It’s graduation season. A time when caps fly, parents cry, and students briefly feel like the world is theirs — even if the real world couldn’t care less how they feel. At Fordham University this year, something extraordinary happened. Out walked Jimmy Fallon — not to give a speech, but to DJ. Sort of. “I’ve never done this before,” he joked to the crowd. “Can I just plug in my phone?” They laughed. Loudly. The good kind of laughter — the kind that’s free, not forced. He queued up “Blinding Lights” by The Weeknd, and just like that, the room transformed. In truth, the roof almost came off the building. Then the real magic happened. Out of nowhere, The Weeknd himself — real name Abel Tesfaye, arguably the biggest pop star on the planet — walked onto the stage. The look on the students’ faces? Sheer, unfiltered joy. Jaws dropped. Eyes lit up. People giggled uncontrollably, screamed like they never screamed before. (RELATED: David Brooks Still Can’t Say the Word ‘God’) Now, what’s my point? That moment mattered. Not because of who was onstage, but because of what it cut through. We live in a culture so poisoned by cynicism, politics, and digital sneering that something as simple as a surprise DJ set now feels like an act of rebellion. These are vitriolic times, where joy feels suspect, and neutrality is treated like betrayal. It’s become fashionable to hate on joy. To view everything, especially someone like Jimmy Fallon, through a lens of suspicion. Too mainstream. Too safe. Too silly. He doesn’t seethe like Colbert or John Oliver. He doesn’t sermonize like Kimmel. Unlike Seth Meyers, he doesn’t carry himself like an uptight DNC press secretary. Fallon made the conscious choice not to wade into the nightly low-blow politics that so many of his peers bathe in. Yes, he had Trump on his show. Yes, he ruffled his hair. And yes, he pokes fun at politicians. But not in a mean, divisive way. Not in the way that tells half the country they’re beneath laughter. Although no late-night host today holds a candle to Conan, who mastered the art of being absurd, brilliant, and subversive without ever being cruel, Fallon is the closest we’ve got when it comes to just being funny. (RELATED: The Politics of Comedy) Granted, Fallon’s brand of joy might be over-the-top, sometimes goofy, maybe even cloying to the irony-addled. But those subway sing-alongs? Those college pop-ins? The way he shows up with Ed Sheeran and busks in the middle of New York for no reason other than to see people smile? That’s not fake. That’s not manufactured. That’s real. The guy’s not trying to save the Republic — he’s just trying to remind people that it feels good to smile. Fallon isn’t dangerous. He’s not trying to dismantle institutions. He’s not waging war on MAGA. He’s not patronizing viewers, nor is he offering “edgy” social critiques. He’s just out here reminding us how to laugh like children. And if that bothers people, maybe the problem isn’t Fallon. It’s us. It’s the algorithm that rewards contempt. The moral purists who can’t smile without checking if it’s politically coherent. The performative left and the culture war right, both obsessed with being offended — for different reasons, but with equally dead eyes. We talk endlessly about unity, but we forget what it feels like. For a brief moment on a college campus, hundreds of people were completely united — not by ideology, not by grievance, but by a shared thrill. A why-is-this-happening surge of joy that didn’t need to be explained, defended, or dissected. That’s rare now. Far rarer than it should be. Yes, there are problems. Wokeness, backlash to wokeness, political theater, culture wars, spiraling debt, algorithmic derangement. But not everything needs to be viewed through that rotten lens. Strip away the tribalism, and most people, left, right, in between, are far more alike than unlike. We want safety, purpose, connection. We want to be surprised, delighted, moved. We want The Weeknd to crash our graduation. We want to laugh like a giddy toddler. We want to throw our heads back and forget about the outside world for a few minutes. And if that means Jimmy Fallon plugs in his phone and plays the same song a thousand DJs have played before, good. That’s the point. It’s familiar. It’s fun. It’s human. We’re told every day that we’re divided beyond repair. That we hate each other. That the lines are drawn, the tribes are fixed, and the other side is not just wrong, but dangerous. That there’s no common ground left, no language we all still speak. But then something like this happens, a moment of unfiltered fun, completely unscripted, and it reminds us: that’s not entirely true. Joy still works. It still hits like lightning. It still pulls people out of their silos, even if only for a song. These moments don’t fix everything. But they remind us there’s still something underneath the noise worth protecting. Something human. The roof can still come off. We just have to stop staring at the walls long enough to notice. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: Pope Leo Is Tweeting David Brooks Still Can’t Say the Word ‘God’ Who’s Afraid of Christian Nationalism? The post Confessions of a Jimmy Fallon Fan appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Biden Has Cancer,” editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich for The American Spectator on May 19, 2025. The post Biden Has Cancer appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The twenty-first century will be known as the Indo-Pacific century. It is already the scene of the most intense great power competition since the Cold War. China and the United States are battling for global preeminence, with the Indo-Pacific as the immediate theater of conflict. Open kinetic war is not inevitable. China would like to achieve global preeminence without fighting, as Sun Tzu counseled. The U.S. wants to maintain its global preeminence, also without fighting. Both sides likely recognize that war will benefit neither of them because in war things always go wrong. But that doesn’t mean that war is out of the question. Geopolitical competition can always drift into open conflict if leaders are not careful and flexible. It is best to be prepared. As George Washington said: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our spring 2025 print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. Both the U.S. and China are making moves on the global chessboard, and President Donald Trump recognizes that moves to shore up our capability to defend the Americas will help to improve our ability to effectuate our Indo-Pacific strategy. Trump talks about acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal, in what some observers characterize as a “return” or the “rebirth” of the Monroe Doctrine. President Xi Jinping continues to seek “reunification” with Taiwan and to expand the geographical reach of the Belt and Road Initiative. Both great powers are using economic leverage to improve their geopolitical positions. China benefits from geography in the Indo-Pacific, just as we benefit from geography in the Western Hemisphere. The United States maintains its presence in the Indo-Pacific by alliances and sea and air power. China has built the world’s largest navy and is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal. The United States benefits from its alliances with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, and its improving relations with India and Vietnam.  China is increasingly challenging the Monroe Doctrine by improving diplomatic and economic relations with Central and South American countries. It is also growing closer to Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and looking to improve its position in the evolving scramble for minerals and trade in the Arctic Ocean. Chinese leaders are motivated by ideology (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) and history (the Middle Kingdom, Tianxia, the century of humiliation). U.S. motivations alternate between Wilsonian idealism and geopolitical realism. Trump is a geopolitical realist.  American foreign policy has promised a “pivot” to Asia since the Obama years, but, aside from the last two years of Trump’s first term, the pivot was more rhetoric than reality. Trump will likely accelerate the pivot he started in 2018. His national security team is made up mostly of China hawks led by Michael Walz, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, John Ratcliffe, Peter Navarro, and Elbridge Colby.  Trump will likely shift resources from Europe (NATO) and the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Resolving the wars in Ukraine and Gaza will facilitate that shift, which is one motivation for doing so. Trump will likely avoid peripheral wars the way Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s in order to focus on the “main enemy” (China) and what Clausewitz called the “center of gravity” (the Indo-Pacific). Trump tried to reach out to Russia early in his first term, recognizing that better relations with the leaders in the Kremlin would improve our relative power position vis-à-vis China, but domestic politics (the Russia hoax) interfered with that effort. Expect Trump to revive that effort, especially if he can mediate an end to the Ukraine war. While “triangular diplomacy” Nixon-Kissinger style may not yet be possible, even slightly weakening the Sino-Russian “strategic partnership” makes geopolitical sense.  There is a “strategic logic” for the United States to acquire the Panama Canal and Greenland. Trump has signaled that he plans to reinvigorate U.S. enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. Control of the Panama Canal, or at the very least lessening China’s influence there, is a first step. Efforts to improve relations with our Western Hemisphere neighbors will likely follow. Acquiring Greenland or at least acquiring more military bases on Greenland (we have a space force base there that was renamed to Pituffik Space Base as part of the Biden Pentagon’s DEI program) is another step.  