A fire at a chemical plant in Akron, Ohio, prompted evacuations and a HAZMAT response. “A black plume of smoke billowed over Rosemary Boulevard Thursday in East Akron as Koki Laboratories went up in…

Matt Viser, writing for The Washington Post, is heading up the Hunter Biden pardon preparedness committee for the unflinchingly liberal U.S. news media.Hunter Biden is a bad dude … even worse than Corn…

New York Judge Juan Merchan hit the pause button on sentencing until November 26, after the election. President Donald Trump’s legal team is taking this as a clear victory, but the battle isn’t over…

UTL COMMENT:- Oh nooooo please God noooooo!!! Can anyone confirm this is really him? Looks like it... Comments & insights below please... This is truly the end of the civilised World.... ? .....unless we ALL STAND UP AND STOP THIS SHIT NOW! Sorry to all our friends and allies in the USA...

Don't get too sentimental. The post Bruce Springsteen discusses his corniest lyrics: “I guess that’s why it’s good” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Democrats understand that once you’re atop a tiger, you can’t get off. They understand that because they’re living it via their prolonged lawfare campaign against Trump. By pulling out all the stops to stop him, they have raised November’s stakes — and the possibility that their misuse of government offices for political purposes will be investigated — beyond those of a normal presidential election. How worried Democrats are about losing this November’s presidential election is clear from the unprecedented actions they have taken to win. Going back to last year, they unleashed four legal cases against Donald Trump in separate states. When these did not derail him with the public (his support grew), they turned against their candidate and forced their duly elected nominee out of the race against his will. The Numbers Hardly Promised Biden Defeat On July 21, when Joe Biden withdrew from the race, according to Real Clear Politics’ average of national polling he trailed Trump 39.2 percent to 43.49 percent in a five-way race. He also trailed in the all-important battleground states by 42.3 percent to 46.7 percent. In a head-to-head matchup, he trailed 44.8 percent to 47.9 percent. (READ MORE: Five Quick Things: Easy Predictions For 2024) Yes, Biden trailed across the board but, (except in some battleground polls), his deficits were within the margin of error. And his polling percentage was hardly unprecedented: Trump had won in 2016 with just 46 percent of the popular vote and Clinton had in 1992 with just 43 percent. There was certainly nothing in Biden’s numbers that should have made Democrats subvert their own voting process — and undercut their election message that they were battling to save democracy — and depose their nominee less than four months before the election. So, why did Democrats do what had never been done before by either party? They would have America believe that it was because of Trump, continuing their demonization that allows any means to justify their end of keeping him from the White House. Or they would tell you that their programs (such as their environmental extremism) are too vital to the nation to be sacrificed. Or that the economy would suffer from a curtailment of their extravagant spending. However, what Democrats really fear is that the lawfare they unleashed on Trump will come back to bite them if they relinquish the reins of power. This is not the retribution that they sanctimoniously claim — some vindictive tit-for-tat — but the revelation of their misuse of government power for partisan political ends. Democrats Fear Being Treated As They Have Treated Trump The direction Democrats intended to go with Trump was clear as early as 2019 when, following their midterm win of the House, they unveiled a barrage of over 80 investigation targets. However, even with control of the Senate after the 2020 election, congressional oversight paled in comparison to what the executive branch offered in terms of power. Questions about how this power was used go back to Russia-gate and federal efforts’ reliance on material that officials should have at the least known to be spurious. Leap forward to the present and there are questions as to how much coordination there was between the four state prosecutions of Trump and the executive branch. In between, there is no shortage of actions (illegal immigration alone would warrant a herculean examination) that raise serious questions about the proper use of executive branch power. (READ MORE: The Manchurian by Way of Minnesota Candidate) Nor are all the questions political targeting per se. There is a recent admission by Mark Zuckerberg that the administration pressured him to censure material during COVID-19. There should be questions from the same period as to how much influence teacher unions wielded —and how — in determining the continuation of national school closures. Democrats Deserve Plenty of Investigation What Democrats refused to properly investigate is as egregious as what they have questionably done. Hunter Biden’s influence peddling — and to what extent his family was involved — is clearly one. There’s also his plea deal, which was so blatantly biased that the judge threw it out. This