This past spring, at Morehouse College in Atlanta, a historically black, all-men’s college at the heart of the city which delivered Georgia to Democrats in 2020, President Biden gave a highly publicized…

A cool sample. The post The hidden Velvet Underground sample in Massive Attack song ‘Risingson’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The American Spectator is excited to bring you the second episode of The Weekend Spectator with Paul and Grace. The impact of artificial intelligence cannot be overstated and the extent of its fast-paced progression is highly anticipated. AI is worth being aware of. The upcoming election poses new concerns about the level of AI’s potential to be negatively influential. Former President Donald Trump acknowledged this in a recent interview with podcaster Logan Paul, which senior editor Paul Kengor and reporter Grace Reilly discuss. (READ MORE: We’re Missing the Plot When It Comes to AI) Paul Kengor and Grace Reilly both have roots at Grove City College and have collaborated through The Institute for Faith and Freedom and The American Spectator. They are excited to continue providing you with new episodes every Saturday, as they provide commentary on current events and the reporting of The American Spectator. Read Beware of AI’s Influence on the Election and find Aubrey Gulick’s column on AI here. READ Paul and Grace’s work here and here. Watch The Weekend Spectator with Paul and Grace on Rumble.  The post <i>The Weekend Spectator</i> Ep. 2: AI Is Progressing Faster Than You Think appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Biden campaign is in a bit of a pickle. Not only did the president expose his dementia for all to see on the national debate stage last month, but the interview he gave to George Stephanopoulos last week, which was intended to restore confidence in his mental acuity, was less than inspiring. This past Thursday, he managed to call Russian President Vladimir Putin the president of Ukraine, and, during a press conference, referred to his running mate as Vice President Trump. (READ MORE: Why Biden Is So Insistent on Running) None of this is a good look. Democrats have developed a bad case of cold feet. George Clooney made headlines this week when he said the president should step aside. Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) wrote to the Washington Post to express those same sentiments, and the list of his fellow Democrat congressmen who think the same thing (either in private or public) is growing longer by the hour. (READ MORE: Whither ‘America First’?) At this point, it’s clear Joe Biden has no desire to step aside. During that press conference on Thursday, he finally admitted that, just maybe, some other Democrat might be able to beat Donald Trump. But he isn’t giving up. He still thinks he’s the best man to do so. Caught in the crosshairs of the Democrat Party with an aging president for a boss, the Biden campaign is in a difficult position. They have to figure out how to restore confidence in a man who catatonically stares off into nowhere during major international conferences and has to be rescued by the “far-right” Italian prime minister. And when young people are in a pickle, they turn to artificial intelligence. (READ MORE from Aubrey Gulick: Dear Elon Musk, Cybertrucks Are Ugly) Usually, this column focuses on trying to fact-check AI for biases in controversial news stories. But I thought it might be valuable to try to anticipate the Biden campaign’s path forward. So I turned to ChatGPT and it did not disappoint: Prompt: Let’s suppose you were the campaign aide of an incumbent president running for reelection. And, let’s suppose that the incumbent president in question was elderly and suffering from a severe case of dementia that caused him to bomb a debate, several national interviews, and an important international press conference on public television. How would you restore trust in that candidate and what strategies would you employ to get him to win the election? ChatGPT 4-o: Restoring trust in an elderly incumbent president with severe dementia who has performed poorly in public appearances is a significant challenge. Here are some strategies that could be employed to rebuild trust and improve the chances of winning the election: 1. Transparency and Honesty • Acknowledgment: Address the issue head-on with a statement acknowledging the president’s health challenges, showing empathy, and reassuring the public about the measures being taken to support him. • Medical Updates: Regular updates from medical professionals about the president’s condition and the steps being taken to manage his health. 2. Leveraging the Strengths of the Administration • Highlight Accomplishments: Emphasize the president’s past successes and achievements, focusing on policy successes, economic growth, and other positive outcomes during his tenure. • Delegation: Showcase a strong and competent team of advisors and cabinet members who are effectively managing various aspects of governance, reinforcing that the administration remains capable. 3. Controlled and Positive Media Exposure • Controlled Appearances: Limit public appearances to controlled environments where the president can perform well. Pre-recorded speeches and well-managed press conferences can help. • Positive Media Campaign: Launch a media campaign focusing on the president’s accomplishments, personal stories of his leadership, and testimonials from trusted figures. 