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

Socialism Never Works

Americans Blissfully Drift Toward Financial Collapse

by Eric Zuesse, The Duran: The U.S. Government’s plans to control the world are displayed not merely by its lie-based invasions, such as against Iraq in 2003, and against Libya in 2011, and against Syria in 2012; but also by its coups, such as against Honduras in 2009, and against Venezuela in 2012 and again […]