is especially true after his guilty plea on all nine federal tax charges yesterday. How was such a deal agreed to in the first place? And then there’s the messy issue of cocaine being found in the White House — and the (likely) even messier one of what became of that investigation. Overdosing on their own partisan rhetoric, Democrats allowed themselves the luxury of justifying any and all means of driving Trump from office and keeping him from returning to it. Having so determined, they did. And some of those means almost certainly included using government power in ways never constitutionally intended. Democrats know that, if they retain the White House, there will be little serious examination of what they have done and who was involved. And another four more years should provide enough time for everyone to have forgotten or lost interest in what was done. Yes, if Republicans hold one house — or even both houses — of Congress there can be investigations. But Republican committees would have to coordinate and make a compelling case, and the establishment media would have to cover them. None of these is likely. (READ MORE: The Spectacle Ep. 143: Americans Still Care About Illegal Immigration) But if Democrats lose the White House, Republicans will have the tools to investigate — ultimately to the point of appointing special counsels should the facts warrant. Largely independent in scope and funding and with the ability to indict, subpoena, and issue search warrants, Democrats have learned through their own use of them that special counsel investigations can take on a life of their own—and these lives can lead to a judicial system that is far harder to extricate from than the press cycle: it was special counsel David Weiss’s investigation that has now caused Hunter Biden to plead guilty on all nine tax charges. Democrats also know that this is all the more likely with the wealth of questionable actions they have left behind. Democrats climbed on the tiger. It promised quite a ride. It delivered. For years. But now, atop the tiger, they cannot get off because they fear it might turn on them. J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987-2000, served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004, and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004-2023. The post The Real Reason Democrats Fear Losing in November appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The makers of our new movie Reagan (based on one of my books on Ronald Reagan) posted a graphic that speaks volumes about the film’s early critics. It quotes various hysterical, disturbing, and frankly kind of deranged assessments torching the film as “wretched,” “ugly,” “execrable,” and “the worst movie of the year.” One review was so unhinged that I actually laughed out loud at its ridiculousness, especially as the reviewer unbelievably rated the film a “1.” That review itself was like a caricature, a parody of a wild liberal raging at a film that dares to be positive about an American icon who happened to be a conservative Republican. This poor progressive seemed to go barking mad — perhaps he even began barking at the movie screen and causing a ruckus right there in the theater. I wonder if the authorities were summoned. I would assert that the editors who published that review should be ashamed of themselves, but I’m glad they ran it. It exposed the reviewer and the newspaper for the ideologues they are. They shouldn’t be taken seriously. And no, I’m not linking to the review. It’s unnecessary. Some of the more vicious reviews are so strikingly ill-informed that I can’t imagine the reviewers actually sat through the film. They showed a clear ignorance of the subject they inveigh against. Particularly baffling, and, in fact, saddening, is that the film’s core message is one so badly needed for our time — for liberals and conservatives alike: that is, unity. To repeat: unity. Positive, unifying UNITY. I not only studied Ronald Reagan’s 1980s but also lived through the decade. It was a wonderful time, a bygone era when Americans on both sides of the aisle didn’t hate each other’s guts. They found ways to work together. This film seeks to bring that unity to our day. The makers strove to avoid anything resembling cheap political shots at modern Democrats, at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi, or, conversely, at Donald Trump. You see in this film. At one point, the liberal Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, and the conservative Republican president, Ronald Reagan, are literally holding hands, praying, and jostling about having a beer together. They both loved their country. Best of all, those scenes are genuine. I actually thought that some liberals would embrace the Ronald Reagan of this film as a means of weaponizing it against Donald Trump, informing Americans that in the 1980s there existed a unifying conservative Republican president that everyone liked. I certainly didn’t desire such a weaponization, but I thought it might happen. Alas, some modern leftists don’t appear that smart. The Daily Beast critic, who dubbed Reagan “the worst movie of the year,” strangely asserted: “You may have suspected that this MAGA-tinged hagiography would be absolute trash, but