4. Engaging Surrogates • Prominent Surrogates: Utilize influential surrogates such as the vice president, cabinet members, and other respected leaders to speak on behalf of the president. • Family Involvement: Involve family members in the campaign to humanize the president and garner emotional support from voters. 5. Public Engagement and Listening Tours • Town Halls: Organize virtual town halls and listening tours where voters can ask questions and express concerns, which surrogates and advisors can address. • Community Outreach: Increase community engagement efforts to connect with voters on a personal level and understand their issues. 6. Policy Focus and Future Vision • Policy Proposals: Introduce new, forward-looking policy proposals that address current issues and resonate with the electorate. • Vision for the Future: Communicate a clear and compelling vision for the future, focusing on stability, progress, and continuity. 7. Crisis Management and Damage Control • Rapid Response Team: Establish a team dedicated to responding quickly to any new incidents or gaffes, providing immediate clarification and context. • Mitigating Fallout: Work to minimize the impact of past blunders by providing context, apologies if necessary, and redirecting the narrative to positive topics. 8. Voter Mobilization and Grassroots Efforts • Get Out the Vote (GOTV): Focus on a robust GOTV effort to ensure high turnout among the president’s base. • Grassroots Campaigns: Empower grassroots organizations to engage and mobilize voters at the local level. 9. Mental Health Awareness Campaign • Destigmatize Dementia: Launch a campaign to raise awareness about dementia and other mental health issues, promoting empathy and understanding. • Showcase Support Systems: Highlight the support systems in place for the president and how they are enabling him to continue serving effectively. 10. Backup Plan • Vice Presidential Readiness: Ensure the vice president is highly visible and prepared to take on a more prominent role if needed, providing a sense of stability and continuity. This approach requires a delicate balance of honesty, empathy, and strategic communication to restore trust and maintain voter confidence. Quite frankly, I found this whole response rather dystopian — mostly because, if the Biden campaign employed these tactics, it’d be doing a lot better than it currently is. But let me know your thoughts in the comments. Do you see elements of this strategy in the current Biden campaign? Would it even work on the American people at this point? Or have we reached a point where it is simply too late for Biden to walk back his gaffes and reassure his voters? This is a weekly column at The American Spectator dedicated to exposing the left-wing bent of generative AI machines. If you enjoyed it and want to see what else ChatGPT comes up with, feel free to leave ideas for prompts in the comments section below! The post Here’s How Biden Stays in the Race appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For all their differences, it is clear that President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump agree that the unborn are not — and should not — be federally protected. Though President Trump has objected to Florida’s and Arizona’s recent statewide protections for the unborn, he notionally argues that abortion is a state government matter rather than a federal one. President Biden goes even further than Justice Harry Blackmun’s argument in Roe. v. Wade. Biden argues that neither federal nor state governments have the authority to legislate against abortion. But it can be argued that Trump and Biden have already sworn an oath to protect America’s unborn babies. So has every president since Ulysses S. Grant.  The Presidential Oath of Office You may wonder, “When did they take such an oath?” The answer: Immediately before holding office. As spelled out in the United States Constitution, a person may not hold office until he or she takes the Presidential Oath of Office. It reads as follows:   I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is important to note that presidents do not swear to love, like, or even agree with the Constitution. They do swear to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. Of course, this oath includes all the amendments to the Constitution, beginning with the first 10 amendments, commonly referred to as the “Bill of Rights.”  The term “cafeteria Catholic” has been used to describe those persons who accept some commandments and dogmas, but deny or simply ignore those they find uncomfortable. A similar moniker may be applied to a man or woman who embraces some parts of the Constitution but jettisons others. Taking the presidential oath of office constitutes a solemn refusal to become a cafeteria president: for instance, a person who affirms the Second Amendment, but denies the 10th.   And this discussion leads us to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. From then on, the presidential oath of office included preserving, protecting, and defending the 14th Amendment. Of course, the presidential oath also included the recently ratified 13th Amendment, which constitutionally and federally outlawed slavery. That amendment reads:   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. It is clear from the amendment that slavery is constitutionally outlawed. No state can legalize slavery; it is not a state matter, but rather a federal one.  