The respected naval strategist James Holmes has already written about what he calls the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” Holmes writes that there is a “strategic logic” for the United States to acquire the Panama Canal and Greenland. “Greenland fronts on the Arctic, an emerging theater of strategic competition,” Holmes explains, “while abutting the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap, Russia’s access to the North Atlantic.” Greenland and the Arctic have plenty of critical minerals, Holmes continues, and “China has been nosing around for mining rights along with its other activities as a self-proclaimed ‘near-Arctic state.’” And if China were to shut the Panama Canal in times of war, it would make it more difficult for the United States to send warships and material to the Indo-Pacific theater. “Control of the two sites,” Holmes writes, “would bolster strategic defense of the Americas,” which is what the Monroe Doctrine is all about. Although named after the president who announced it in a message to Congress on December 2, 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was the brainchild of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. The Monroe Doctrine resulted from Adams’ concern that the European Holy Alliance would attempt by force and/or diplomacy to restore Spain’s and Portugal’s former colonies in the Americas to the Spanish and Portuguese crowns. In July 1823, Adams, with Monroe’s approval, summoned Russian minister Baron von Tuyll to the State Department, where he told him that the “American continents are no longer subjects for any new European colonial establishments.” Mindful of the inadequacies of the U.S. Navy, Adams consulted with British officials whose interests coincided with America’s on this issue. Monroe reached out to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who concurred that it was essential to get Great Britain on our side to help enforce such a policy.  Adams prepared a draft on the foreign policy portion of the president’s annual message to Congress. It was subsequently discussed at a Cabinet meeting, where Adams stated that the president would in a “moderate and conciliatory manner but with a firm and determined spirit … declare our expectation and hope that the European powers will … abstain from the attempt to spread their principles in the American hemisphere or to subject by force any part of these continents to their will.” As Adams biographer Randall Woods notes, “Here was the heart of what would become known as the Monroe Doctrine.”  Thereafter, the Monroe Doctrine evolved into a core principle of American foreign policy as presidents from James Polk to Andrew Johnson to Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt to John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan periodically invoked the Monroe Doctrine to support U.S. diplomatic and military actions. Yet the Obama administration declared in 2013 that the Monroe Doctrine was “dead,” which was an invitation to outside powers like China to gain footholds in the Western Hemisphere, and a signal to countries in the Western Hemisphere that they would suffer no backlash for doing business with America’s enemies. The roots of Obama’s abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine can be found in the widely accepted idea that China’s economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping would translate into political reforms that would enable China to join the so-called “rules-based international order.” This was a bipartisan error that led to China’s growing economic influence in Latin America. But China’s inroads in Latin America increased dramatically with the Belt and Road Initiative, which began in 2013, the very year that Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, announced the end of the Monroe Doctrine. President Xi Jinping has visited the region five times since 2013, and eight Latin American presidents visited China in 2023. China has entered into “comprehensive strategic partnerships” with Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Ecuador. But it is China’s growing influence in Panama that poses the greatest national security threat to the United States in Latin America. Panama was the first Latin American country to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative. U.S. Southern Command has warned that China’s construction of ports on both sides of the Panama Canal will enable China to readily shift its use from civilian to military purposes. In a recent article, John Yoo and Robert Delahunty write that “[e]ffective Chinese control of the Canal, even in peacetime, would be seriously detrimental to the US defense posture and threatening to our economy.” In wartime, it would inhibit our navy’s ability to move ships between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. And anything that inhibits the movement of our warships through the canal would negatively affect our ability to achieve victory in a conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific.  Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, is situated in the northern part of the Western Hemisphere. It is geographically an island extension of the North American continent. America’s interest in Greenland dates back at least to 1868 when Secretary of State William Seward, after successfully purchasing Alaska from Russia, shifted his focus to Greenland. During World War II, after Germany took control of Denmark, the United States secured military base rights on the island and gained access to weather stations and important minerals for the war effort. During the Cold War, U.S. officials viewed Greenland as a strategic post for denying Soviet warships access to the Americas. This naval chokepoint was known as the Greenland–Iceland–U.K. gap.  