose bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry‚ came to command public health policy‚ medical research spending‚ and a budget of more than $6 billion. That vast concentration of power enabled Fauci to pay off people to get what he wanted. That includes a cover-up of Covid origins‚ as Sen. Paul‚ a medical doctor‚ shows in Deception. (READ MORE: Senate Confirmation Not Required) Congress must hold Dr. Fauci accountable‚ to the full extent of the law‚ however long it takes. Congress must make the NIAID director subject to Senate confirmation and limit the director to one four-year term. All NIAID and NIH grants should be posted on the internet in real time and in downloadable form. These measures will help prevent a resurgence of white coat supremacy. As the people know from experience‚ that is no basis for a system of government. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ Calif. The post Through the GAO‚ the Deep State Chooses Government Leaders appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.