Returning to the 14th Amendment, this reads:  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Since persons cannot be deprived of the most basic right to life, it necessarily follows that if an unborn baby is deemed a person, then he or she would be federally protected by the 14th Amendment. Further, no state could override that federal protection. This point is so clear that even Justice Blackmun, author of the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, agreed with it. In his 1973 decision, Blackmun writes, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”     Sadly, Blackmun failed to cite easily obtainable definitions of “person” (including dictionaries contemporary with the year of adoption of the 14th Amendment), so Blackmun looked within the Constitution for some insight into the nature of personhood. Regarding these references to the word, Blackmun — in a textbook example of the logical fallacy of begging the question — writes, “None indicates, with any assurance, that it [the word “person”] has any possible prenatal application.”   But this prompts the question: Did the framers of the 14th Amendment believe that an unborn baby is a person?  What is a Person? In a 2017 article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Joshua Craddock clarifies that the framers’ language and intention included the unborn. Craddock writes, “When the Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized children in utero as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a ‘child’ in their statutes proscribing abortion. At least twenty-eight jurisdictions labeled abortion as an ‘offense[] against the person’ or an equivalent criminal classification.” The very states that ratified the 14th Amendment had in-depth laws that treated the unborn as persons. Not only were the unborn guaranteed the right to life, but also the legal right to property rights and inheritance rights in wills and estates. Craddock writes, “If the Due Process Clause protects unborn children’s representational rights in a probate hearing, should not a preborn child be even more entitled to due process to secure her life?” Craddock cites the famous legal scholar John T. Noonan, who observes that “it would be odd if the fetus had property rights which must be respected but could himself be extinguished.” Many centuries ago, the Roman philosopher Boethius offered that “person” should be defined as: “an individual substance of a rational nature.” Regarding human persons, this simply means that a person is one distinct being that belongs to a species that is capable of using logic and reason. Whether or not American legislators have been aware of this definition, the fact remains: A plethora of American laws reflected the personhood of the unborn. As Craddock observes, the original intent of the U. S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment included the protection of the unborn. A President’s Oath Is an Oath to Protect the Unborn It is true that the states have the latitude in determining particular criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions. But just like the 13th Amendment disallows returning slavery to the states, the 14th Amendment prevents the entire notion of returning abortion to the states where the constitutional right to life could be voted down by democratic fiat.  Despite the evidence outlined above, there are those who will object to the idea that the presidential oath is an objective oath to protect the unborn. But we all should be able to agree on the following as a matter of logic: For a president to determine that abortion is a state’s right issue, and not a federal one, he is saying that personhood is not achieved in the womb. Because if the unborn baby is a person, abortion is, therefore, a federal issue that cannot be “returned” to the states for approval. Again, even the author of Roe v. Wade recognized that inescapable reality.  Thus, it is fair to ask — and it is essential for every presidential candidate to answer — the following questions: In your mind, when does personhood begin? The 14th Amendment specifically talks about persons, so you are taking an oath to protect the rights of persons. If you do not think that personhood is achieved in the womb, when is it? To swear the American presidential oath is to take a serious oath before God to do the most serious political job in the world. This means that even voting is a serious duty. American citizens have a right to know the candidates’ answers.  The post Every President Swears to Protect the Unborn appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Sun is a giant star, with a diameter of 1.4 million kilometers, filled with hot gasses that environmentalists most probably, seeing as they are not caused by capitalism, couldn’t care less about. The sun burns away with a surface temperature of 5,500 degrees Celsius, reaching over 15.5 million degrees Celsius at the core; i.e., the temperature at the sun’s core is about the same as the one at which my mother usually serves soup. The Sun’s Ultraviolet Rays Before understanding why you have to battle it out with the cap on your bottle of sunscreen, it is important to know the basic reasons for doing so. This is where ultraviolet rays come in. Radiation is emitted by anything that is very, very hot. Thus, on our planet, the two main emitters of ultraviolet rays towards humans are the sun and Maria Sharapova. (READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: A Summer of Satire: Let It Go, Let It Go. Can’t Hold It Back Anymore!) Some UV rays are absorbed by the atmosphere, which must already have a heck of a tan, while others are absorbed by our skin, causing good things, like the vitamin D you need, and bad things, like those burns that turn the touch of a soft silk sheet against your back into Satan scraping his flaming pitchfork over your raw skin at night.  