In the twenty-first century, Greenland’s importance to U.S. security has increased as the Arctic Ocean warms, creating a new, if limited, maritime highway (the famed Northwest Passage) and enabling access to natural resources. The Arctic has vast oil and natural gas deposits. Russia’s lengthy Arctic coast and its growing fleet of icebreakers give it an edge in the Arctic geopolitical competition. In 2018, China declared itself a “near Arctic” power that intended to forge a “Polar Silk Road” as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. A recent RAND study noted that in the Arctic, Russia and China “are operating in increasingly close proximity to North America.” And the Sino-Russian Arctic partnership encompasses both economic and military cooperation. The RAND study suggests that this is an area where the United States can exploit potential rifts between China and Russia.  James Holmes is not the only naval strategist who thinks Greenland is important to U.S. national security. Former NATO Supreme Commander retired Admiral James Stavridis, no fan of Donald Trump, recently said that Greenland is a “strategic goldmine for the United States.” Stavridis noted that Greenland “sits at the very top of the North Atlantic. It protects approaches to our own country … It’s geographically very important. It’s full of strategic minerals, rare earth, probably a lot of gold.”  In the end, the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine is about securing the Western Hemisphere from potential adversaries, especially China. Just over two hundred years ago, President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams proposed to erect a geopolitical fence around the Western Hemisphere, and it was that geopolitical fence (once we acquired sufficient naval power to support it) that enabled the United States to intervene in two World Wars and to wage a successful Cold War in the twentieth century. China’s challenge in the Indo-Pacific comes at a time when Adams’ fence is rotting away due to bad decisions (the Carter administration’s ceding of the Panama Canal to Panama), wishful thinking (that China would become a stakeholder in the rules-based international order), and the public abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine by the Obama administration. Trump’s proposed reinvigoration of the Monroe Doctrine is, in the words of two legal/national security experts, “returning to one of the great principles of American foreign policy.” Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our spring 2025 print magazine. The post Trump’s Reinvigoration of the Monroe Doctrine Informs His Turn to Greenland appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In the last few years, some of our very best comics — think Greg Giraldo, Patrice O’Neal, Gilbert Gottfried, and Norm MacDonald — have left us a lot earlier than we might have expected. I’d even include on that list the great Joan Rivers, who wasn’t exactly young when she died that bizarre death at that outpatient clinic in New York, but who I’m sure would’ve gone on a lot longer if she’d canceled that day’s appointment. Each of these artists was bold and brilliant in a unique way, and hence irreplaceable. But they have been replaced — by and large, alas, by politically correct newcomers who can’t hold a candle to them. The name that comes to mind first is that of the plus-sized Tasmanian lesbian Hannah Gadsby — not only because she’s won critical acclaim for her deliberately humorless, politically correct rants about being a victim of misogyny, homophobia, fatphobia, and, who knows, probably Tasmanophobia as well, but because other unfunny, annoying, man-hating women have taken her up as a role model, and, having no man in their lives to whom they can complain incessantly about everything, have transformed stand-up stages into opportunities to nag gratingly at paying audiences. Every now and then, however, a promising performer — somebody who actually does it right — turns up. The other day, the British hosts of the Triggernometry podcast, Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin, interviewed one of them, an Estonian comedian in his early 30s whom I’ve never heard of before. It took only minutes to realize that Ari Matti was somebody worth looking into. His opening line, delivered with a grin, was at once droll and disarming: “I’m the dumbest guy you ever had on your podcast.” Far from it, as it turned out. Ari is bright-eyed, quick-minded, and every bit as energetic as Robin Williams at his manic best, although he has a boyish charm that Williams never did; he japed playfully with Francis and Konstantin in a way I’ve never seen a guest do before on that podcast, and talked to Konstantin, in particular, in a flirtatious manner that brought to mind Jude Law reeling in Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley. During the interview, Ari managed to be funny — and edgy — about a whole slew of topics that are far from intrinsically comical: the fall of the Soviet Union, Islamic immigration to Britain, the Nazi occupation of the Baltic states, the Russian–Ukrainian War. He admitted that Estonians, in the 1930s, weren’t exactly philosemites: “We took care of the Jews before the Nazis got there, because we didn’t want to get off on the wrong foot.” As