When Matt Walsh traveled to Africa to ask members of the Maasai people about transgenderism, the Maasai villagers laughed at him. The short clip in Walsh’s 2022 documentary What Is a Woman? stands in stark contrast with the other interviews in the film, in which accomplished American professionals tie themselves in verbal knots to justify the non-negotiables of gender ideology. To the Maasai, it’s obvious that a man can’t become a woman, and vice versa. In Western nations, however, pro-LGBTQ activists have spent decades working to erode that simple belief and build a new progressive consensus in America and Western Europe Now, activists are exporting gender ideology to Africa, too.  “From Kenya to Cameroon, Ghana to Tanzania, local archbishops tell the Register that Western aid workers, government officials and even tourists are advancing secular understandings of sexuality and the human person that are incompatible not merely with African cultural values, but with the timeless teachings of the Catholic faith,” wrote Jonathan Liedl, senior editor for the National Catholic Register. ‘Missionaries of Evil’ In Tanzania and Kenya, where the Maasai people live, Catholic leaders are trying to protect young people from exploitation by foreigners. Home to Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania relies on foreign tourism to generate an estimated 17 percent of Tanzania’s GDP. In some regions, like Zanzibar, tourism is an even bigger part of the local economy. But these tourists aren’t just bringing revenue to the region — some are bringing progressive sexual mores, too.  Comparing the influx of progressive Westerners to Christian evangelists who once brought the Gospel to Africa, Archbishop Renatus Leonard Nkwande said that the West is now sending his nation “missionaries of evil.”  Archbishop Nkwande told the Register that “anxieties about Westerners promoting sexual deviancy are so widespread that ‘the first meeting with somebody from Europe,’ whether a tourist or an NGO worker, ‘you just fear. You try to shy away.’” Tourists are only responsible for some of the cultural proselytization; foreign nongovernmental organizations are the main culprits. Despite the name, many NGOs receive government support through grants and funding. In recent years, foreign organizations operating in Africa have come under scrutiny for their role in the economic development of African nations, which critics see as a new iteration of the “scramble for Africa.”  Though NGOs promise aid, foreign organizations, and workers carry cultural baggage that conflicts with the traditions and beliefs of many Africans. In Tanzania, for example, Western NGOs distribute “lubricants used in gay sex.” Archbishop Nkwande said that these products have been distributed widely during the Biden-Harris administration but had ceased under President Donald Trump.  NGOs and Social Media Promote Gender Ideology and Abortion in Africa In neighboring Kenya, foreign workers promote gender ideology in schools and “provide financial support to young people who enter into a gay lifestyle, which in turn draws in other youths,” the Register reports. In Cameroon, where abortion is illegal, the French embassy has promoted abortion and NGOs provide funding for free abortions.  Even without foreign aid workers, social media has become a major force behind the increasing presence of liberal Western culture in Africa. In Cameroon, Catholic leaders have noticed the impact of French social media content on the nation’s younger generations. Bishop Sosthène Léopold Bayemi Matjei told the Register that he has noticed “changes in speech and dress,” as well as heard “reports that young boys are organizing sex groups after being exposed to the idea through online videos.”  Unlike the activism of NGOs, which relies on foreign funding, the promotion of gender ideology via social media can reach anyone with internet access. As internet use continues to increase throughout the continent, leftist Western ideology could leave an indelible mark on African nations. (RELATED: The LGBTQ Conquest of America) Pope Francis has specifically warned against the “ideological colonization” that occurs when countries weave together LGBTQ ideology and pro-abortion stances with the wealth and aid needed by developing nations. Across Africa, Catholic bishops are aware of the growing threats to traditional morality.  But if the past few decades of American culture have proven anything, they show that a sea change in sexual morality can happen within a lifetime. There’s no guarantee that an interview with the Maasai would result in the same disbelieving laughter in a generation or two — after all, Americans once laughed, too.  