Protection Theory All experts agree that the most effective way to protect oneself from the sun is to stay out of it. In my opinion, the thesis seems to be correct, but a peer review on the subject is still needed before it can be considered valid.  If you can’t avoid solar radiation, another option is to put something between you and the sun, whether it’s your mother-in-law, if she’s big enough, an umbrella (if you’re able to stick it in the sand without running it through any swimmers), or even the Great Wall of China, if you’re one of those 50-somethings who still go crazy with the shovel and rake on the beach. (READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: French Elite Have Done It Again) The problem with this is that — incomprehensible for a literary man like myself — the sun moves, and so what is in the shade at noon could cease to be in the shade at six o’clock in the afternoon. Miracles of nature. You can try to move with the sun like a sunflower, or roll up your sleeves and go for the more complex system: sunscreen.  The Spray Option The main advantage of sunscreen in the spray is that you see it come out, but you don’t see it land, so you always have the feeling that it is magically spreading everywhere it should. The main disadvantage is obvious: You don’t need sunscreen in your eyes and you do need to pay attention when you decide to spray. Dense Cream Often marketed in a small bottle to deceive the consumer about its properties, this product has the density of a neutron star, i.e., if you spread it well, with a couple of squeezes on the bottle you can apply sunscreen to all the bathers in town.  Watery Cream This is the most popular. The bottle is usually emptied upside down. If you’re going to put it on the kids, my advice is to grab them by the scruff of the neck first or dig a hole and bury them up to their knees, unless you want to apply sunscreen to all the sand on the beach. A child is never still, but if they ever are, it’s never at the exact moment you’re trying to slather sunscreen all over them. A strange radiation emanates from the bottle and affects the children, immediately causing the exact same effect as 15 liters of an energy drink.  Applying Cream to the Back There is a long-standing controversy about how to apply cream to our backs when we are alone, or in the company of someone we are not going to ask, such as our boss, a couple of policemen, or our French bulldog. Creaming one’s own back is possible, as long as you’re able to place your head under your legs so that it sticks out the other side. But if you are able to do that, chances are you’re a parrot, and parrots don’t need sunscreen. (READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: Joe Biden Plays by Ear, Does Not Take Advice, and Has a Bad Temper) You could take the opportunity to ask for help and flirt, but if you are completely alone, my advice is to spread it on the towel, and then, as you lie on it, wave your limbs in the air, like your dog when he wants you to take him out to the park and you pretend you don’t understand him. Opening the Sunscreen Without Injuring Yourself The major problem with sunscreen is that it comes in a bottle. If the product came, I don’t know, in packs, like cigarettes, we wouldn’t be talking about all this, and the hospitals wouldn’t be filled every summer with burned guys who were unable to remove its seal. As a rule, if the bottle is sold the right way round, it will have a screw cap. That means you will be able to open it, but not close it. Because when you go to close it, you won’t know where the hell the cap is. If you lose the cap, my advice is to smear everyone you meet until the product runs out. There is no, I repeat, there is no way to put a bottle of sunscreen without its cap in the trunk of the car, no matter how many bags or aluminum foil you wrap around it, without it ending up smeared all the way up the insides of the tires.  If it is sold upside down it should be possible to open it according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Try to read them. Since the writing is tiny and white, on a light blue background, and you won’t be able to see anything, try to open the bottle by knocking it on the nearest inanimate object. I repeat: Inanimate. Finally, some bottles sold upside down may have a hinged cap, so you will have to break, before opening it, a safety tab which, I imagine, is designed so that the cat cannot pour it into your milk and poison you. There are two ways to break the tab: with your fingernail or with a tooth. It all depends on which of the two is easier for you to do without. Do-it-yourself tip: Your nails grow back faster.  