it turns out you didn’t think low enough.” That’s an astonishingly ill-informed observation; the reviewer clearly doesn’t understand the differences between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Maybe our pal David French at the New York Times could set him straight, or Bill Kristol. That statement is an ad hominem smear. One marvels that certain liberal critics seem so consumed by partisanship that they can’t think rationally enough to even exploit the film to their own ideological advantage. Their passions prohibit them from getting there. Instead, they lash out at the latest Republican enemy put before them on their screen: Reagan, bad. Like Trump is bad. Love That Hate Some of the angriest reviewers of Reagan seem taken not only by partisanship but by hate. The Reagan filmmakers noted precisely that in their Instagram graphic, writing of the film: “With all this HATE it must be GREAT!”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by REAGAN Movie (@reaganmovie) That graphic is paired with another graphic that’s even more revealing. It notes a dismal 17 percent rating of the film by critics compared to an astounding 98 percent approval by audience members. The latter are the very folks that Ronald Reagan considered the heart and soul of America, whereas the former reflect the sneering judgment of the elite liberal media class. It’s fitting, actually. The contrast is not unlike the 1980s. Ronald Reagan knew it well. What made him the Great Communicator was his ability to circumvent the biased, partisan mainstream media and speak directly to the American people, not from the distorted print pages, but through the unmanipulated screens in front of them. He came to them through their TV screens directly from the Oval Office, knowing how awfully liberal elites framed him. The film itself captures this contrast very well. At one point halfway through the film, namely, rightly before Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign, the filmmakers flipped the lid off 1980s activist hell and showed every incendiary attack on Reagan, from nuclear warmonger to AIDS enabler. That montage is shocking to behold. One of my students asked how a man so vilified managed to win 49 of 50 states, nearly 60 percent of the vote, and the Electoral College 525 to 13, receiving millions of votes from Democrats. The answer is that there was always a small percentage filled with rage toward Ronald Reagan and any conservative Republican. And as we can see today with certain venomous reviews of the Reagan movie, those voices still exist. Yes, even decades after Reagan peacefully won the Cold War and left office with the highest approval of any president since Eisenhower. In my previous column, I quoted no less than CBS News anchor (and liberal) Walter Cronkite, who marveled: “Ronald Reagan is even more popular than [Franklin] Roosevelt, and I never thought I’d see anyone that well-liked…. Nobody hates Reagan. It’s amazing!” Well, that wasn’t totally true. There’s always an element of haters, and unfortunately, they’re vocal. Still more unfortunate, there seem to be more hate-filled liberals in the 2020s than in the 1980s. Why Is a Great Victory “Hagiography?” With all that said, I want to pause here to calmly address a criticism the film is getting, including from more honest detractors who aren’t merely angry ideologues. It’s a criticism I received regarding my book that this film is based on: The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. The attackers assert that Reagan is hagiographic (“Saint Ronnie,” as the Boston Globe critic zinged it), and a canonization of our protagonist. I’ll respond to that charge by repeating what I said emphatically in defense of my book. Dear critics, please listen carefully: The film and the book are about Ronald Reagan’s lifelong peaceful crusade to undermine Soviet communism and win the Cold War. He pursued that path when no one else deemed it possible. And at last, by the end of the 1980s, in an epic development for humanity and the cause of freedom, precisely that transpired. It was glorious. Everyone who lived through it was astounded. We had been raised to expect nuclear Armageddon. We got just the opposite by 1989. That Ronald Reagan helped accomplish such a feat is something not debated among historians. It is almost impossible to find unanimity among historians on anything, but in the case of Reagan and the Cold War, it’s close. Trust me, I know this. I’ve written eight books on the man and I’m a longtime presidential historian consulted in presidential rankings and all that stuff. I could list refereed journal articles I published in the late 1990s and books I edited for publications like Harvard University Press (among others) on the rising consensus among scholars (most of them liberal) that Ronald Reagan unquestionably deserves credit for peacefully winning the Cold War. He’s credited along with Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and others. The Reagan movie commendably grants credit to those other figures. It’s very good to Gorbachev. What’s the lesson here, dear critics? Well, think about it. It should be obvious. A movie focused on Ronald Reagan’s lifelong effort to peacefully end the Cold War will be positive. It must