Mary Frances Myler is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler:  Planned Parenthood Mobile Clinic Provides Abortions and Vasectomies at DNC Can Republicans Win in Michigan This November? The Real Gender Gap Is Political The post ‘Missionaries of Evil’: Africa Is the New Frontier for LGBTQ Activism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The fortunes of Mexico and Donald J. Trump are inextricably linked. When I visited Mexico City in the summer of 2017, locals seemed to have warmed to that reality. Several told a yarn about investing in 11-foot ladders to scale Trump’s 10-foot wall, a joke that always landed if told with levity and confidence. Driving along the Paseo de la Reforma in the capital’s elegant heart, my host and I noticed a large rainbow flag commanding the entrance to the American embassy, affirming Washington’s cultural imperialism. (READ MORE: Five Quick Things: Who Lies About Working at McDonald’s?) “Trump can’t control his own government!” my friend gleefully chided. The egg was decidedly on this Trump-voting gringo’s face. It was something of a personal introduction to the administrative state, apparently impervious to electoral democracy. Since that time, a handful of excesses have bubbled to the surface of American public consciousness and highlighted a foreign policy that Rod Dreher has summarized as “queer the Donbass.”  ‘Queer the Donbass’ In February of 2023, Karen Decker, Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Mission to Afghanistan, tweeted, “Are Afghans familiar with #BlackGirlMagic and the movement it inspired? Do Afghan girls need a similar movement? What about Afghan Women? Teach me, ready to learn.” Later that year, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby asserted, “LGBTQ+ rights are…a core part of our foreign policy.” So much so, in fact, that the United States Embassy in the Vatican has sported a giant rainbow flag under the current State Department regime. (READ MORE: Robin DiAngelo’s Plagiarism Exposes the Fraud Behind ‘Anti-Racism’) In the Central and Eastern Europe region, to which I devote my attention and research, I see the abuses that don’t make headlines across the Atlantic. In Hungary, Ambassador David Pressman (from the Clooney wing of the party) has been a reliable cheerleader for identity politics and regime change. In Poland, Mark Brzezinski (son of Zbigniew and brother of Mika) waves the cultural-imperial flag and brazenly backs the newish liberal government. In Bulgaria, locals refer to “the embassy,” the only one that sports such a moniker; they marvel at how American prestige could collapse so thoroughly in just a decade. In all these countries and countless others, U.S. government money flows into the coffers of left-wing political movements.  Recent USAID (the government’s foreign-aid arm) grant priorities have included abortion, gender equity, and mobilization of “climate activists.” One information request last year uncovered U.S.-funded projects to promote DEI in Ethiopia. The agency’s Central Europe program, announced in 2022, purports to “[support] new locally-driven initiatives in Central Europe with the goal of strengthening democratic institutions, civil society, and independent media, which are all pillars of resilient democratic societies.” One can easily read the political ramifications between the lines. A Trump Administration Is Beholden to the Whims of the Bureaucracy How American foreign policy reached this point is not mysterious. Consider the 2020 election cycle, in which a staggering 93 percent of political contributions from State Department employees and 96 percent of those from USAID employees went to Democrats and associated PACs; financial contributions from employees of these institutions totaled $2.9 million for Democrats and just $200,000 for Republicans. Never mind the interests of American power and prosperity. The foreign-policy apparatus promotes the priorities of the establishment wing of one political party. (READ MORE: Gamers Don’t Want to Deal With DEI) If President Trump wins this year, the likes of Pressman and Brzezinski will ship out for the Washington cocktail-party circuit, and Republican dignitaries will secure some plum ambassadorships. Yet, we’ve seen this film before — most of the iceberg remains untouched. The U.S. Foreign Service includes some 15,000 Americans at 271 embassies and consulates. For some context, the embassy in tiny Luxembourg employs 32 American direct-hire employees; the embassy in Iceland employs 12. The path of least resistance leaves most of the diplomatic corps intact. Most of these personnel will remain employed and unaccountable — and so the cultural-imperial flag flies in Mexico City.  Now extrapolate this conundrum across the entire federal government. Education watchers will relate similar anecdotes from the DOE. Criminal justice experts can lament the state of the FBI. Any Republican administration is subject to the whims of the permanent bureaucratic class, which consists of nearly three million people.  