for Nazi book-burning, so what? “We didn’t know how to read anyway.” He also served up what Konstantin and Francis rightly described as “not the best but the funniest” imitation of Jordan Peterson. (RELATED: Politically Incorrect Comedy Still Survives) But there were serious moments, too. Ari, who did stand-up for 15 years in Estonia (as well as in Australia, Canada, Spain, and Thailand, where he lived for longish periods), moved only last year to America. He loves it. So, as viewers of Triggernometry know, do Francis and Konstantin. Unlike many ill-educated Americans of his own age, moreover, Ari also despises Communism — it was, after all, the Soviets who held his people in bondage for most of the 20th century. That, too, is something he shares with Francis, whose mother is Venezuelan, and Konstantin, who fled from the USSR with his parents when he was a boy. It was engaging — and heartening — to hear three intelligent young (youngish?) Europeans talk seriously and sensibly about these topics. Ari also touched on the extreme contrasts between the generations in Estonia, where the old folks are mired in the eastward-looking past while Ari and his agemates are Westerners through and through, their sensibilities shaped from childhood on by shows like South Park and Family Guy. Ari got even more serious, it turned out, on The Joe Rogan Experience several months ago, on which he talked about growing up in a home with an alcoholic stepfather whom he feared and a mother whom he appears to have despised. Although Triggernometry and The Joe Rogan Experience have helped spread Ari’s name, the main reason why he’s beginning to become a name in the U.S. is Kill Tony, the weekly podcast hosted by Tony Hinchcliffe. (He’s the comic, you’ll remember, who, a few days before the 2024 election, at a Donald Trump rally in Madison Square Garden, called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” leading to prognostications that this jokeman had single-handedly won the election for Kamala Harris.) The premise of Hinchcliffe’s podcast is simple: aspiring comics are given a minute or so to perform some material, after which their work is judged by a panel of professionals. Ari first appeared on Kill Tony last year. He hit a home run, and thereafter, quite improbably, continued to do the same thing week after week. (RELATED: In Defense of Tony Hinchcliffe) Indeed, he seems incapable of writing a bad bit. On one appearance, for example, he told about being at a restaurant where a couple at another table were having an argument — but since it was two gay guys, “they both made sense! Everybody stayed on one topic! Nobody was bringing up old shit! Just two logical, superior brains trying to find a solution!” Asked by one of the Kill Tony panelists if everybody in Estonia is as attractive as he is (he’s a blue-eyed blond), he said yes, because Estonians’ ancestors were raped by the best: Vikings! Germans! By contrast, British people are homely because their ancestors weren’t raped: “sometimes the Empire fights back too hard!” It’s not exactly correct history or good diplomacy, but it’s hilarious comedy. Then there’s his riff on Canada vs. America. I had thought that this was a totally worn-out comic premise, but Ari proved me wrong. Canada, he said, is “gay America.” It’s as if the two countries “had the same parents, but in the divorce Canada went to stay with Mom. She hugged him way too much. She kept giving him affirmations: Of course you can wear a skirt to school! Gender is a construct!” As for Americans, “you guys obviously stayed with Dad. He gave you a beer and a gun.” As for gender studies, Ari professed to be “upset that the U.S. doesn’t let trans people into the military. I say, let them die!” On the other hand, he added, “I can understand why you wouldn’t want them in your Army, because — let’s be honest — they have a history of switching sides.” In yet another set, Ari compared Austin, a fun city that has become the world capital of stand-up, to Seattle, where a “green-haired, low-energy chick” will lecture you about “American racism” — to which, he said, you want to reply: “If you don’t like America, go to Ukraine! Try to get an oatmeal latte in downtown Kiev, you ungrateful bitch! Give me your U.S. passport!” This brings us to his one running gag, which is about his desperate desire to secure a permanent U.S. residency before his work visa expires and his envy of people with U.S.  citizenship. After all, he explained, if you go missing on a U.S. passport, “you have Navy SEALs looking for you! They even exchanged Britney Griner for a terrorist so she could play for a made-up subsidiary league!” Hinchcliffe has dubbed Ari “the Estonian assassin” because more than any other guest on Kill Tony, he really does kill — and does so every time. After the loss of Gilbert, Norm, and company, I never thought a new comic would come along whose first hour special I’d look forward to as much as I do to Ari Matti’s. From a certain perspective it may be a shame that he’s not a homegrown superstar in the making, but I’d suggest he’s something even better: a foreigner who’s in America legally and who, when he eventually does acquire a U.S. passport, will be one of the country’s most loyal — and funniest — citizens. READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Joan