be positive because the story is positive. It is a historical reality. This truly is a story with a happy ending. To show that in a film or a book does not constitute “hagiography.” I’m left wondering how the malcontents would have preferred that we end the film. Should we have fabricated a nuclear Armageddon that never happened? A fictional World War III with the Russkies? The Berlin Wall not falling? Maybe old Dutch Reagan clubbing a homeless guy on the streets of San Francisco? On the other hand, maybe the left-wing ideologues hating on the film detest its central message of anti-communism. I’m sure they guffawed at the many references to God and at Ronald Reagan’s belief in what he, his mother Nelle, and central characters like Bill Clark called “the Divine Plan.” They also scoff at the “hagiographic” ending of the film that shows Reagan riding off into the sunset at his Rancho del Cielo while audio plays of him describing his final years of Alzheimer’s disease as “the sunset of my life.” But here too, that actually happened. John Barletta, the Secret Service rider with Reagan in that scene, wrote about it often, including in touching memoirs. And yes, Reagan used that “sunset” description in his November 1994 goodbye letter announcing his Alzheimer’s. The guy was that much of an optimist. Incidentally, anyone who watches the “hagiographic” film will see ups and downs and peaks and valleys and dark night-of-the-soul moments in Ronald Reagan’s life. It even includes the Iran-Contra scandal, which unfortunately extends the length of the movie and is confusing younger viewers. The fact is that Iran-Contra is a separate issue from the specific matter of Reagan’s multi-pronged effort to take down the USSR. Nonetheless, it was included, surely to show potential critics that the film isn’t completely one-sided. By and large, the critics blast the film for not highlighting this or that gripe they have about Reagan. But the movie isn’t about their litanies. It aims to stay on message. It’s about Reagan’s crusade to undermine Soviet communism. Professional critics ought not to lambaste a film for being something it was never intended to be. That would be akin to bellyaching that a film about President Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t include his womanizing or sending military advisers to Vietnam. The Haters Hate Unity I’ll wrap up by returning to the crucial matter of unity. The movie Reagan offers a rare gift for Americans — liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, political or apolitical. It’s a positive story about a time of genuine unity, a historical account of one of the great triumphs in American history: the peaceful end of the Cold War. That was a good thing. Be happy about it. Like what is good. But what some critics seem to like (or want) is division. They seem stuck in this awful modern mindset of pitting people in opposing hostile camps. For them, Republicans are the enemy. That makes Ronald Reagan their enemy today, no matter what he did for unity and peaceful victory. Hate on him they must. I plead with them to journey back to a better time when we didn’t all do that. And when we were led by a good president and good man who didn’t do that either. The post My Response to the <i>Reagan</i> Critics and Haters appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Israeli forces have been conducting counter-terrorism raids in the West Bank in what is considered one of the longest operations in the territory since the Second Intifada. What began last week as raids to thwart Iranian-backed networks in the northern cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, and Tubas, quickly escalated into prolonged urban firefights against well-armed militants. As noted in a previous article, counter-terrorism in the West Bank is critical to Israel’s security. Like Hezbollah in the north, Iranian proxies in the West Bank — such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, among others — work in solidarity with Hamas in Gaza forcing Israel to divide its military resources among multiple fronts. If a ceasefire agreement is eventually reached in Gaza, many speculate that Hamas will continue its war against Israel in a newly enfranchised Palestinian West Bank where Hamas already enjoys overwhelming popularity. The Layout of the West Bank The West Bank is currently divided according to the framework outlined by the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s. “Area A” falls under exclusive governance and security by the Palestinian Authority (PA), “Area B” is a region governed by the PA but under Israeli security, and “Area C” is governed and protected by Israel. The initial framework was empowered by the Israeli political left ideology that handing over land to the PA would lead to a lasting peace. It quickly came under scrutiny by the political right, which views land concessions to Palestinians as enfranchising terrorism, as seen in Gaza in 2005. (READ MORE: Six Hostages Murdered. Put Heat on Hamas, Not Netanyahu.) While the PA maintains its own police and security forces in “Area A” independent Iranian-backed terrorist networks present the greatest threat to stability and development in most Palestinian cities. Operating out of refugee camps embedded in Jenin, Tulkarm, Tubas, and Qalqilya, these networks undermine the PA’s authority and stand in as the local security force.  