This, of course, is the impetus for the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Heritage is just one think tank, and its now-infamous proposal is a drop in a sea of Washington policy ink. The issue shouldn’t be about Heritage, and it shouldn’t even be about Donald Trump. American liberals correctly understand the importance of government staffing and have treated the issue accordingly. They have defined the narrative and hammered it relentlessly. Institutional Rot Will Destroy Trump’s Legacy It seems most American conservatives are content to give this issue the abortion treatment, dismissing it as a losing battle rather than crafting a truthful, resonant counter-narrative — in short, embracing something difficult. Too much of the already-limited conservative rhetoric on this topic has focused on theoretical questions of power-wielding that belong in a university political science department. Even respectable conservative commentators are too willing to accept the framing of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Meanwhile, the Left is committed to a bumper-sticker-friendly dictatorship narrative. It isn’t hard to grasp why it is winning — and why the cultural-imperial flag still flutters at our embassies. Government staffing is a policy issue, but it shouldn’t be dismissed as an electoral one. We hear about Obama-to-Trump union voters, South Texas Hispanics, and Florida Men, but the “institutional-rot” voter is undeniably part of the Trump coalition and a forgotten one at that. For a President Trump concerned with legacy-building and a Republican Party anxious to maintain a coalition that can navigate a tightening map, it should register as a demographic that needs some shoring-up.  For now, there might be just enough of the 2016 anti-establishment magic, just enough hope — however naïve — that liberalism hasn’t completely trampled democracy in our liberal democracy. If Republicans continue to fumble this issue, who knows how many will decide civic participation is a futile exercise, as countless Britons reportedly have done? Institutional rot is the 11-foot ladder scaling Trump’s legacy-defining wall. Republican leadership would do well to confront it. Mr. Trump, tear down that flag!  Michael O’Shea is a visiting fellow at the Danube Institute. Follow him on X: @Michael_F_OShea The post Trump and the GOP Sidestep Government Staffing at Their Own Peril appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Literary Journeys: Mapping Fictional Travels Across The World of Literature Edited by John McMurtrie (Princeton University Press, 256 pages, $29.95) John McMurtrie introduces Literary Journeys: Mapping Fictional Travels Across The World of Literature with the famous Robert Frost quote: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the road less traveled by. And that has made all the difference.” While Frost’s poem The Road Not Taken has become synonymous with a psychological journey, McMurtrie’s beautifully curated and exquisitely illustrated compilation of essays from over 50 contributors showcases works of fiction where the major characters embark upon a physical journey which also serves as an emotional crossing. Chronologically structured, Literary Journeys is divided into four different sections, The first section, “Quests and Exploration,” starts with Homer’s The Odyssey  (725 to 675 B.C.) and ends with Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897). The second, “The Age of Travel,” opens with Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness (1899) and closes with Alejo Carpentier’s The Lost Steps (1953). The third, “Postmodern Movements,” commences with Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955) and concludes with Barbara Kingsolver’s The Poisonwood Bible (1998). The fourth, “Contemporary Crossings,” begins with César Aira’s An Episode in the Life of a Landscape Painter (2000) and finishes with Amor Towles’ The Lincoln Highway (2021). At the Very Beginning McMurtrie’s decision to open Literary Journeys with The Odyssey reinforces Homer’s epic poem as the touchstone of Western literature. “Comprised of twenty-four books, The Odyssey was originally meant to be heard, not read…. In more than 12,109 lines of hexameter verse, it unfolds as a mythological rather than a historical tale. Man-eating giants, witches, and hydra-headed goddess creatures thwart the hero’s drifting homeward journey. Homer’s picture of the underworld became the model for all later western geographies of hell, most notably in Dante’s Divine Comedy.” (WATCH: The Spectacle Ep. 140: The Lord of the Rings is Still Relevant) A basic understanding of The Odyssey is essential to navigating Western history, literature, and popular culture. I was first exposed to the story of the Greek hero Odysseus and his 20-year journey to return to his wife Penelope as a high school student. I would later read The Odyssey in its entirety in a college freshman English class. I enjoyed its beautiful language and vivid imagery and felt empathy for Odysseus as he struggled to return home despite the efforts of various creatures to detain him. My experience was further enhanced by my professor arranging for the class to see the 1954 film Ulysses starring Kirk Douglas as Ulysses (Odysseus). The same actress Silvana Magana was cast as both Penelope and the sorceress Circe who endeavors to keep Ulysses from returning home. This casting