The post How to Apply Sunscreen: A Handbook appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, made several unprecedented incendiary comments during a speech on June 19. He threatened war on Cyprus if they assisted Israel in an attack on the militia and pledged to wage a war “without constraints, rules or limits” on Israel. The man who initiated the ongoing eight-month conflict between his militia and Israel is now threatening to transform limited daily attacks largely relegated to a border area into a deadlier, more destructive regional war. Nasrallah’s provocative words are a product of a flawed U.S. approach to the Middle East. Instead of mitigating the region’s dynamics, the Biden administration’s approach has made a challenging situation worse by enabling its enemies through diplomacy. As the 1938 Munich Agreement demonstrated, mollifying an aggressor is not a path to peace, it is a roadmap to war. (READ MORE: US Navy Works to Deter Full-Scale War) Since arriving at the White House, President Biden has been keen to temper and contain conflict in the Middle East. His administration wants to prevent and limit conflict so they can devote more time, energy, and resources to Asia and the growing Chinese threat. Mitigating conflict in the Middle East has entailed pursuing ceasefires, truces, and mediated settlements between long-time enemies. The idea is that one agreement will engender additional agreements and cooperation. Through these measures, the administration believes the region can eventually be shared between competing powers. The approach is backfiring. Appeasement Plays Into the Hands of Our Enemies The administration’s fear of conflict, escalation, and zeal for achieving diplomatic solutions have played into the hands of its enemies. To the detriment of its allies, American-mediated settlements and truces did not engender a culture of cooperation and a climate of co-existence in the Middle East. Allies made concessions, but aggressors were only temporarily satisfied. An environment has emerged that placates escalatory demands and enables impunity. Nasrallah’s June 19 remarks are manifestations of the climate cultivated by the Biden administration. Nasrallah recognizes the flawed U.S. approach to the region, knows his audience, and seeks to exploit it. He knows that President Biden fears an escalation of violence and the outbreak of a regional war. He is calculating that his threats will motivate the Biden administration to increase pressure on Israel to declare a ceasefire in Gaza (Hezbollah has made ending its 9-month almost daily attacks on Israel contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza) and restrain Israel from launching a major offensive on Lebanon. (READ MORE: UK Parliament Gets Its Own Pro-Palestinian Squad) A ceasefire and restraint are a win-win for Nasrallah. His nine-month conflict waged against Israel and threats would be vindicated. His militia escapes a devastating Israeli invasion and his threats go unpunished. Nasrallah and Hezbollah survive to foment conflict for another day because they do not seek co-existence with the Israeli state, only its demise. Why is Nasrallah willing to threaten a broader, deadlier, more destructive war? He learned the behavior. He indulged in similar rhetoric and actions in 2022 and got rewarded. Positive Reinforcement Works in Foreign Policy Too On July 13, 2022, the leader of Hezbollah declared “All the options are on the table” after his militia launched drones at an Israeli gas rig in the Mediterranean Sea. The actions and comments occurred as U.S.-mediated negotiations between the Israeli and Lebanese governments over a disputed maritime boundary and ownership of gas fields in the Mediterranean appeared to be floundering. Nasrallah threatened that if Americans “don’t give us our rights that are demanded by the state and if you don’t allow companies to extract (oil) God knows what we will do. We will turn over the table in the face of the world.” Within weeks of Nasrallah’s actions and threats, a settlement was being finalized. He called the settlement a “great historic victory.” Lebanon achieved a favorable outcome and Hezbollah went unpunished for its actions and threats. President Biden ignored the events leading to the settlement. Instead, he focused on the outcome tweeting: “My Administration was proud to facilitate this deal, an anchor for regional stability and prosperity.” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken complimented Biden’s tweet by stating that the resolution demonstrates the “power of regional cooperation” and “the transformative power of American diplomacy.” I spoke with @IsraeliPM and @LBPresidency today to congratulate them on a breakthrough agreement to establish a maritime boundary for the first time between Israel and Lebanon. My Administration was proud to facilitate this deal, an anchor for regional stability and prosperity. — President Biden (@POTUS) October 11, 2022 The president and secretary of state’s words now ring hollow. The maritime boundary and gas field agreement proved to be little more than appeasement. As demonstrated by the last eight months, Nasrallah and Hezbollah are not interested in cooperation or the merits of co-existence with Israel. Appeasement has empowered them to launch an eight-month conflict and make further threats because they ultimately seek the demise of Israel. Nasrallah’s behavior and rhetoric will continue until Hezbollah is militarily defeated. (READ MORE: Keir Starmer’s Win Signals the UK’s New Leftist Course) As Europe learned with the 1938 Munich agreement, settlements with individuals or entities who do not desire co-existence quickly become meaningless. An agreement only contributes to the prospect of a more destructive and deadlier conflict. The approach of appeasement in the Middle East is not bearing the intended fruit for the Biden administration. Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development. The post Appeasement Didn’t Bear Good Fruit in the Middle East appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Western Civilization, and the United States in particular, is at risk. I say this because this is exactly what happened to my country 45 years ago” began Reza Pahlavi in his speech to the National Conservatism Conference (NatCon). He would certainly be one to know. In his Wednesday address in Washington, D.C. the former crown prince of the Imperial State of Iran dove into what his late father described as “the alliance of the red and the black,” the union of radical Marxism and radical Islamism.  Deposed in 1979 by the Islamic Revolution, Pahlavi’s father was Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In the wake of the Shah’s ouster rose a steadfastly anti-American terrorist state, where there had once been a staunch American ally. (READ MORE: US Navy Works to Deter Full-Scale War) One might be forgiven for thinking Pahlavi came to NatCon seeking strange bedfellows. It would be an understatement to say that the implicit assumption of his speech, that the Iranian regime needed to go, could easily have landed poorly. National conservatives have stood apart from the rest of the right in their fierce criticism of the foreign adventurism of President George W. Bush’s administration, particularly regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pahlavi’s Message Fell on Sympathetic Ears But Pahlavi came with a message certain to find a sympathetic ear. The Ayatollah, he observed, eschews patriotism and nationalism in favor of a supranational, imperialist ideology. Islam, according to the Iranian regime, has no place for nationhood as such. “The lion and sun symbol, which adorned our national flag for centuries, was replaced with ‘Allahu Akbar,’” he lamented. And indeed, the Ayatollah cannot be said to be any great respecter of national borders or national sovereignty. The Iranian regime has, after all, come by its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism honestly. Closer to home, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence recently warned that Iran was funding anti-Israel demonstrations in the United States. Pahlavi dismissed “fellow travelers” in the mainstream media that have treated Iran’s new president-elect, Masoud Pezeshkian, as a moderate reformer. Western political elites, Pahlavi alleges, are worse than naive; they are “accomplices.” Lest Pahlavi aroused suspicion that his arguments against the Iranian regime, however true, were self-interested, he came with an argument from America’s self-interest. The United States, he said, has plenty of reason to wish the Iranian people well in their quest for freedom. An Iran liberated from the Ayatollahs would join with Israel and other regional allies in the Abraham Accords. This would allow America to withdraw her soldiers from the Middle East with honor, instead of the disgrace and embarrassment that fell upon us in Afghanistan. (READ MORE: Biden’s Conspicuous Decline is a Joke — On Us) He observed that American experiments in imposing democracy in the Middle East have repeatedly failed. In Iraq, the withdrawal of American troops after the toppling of American troops led to sectarianism, not so subtly compared to American identity politics, and the eventual rise of the Islamic State. In Afghanistan, America passed over reinstating the country’s deposed king Mohammad Zahir Shah in favor of a doomed attempt to build a modern liberal democracy. Pahlavi insisted Iran’s struggle was not America’s, that he was here to seek American friendship as opposed to American help, and that he disavowed the idea of yet another American regime change war. That being said, many in the audience must have suspected, as I certainly did, that Pahlavi was implying what he did not say aloud. (READ MORE: Civilization Means Power Used in Service to the Public) On the whole, however, Pahlavi’s speech was an unexpected and credible broadside against what the French have taken to calling “Islamo-leftism.” The cocktail of permissive left-wing immigration policies and rising Islamism has become a potent brew that is powering the European right. It is no mistake that where centrist and center-left parties have taken measures to reduce immigration, such as in Denmark, right-wing parties have floundered. Despite characterizing Europe’s new nationalists as “threats to democracy,” the political establishment throughout most of the Western world seems to think that it should be able to disregard the preferences of voters and the interests of nations without any pushback. They have thus far been wrong, and are suffering the consequences for their hubris at the ballot box. But as Pahlavi can personally attest, the consequences of allowing the alliance of radical Marxists and radical Islamists to go unchecked would be significantly more dire.  The post Reza Pahlavi: A Persian Prince Among the NatCons appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Marx and the Democrats