Israel’s objective for interventions in hotbeds such as Jenin and Tulkarm, including last week’s raids, is to thwart terrorist attacks carried out by these networks against Jews in the Israeli areas of the West Bank. These interventions are progressively met by well-armed and organized militias equipped with automatic weapons, explosives, and RPGs — armaments that travel overland from Iran and are smuggled across Jordan into the West Bank. According to three Iranian officials, the goal is to “foment unrest against Israel by flooding the enclave with as many weapons as it can…. [and] turn the West Bank into the next flashpoint in the long-simmering shadow war between Israel and Iran.” Lone-Wolf Attacks Escalate the Situation On Aug. 30, a combined force of Israeli counter-terrorist units and IDF special forces, supported by gunship helicopters and drones, dug up roadside bombs and other IEDs outside of Jenin while engaged in a 14-hour firefight against local terrorist factions. According to the Jenin Municipality, 70 percent of the city’s roads and infrastructure have been destroyed since clashes erupted. By Monday the IDF had detained 25 terrorists on a security watch list and confiscated over 30 explosive devices.  Things took a different turn over the weekend as lone-wolf terrorists from Hebron carried out two successful car bombings in Jewish areas of the West Bank. One exploded at a gas station at the Gush Etzion intersection on the busy Route 60 between Hebron and Jerusalem. When nearby IDF soldiers rushed to the scene they were fired upon but ultimately stabilized the situation. The second bomb went off five miles away at the entrance gate to the Jewish town of Karmei Tzur. (READ MORE: The Face of Evil Is Masquerading as ‘Joy’) These acts prompted Chief of General Staff Herzi Halevi, and other Israeli top brass, to conduct a situational assessment. “What you are doing here,” Halevi concluded, concerning the raids in Jenin and Tulkarm, “is exactly the idea to prevent the terrorists from loading explosives onto a car bomb and carrying out an attack in a community, against IDF troops, or anywhere else.” On Sunday, Sept. 1, another lone wolf actor opened fire on an Israeli police car at a checkpoint near Hebron killing the three officers inside. The shooter fled to Hebron seeking protection at the Palestinian Authority security headquarters but was rejected and holed up in a nearby house. Later that afternoon, IDF and Shin Bet commandos demolished the house with the shooter inside. The culprit was identified as a member of the Palestinian National Guard and trained by American troops as part of an agreement with the Palestinian Authority.  The Oslo Framework Is Anathema to Terrorist Aspirations Lone wolf attacks are incentivized by the PA subsidizing acts of martyrdom. Seven percent of the PA’s budget, or $300 million annually, is allocated to supporting released terrorists and the pensions of the families of those “martyred” while killing “occupiers” — a term that includes Jews, as infidels, and any accomplice to the Zionist enterprise. Dividing the West Bank according to the Oslo framework was intended as a stepping stone toward Palestinian autonomy. But the concessions made for Jewish civilians in “Areas C” and Israeli security in “Area B” runs anathema to Hamas and the PA’s aspirations for complete control of the entire West Bank, and eventually all of Israel. (READ MORE: When It Comes to Israel, These People Are Idiots) As expressed in their popular mantra, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” any Jewish existence between these bodies of water is viewed as “occupation,” and any means of self-defense — including ground troops in Gaza and counter-terrorist units in the West Bank — is deemed aggression. Checkpoint shootings, car bombs, and the events of Oct. 7 are legitimate acts of resistance in the eyes of Hamas and the PA. Hamas, for example, praised the car bombings on Saturday, with the statement: “Resistance will continue as long as Israel’s aggression against the Palestinian people continues.”  Unrestrained terrorism in the West Bank poses a critical threat to Israel’s security and undermines legitimate aspirations for greater Palestinian autonomy and any confidence in a “two-state solution.” The West Bank’s border with Israel is almost 12 times the size of Gaza’s 37-mile border, with the major civilian concentrations of greater Tel Aviv and Netanya within 15 miles of Qalqilya and Tulkarm. If thousands of Hamas militants in Gaza were able to breach Israel’s border in multiple locations and penetrate as far as 20 miles into Israel on Oct. 7, any similar incursions organized by West Bank terrorist networks could result in exponentially higher civilian fatalities and abductions than what occurred last October. The immediate objectives in Jenin and Tulkarm may be to thwart car bombs and foil lone wolf actors, but the long-term strategy is to prevent a large-scale attack against Israeli civilians that might dwarf Oct. 7. The post Military Raids in the West Bank Help Thwart Terrorists appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.