choice was illustrative of the hero’s powerful commitment to his wife which prevented him from even seeing the face of another woman. Given the long shadow that The Odyssey has cast on Western civilization, it is no surprise that every section of Literary Journeys includes a work that pays homage to it. “The Age of Travel” includes perhaps the most famous example, James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922). The almost 800-page novel takes place over the course of one day, June 16, 1904. On this day, the protagonist Leopold Bloom who is supposed to represent Ulysses (Odysseus) walks the streets of Dublin as he grapples with the knowledge that his wife Molly has been unfaithful to him. Very little happens beyond Bloom’s physical wanderings and interior reveries. Yet, despite its dark elements, McMurtrie asserts that the novel is not devoid of hope as it “celebrates Dublin’s friendliness, musicality and expressiveness of language.” I was 22 when I first read Ulysses, and while I understood intellectually that Joyce was drawing structural and thematic parallels with The Odyssey, I did not have a full appreciation for the novel’s beauty and complexity. Consequently, I have revisited it. (READ MORE: Little House on the Prairie Changed My Life) Literary Journeys additionally salutes Homer with Jack Kerouac’s On the Road (1957) and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road  (2006). I read both of these books for the first time relatively recently and see an interesting parallel between them. Kerouac’s novel is a rambling documentation of his cross-country travels with the writer Neal Cassady. Kerouac and Cassady, who are named Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty in the book, spend their time pursuing “kicks” in the form of women, drugs, easy money, and cool experiences. While On the Road is an engaging and accurate reflection of the counterculture of its time, its principal characters are self-absorbed individuals who are slaves to their own intellectual and sexual vanities while they eschew all other responsibilities. Dean Moriarty flits back and forth between different women while also engaging in sexual relationships with men and routinely abandons his wife and children with little tangible consequence. On the other hand, in McCarthy’s post-apocalyptic novel, the unnamed father and son are on a pilgrimage of necessity as they spend each day trekking towards a coastal area while desperately trying to stay alive in a dystopian world where food and other resources are scarce and it is difficult to differentiate between the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” Furthermore, the father in The Road, unlike Dean Moriarty, will stop at nothing to protect his young son, including sacrificing his own well-being. Travel in the Postmodern Literary Age My favorite section of the book was “Postmodern Movements,” with Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago (1957), which depicts many journeys as its characters travel across Russia in search of political and personal freedom including a memorable three-day carriage ride in the snow which Dr. Yuri Zhivago takes with his wife Tonya and their son. McMurtrie also profiles John Updike’s Rabbit Run (1960), the first of four novels featuring the protagonist Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom, a former high school basketball star who finds himself trapped in a loveless marriage to an alcoholic wife while holding down a boring job. One day Rabbit tries to escape his existence by driving all night from his hometown the fictional Brewer, Pennsylvania, located about 50 miles outside of Philadelphia, towards Florida, but his journey goes awry. Rabbit will eventually arrive in Florida in a later book but his experience does not meet his expectations. (READ MORE: Cormac McCarthy’s The Road Is a Conservative Classic) McMurtrie comments that Updike once said that he wrote the Rabbit books in response to the “romanticized heroes of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road to illustrate to readers “what happens when a young American family man goes on the road — the people behind get hurt.” I was especially delighted to see Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955) included in this compendium. I first read Lolita when I was 17 years old and I have spent my entire adult life defending it, especially in recent years in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Nabokov’s novel is a linguistic masterpiece that mixes tragic elements with satire. Moreover, it is a journey novel as Humbert and Dolores (Lolita) spend a lot of time driving to escape the mysterious car that is following them. As Humbert comments, We had been everywhere. We had really seen nothing, And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires and her sobs in the night — every night, every night — at the moment I feigned sleep. If anyone has any doubt that Nabokov sees Humbert Humbert as a deeply disturbed individual and the story’s villain, the aforementioned quote should put that perception to rest. I highly recommend John McMurtrie’s Literary Journeys: Mapping Fictional Travels Across the World of Literature. The author has created a marvelous tribute to Western literature that not only maps the journeys of celebrated literary characters but also encourages us to trace and retrace their footprints. The post The Road Well Traveled: Exploring the History of Literary Journeys appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