Didion, Mother Pumping Iron All Is Vanity The post The Estonian ‘Killer’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There she goes again. Fox News headlines: “Hillary Clinton bashes Republican women, says GOP female president would be ‘handmaiden to the patriarchy.’” The story reports: Hillary Clinton took a swipe at female Republicans in an interview earlier this month, saying they would all be servants of “the patriarchy” if they became president. “Well, first of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few,” Clinton said during a May 1 discussion at New York City’s 92nd Street Y when asked by moderator Margaret Hoover what advice she had for the first female President of the United States. Clinton pointed to Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski as one of the “few” women in the Republican Party she respected. Murkowski has been a strong critic of Trump at times, including when she voted to convict him during his second impeachment trial in 2021. Clinton responded affirmatively when Hoover mentioned former GOP Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, who endorsed Biden — and then Harris — in 2024 and helped lead the January 6 House committee investigation against Trump. There’s more, of course. But let’s get to the bottom of what’s really being said here. What Hillary Clinton really means is that being Leftist and anti-Trump is the only real way a woman can illustrate her independence from the “patriarchy.” It is, of course, not simply laughable bunk but a case of serious projection. Were a Republican woman to appear on the political scene and appear as a serious conservative and, on top of that, be a serious Trump supporter? Then, by Hillary’s definition, that woman is a hostage of the “patriarchy” — because, don’t you know it, to be conservative or a Trump supporter and a woman is impossible. That stuff is for men only. This is, of course, laughable. At this minute, the White House chief of staff is … a woman. That would be one Susie Wiles. And as anybody who has worked in any White House can report, inside any White House, the chief of staff is decidedly a VIP, charged with making the internals of a president’s staff work and accomplish the goals of the president of the moment, whomever that might be. Over the course of Trump’s two terms, various women have held seriously important roles in the administration. Among them United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Kelly Loefler, the administrator of the Small Business Administration. And there are others. Suffice it to say, these positions are decidedly and exactly the major positions charged with running the government of the United States for a president. To suggest that they are “handmaidens to the patriarchy” is not merely an insult to all of them. It is projection, accusing each and every one of them of being what, in reality, Hillary herself has revealed herself to be — “a handmaiden” to the patriarchy of the Democratic Party Establishment. Recall that in 2016, it was Hillary Clinton, not Vice President Joe Biden, who was selected by then-President Barack Obama to be the Democrat nominee to face the GOP’s Donald Trump. She was the personal selection of the Patriarch-in-Chief Obama over the then-sitting Vice President Joe Biden — the latter who outranked Hillary in the government, she the lower-ranking Secretary of State. Talk about being a tool of the patriarchy. That was Hillary Clinton’s role — and she loved it. Recall as well the grief Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took when she was selected to be the 2008 running mate for GOP presidential nominee Senator John McCain. Over in the lefty Huff Post, Palin was described as “The Patriarchy in a Skirt.” In short, no Republican woman of prominence will escape Hillary’s patriarchal slam unless, in today’s political world, they oppose President Trump. Or they are, in reality, a liberal. Note well that the two women in the GOP she professes to respect are Trump opponents Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and ex-Congresswoman Liz Cheney. And in the latter case, it is more than safe to say that ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, the Cheney family patriarch and world-class Trump disdainer, whole-heartedly approves of his daughter’s anti-Trumpism. She is the patriarch’s delight. The bottom line here, of course, is that old Clinton standby: Rules for thee but not for me. It’s not OK for any Republican woman to like or, much less, work for President Trump. But if you are a woman who opposes Trump? Getting the nod from the world of the liberal, anti-Trump patriarchy? Then hey. What’s a little patriarchy between political soul mates? Hillary approves. In fact, she thrives on the approval of the Democrats’ patriarchy. And always has. Shocking. Not. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Hillary Accepted Foreign Gifts Trump Wins Hostage Edan Alexander’s Release Stunning: An American Pope The post Hillary: Handmaiden to the Patriarchs of the Left appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s the Spending, Stupid

There Is No Reason to Believe Democrats on Biden or Anything Else

The Wilson-Biden Cover-Ups

We Will Bury You!

Delivering Victories at Trump Speed