May 2, 1984, 10 a.m. John Paul II’s plane lands at the airport in Fairbanks, Alaska to refuel. There in an airport lounge, he meets with the great Ronald Reagan, who had just returned from visiting China, and the words they exchange are more than diplomacy, they are, in fact, the basis for the construction of a free and prosperous West. “In a violent world, Your Holiness, you have been a minister of peace and love,” Reagan told the Pope, “Your words, your prayers, your example have made you—for those who suffer oppression or the violence of war—a source of solace, inspiration, and hope. For this historic ministry the American people are grateful to you, and we wish you every encouragement in your journeys for peace and understanding in the world.” “Openness to others begins in the heart,” St. John Paul II noted at the time, “if men and women hope to transform society, they must begin by changing their own hearts first. Only with a new heart can one rediscover clear sightedness and impartiality with freedom of spirit, the sense of justice with respect to the rights of man, the sense of equity with global solidarity between the rich and the poor, mutual trust and fraternal love.” The Pope also told Reagan: “Even when I am miles away, I hold the people of Alaska and those of the whole of the United States close to me in my heart. I do not forget you, for we are linked together by bonds of friendship, of faith, and of love.” John Paul II was smart, good, funny, and holy, maybe in that order or the other way around, whatever. Reagan was almost all of those things too. Both had been actors years before. Both held great responsibilities in the 1980s: peace, freedom, and the salvation of souls. Men of faith, courageous, deeply convinced that communism was the political incarnation of the devil. They knew it well. It’s Useless Comparing Popes. Here Goes Anyway. Today I saw a photo of Grace Reilly on Instagram, in front of The Reagan Ranch, a nod to the new movie, and it made me think of the thunderous void left by Pope Francis’ failure to show up to fight communism; from Biden, the abortionist Catholic, I expect nothing, of course. (RELATED: The Weekend Spectator Ep. 9: Reagan Hits Theaters) For a Catholic, comparing popes is a bit stupid, but we do it anyway. We know that John Paul II was a great saint and had a good sense of humor, and we know that Benedict XVI was one of the most important intellectuals of his time, whom we still read with fruition and pleasure because his texts are of marvelous beauty and depth. Pope Francis has been thrust into an era that is more like the one in which the Polish pope lived because the resurgence of communism is threatening the world. Not so much because there are more communists than before, but because the Left in the West is quietly abandoning socialism and social democracy in favor of Bolivarian communism. Meanwhile, in Venezuela, the mustachioed walrus continues to sit on the chair he usurped from Venezuelans, making it clear day by day that his regime is communist and criminal, and that it must be eliminated from the face of the earth as soon as possible, if only for aesthetic reasons: Maduro is ugly as hell. (RELATED: Maduro, Get Down From Your Tree and Scram) Pope Francis does not seem interested in leading the free world’s response to the communist threat, as his predecessor did. Yet he baffles us daily with comments on immigration, assuring us that “to repel migrants … is a grave sin.” We Should Still Pray for Pope Francis, Even If He Disconcerts Us I swear I have read the Catechism six times since yesterday and found nothing about that new grave sin, but I did find a lot of stuff about respect for private property. For example, point 2403: “The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.” The illegal immigrants, essentially Islamic, that we receive in Europe, for example, do not seem very uncomfortable violating point 2239, where the Catechism speaks of the “duties of citizens.” And, in general, Pope Francis forgets point 2414, dedicated to the mafias (and complicit governments) that traffic in people to bring illegal immigrants to the Mediterranean coasts: “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason – selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian – lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.” (READ MORE: The Trump Revolution) I know that we cannot, unfortunately, go back to Reagan and John Paul II. But we Christians have not changed, our doctrine is still committed to love, but also to justice, charity, responsibility, tolerance, and the survival of our own. So let us pray for the Berlin Wall to fall again, and if possible for it to fall on Maduro’s head, and let us pray to God for Pope Francis, even if he sometimes disconcerts us. If Trump makes it back to the White House, with his usual loquacity, I am convinced that he will be happy to explain the Pope’s mistake when he makes his first visit to the Vatican. The post Reagan and JP II vs. Trump and Francis appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Thursday night, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for the first press interview of her campaign nearly 40 days after that campaign started. If you ask my astute colleagues here at The American Spectator, the interview was just blah and Harris proved herself good at composing word salads without any indication of what her policy would be should she reach the Oval Office. When even the New York Times is forced to concede that the interview “was a reminder that unscripted, she can sometimes deliver discursive answers that ramble and zigzag,” you know it didn’t go off as well as they had hoped. (READ MORE: America Waited 39 Days for This? The Blah-ness of CNN’s Kamala & Tim Show) That, of course, didn’t stop NPR from claiming that Kamala “passed the test of doing unscripted interviews.” That depends on your definition of “passed” and “test.” Did she freeze up like Biden? No. But Bash asked low-ball questions and got non-answers out of both Harris and Walz. At the end of it all we were no closer to knowing what Harris would do on day one, and Walz blamed his military service misstep (otherwise known as a lie) on “bad grammar.” It All Depends on Who You Ask The point of this column is to quiz artificial intelligence about these things and see what it comes up with. For this news item, I turned to Grok. (READ MORE: Five Quick Things: Who Lies About Working at McDonald’s?) Grok has the benefit of pulling from all the randos on X (yours truly included) who think it is worth it to spew their thoughts on politics onto the internet and, unlike ChatGPT, it’s unlikely to just regurgitate the Washington Post or the New York Times in its answers. So, without further ado, here is what Grok had to tell us: Prompt: Tell me, how did the CNN interview between Kamala Harris and Tim Walz go? What has been the reaction? GROK: Ah, the CNN interview with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, a political spectacle that’s had the internet buzzing like a hive of particularly opinionated bees. From the posts swirling around on X, here’s the general vibe: Mixed Bag of Performance: There’s a split in the peanut gallery. Some found Kamala Harris’s performance to be as smooth as a well-oiled political machine, handling questions with the finesse of a seasoned diplomat. Others, however, felt she was as clear as mud on certain issues, leading to accusations of flip-flopping faster than a pancake at a breakfast debate. Tim Walz’s Moment: Governor Walz, standing beside Harris, was under scrutiny too. Some X users felt he dodged questions like a pro, while others were less impressed, suggesting he didn’t quite seize the moment to clarify his military service or other personal controversies, leaving those issues to linger like a bad smell at a barbecue. Contentious Questions: The interview touched on fracking, immigration, and foreign policy, with Harris’s responses being a bit like a Rorschach test — people saw what they wanted to see. Critics pounced on any perceived inconsistency, while supporters saw her navigating complex issues with the grace of a political ballerina. Media and Public Reaction: CNN’s approach was criticized by some for not pushing hard enough, turning the interview into what felt like a softball game where everyone’s afraid to throw too hard. Meanwhile, the public’s reaction ranged from “meh” to “masterclass,” depending on which side of the political spectrum they leaned. The Political Chess Game: Harris’s mention of potentially appointing a Republican to her cabinet was like throwing a chess piece across the board, surprising some and being seen as a strategic move towards the center by others. Overall Sentiment: If the X posts are anything to go by, the interview didn’t drastically shift the narrative but added more fuel to the already blazing fire of political discourse. It was less of a game-changer and more of a game-continuer, with both sides finding ammunition in Harris and Walz’s responses. In summary, the interview was like a political Rorschach test on X — what you saw probably depended on what you were looking for. Harris and Walz played their parts, but whether it was a symphony or a cacophony depends entirely on who’s listening. READ MORE: The Trump Revolution The post Kamala’s Performance on CNN Was a ‘Mixed Bag,’ Grok Says appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Challenging Times Ahead for American Economy

Recognizing the Truth in 'Reagan'

Is Ole Miss Really Ditching DEI?

Academic Retreads

Iranian Hacks on the 2024 Election: The Digital Threat to Democracy