Non-white voters have abandoned President Joe Biden in such large numbers that even the establishment media has begun to notice. Monday morning on “CNN News Central” with co-anchor John Berman, CNN…

The woman accused of killing a 3-year-old Ohio boy smiled and giggled in court Monday. Bionca Ellis, 32, is charged with killing Julian Wood and wounding his mother, Margot Wood, according to WKYC. Eliis…

Prominent FiveThirtyEight pollster Nate Silver posed a foreboding question for Democrats on Monday. The question came on the heels of a devastating revelation for President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign.…

[Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: HERE.] Americans expected Osama bin Laden to be found in a cave in Afghanistan. In reality, he was living comfortably in a military town in Pakistan…

[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.] Just as increasing numbers of Americans, in response to such outrages as the disastrous Biden economy and the unending invasion at the southern…

Judge Cannon Rules on Trump Motion to Dismiss in Classified Documents Case

As yesterday’s European election results came in, media coverage began to take on a distinct sense of dread. “A far right surge upends national politics,” blared one CNN headline. “Far right gains deal stunning defeats to France’s Macron and Germany’s Scholz,” declared PBS. A New York Times title sought to strike a relatively optimistic tone, finding solace in the fact that “In E.U. Elections, the Center Holds” — but, it noted glumly, “the Far Right Still Wreaks Havoc.” It remains to be seen whether this most recent bout of elections will change much of anything in European politics. Indeed, the suite of nationalist, anti-immigration parties that the media consistently insists on describing as “far right” made gains that were “even more stunning than many analysts predicted,” CBS noted. While the nationalists did not muster enough votes to wrest control of the European Union from the body’s current center-right majority, its substantial gains were yet another sign of surging popular momentum for a coalition that was regarded as fringe and marginal just a few years ago — particularly in a number of the E.U.’s most powerful and influential nations. (READ MORE from Nate Hochman: Strangers in Their Own Country) The most remarkable story of the night, in this regard, was in France, where President Emmanuel Macron moved to dissolve his country’s National Assembly and call a snap election in the face of a shocking two-to-one loss to Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s ruling center-left party lost to the nationalist Alternative for Germany, which overcame a series of scandals — and overwhelming opposition from the German political establishment — to make substantial gains, finishing second-place overall (and solidifying its position as the largest and most popular party in east Germany). In Italy, too, nationalists shored up their dominant position, led by “Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — whose far-right Brothers of Italy party surged to first place in the country, solidifying Meloni as a rising conservative star on the world stage,” the Washington Post reported. And in Austria, too, “the far-right Freedom Party was also forecast to finish first.” The projected record number of seats secured by “far-right” parties represents one of the most decisive mandates yet for Europe’s right-wing populists, in a continent-wide show of political force. The E.U.’s parliamentary elections are debated in more than 24 languages, and represents a constituency of 27 countries and some 373 million potential voters — the “world’s second-biggest exercise in democracy, behind India’s recent election,” ABC reported. What’s more, voter turnout across Europe was the highest it’s been in 30 years. (And in many countries, it was much higher still — Germans turned out at a record-breaking 64.8 percent). Many centrists and liberals across the West professed bewilderment at their ideological compatriots’ electoral trouncing. (Belgium’s liberal Prime Minister broke down in tears while announcing his resignation in the face of a crushing loss). “The re-emergence of the radical right as a political force is coming as a shock,” POLITICO’s European affiliate reported. On X, Meta’s Tom Gara mourned: “It’s very scary that in basically every Western democracy immigration politics is powering a massive far right surge and nobody on the non-far-right seems to have any idea how to deal with it.” One suspects that most Western elites are smart enough to know exactly what they would need to do to “deal with it”; in reality, they simply don’t want to. The nationalist surge is anything but shocking, and its origins are plain and unambiguous to anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see. Immigration — at unprecedented levels, each year seemingly higher than the one before, importing millions upon millions of unassimilated, often-hostile foreign peoples from alien nations and cultures into small, once-homogenous Western nations — is the singular, defining, fundamental issue of our time, both in Europe and the West more broadly. It is the near-singular issue that every one of the ostensibly “far-right” parties rode to victory, and it is the near-singular reason that heretofore-unseen numbers of Europeans voted for them in yesterday’s election. The people who have run Western civilization for the past three decades (if not always in formal political terms, then certainly in de facto cultural and social ones) have gone to increasingly extreme lengths to avoid doing the one thing that would stem the rising tide of nationalism. They have, in varying times and places, discarded centuries of legal norms, manipulated or outright rigged their respective nations’ electoral systems, outright banned entire political parties, jailed activists and even sitting politicians, and implemented a regime of massive state censorship — all to avoid simply ending mass migration. (READ MORE: Western Civilization Is Not Just a Data Point) What yesterday’s electoral returns in Europe show is that none of this has worked. In many instances, it has had the exact opposite effect, nurturing a sense of resentment and hostility to the political establishment amongst the native populations of many European countries. More to the point, the emergent outlines of a hardline anti-immigration popular majority in Europe indicates a rising national consciousness among Europeans, sharpened by the threat from abroad. This newly awakened collective consciousness — a coherent sense of “us” and “them” — is still in its infancy. But it will soon mature, and when it does, it is certain to shape the future of the continent (and perhaps the civilization) in the years to come. Conservatism — both as a self-conscious intellectual philosophy and a felt, mass political sensibility — is almost always articulated and mobilized in response to threats from without. (As I wrote in the American Mind two years ago, “this is a feature, not a bug, of the Right: A political project that seeks to conserve is often incoherent until the traditions, institutions, and ways of life it defends are under threat.”) So it is in Europe and the rest of the West today. It remains to be seen whether this most recent bout of elections will change much of anything in European politics; Westerners have voted for less immigration many times before, often to little effect. But Europe’s political elites would be wise to give the people what they are asking for, and soon. They may not be wise enough to know it, but the so-called “far right” in Europe today is their last opportunity to avoid the genuine extremism that will invariably emerge to take its place. The post A Message From Europe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Breitbart headlines said it all. There was this out of France: Macron Trounced by Le Pen’s Populists at EuroParl Elections, Immediately Dissolves Parliament for Snap National Election And this out of Belgium: Belgium’s Anti-Trump Leader Resigns After Suffering Right Wing Election Victory The bottom line? As is true in the United States, rank-and-file average Europeans have had more than enough of the globalist/socialist agenda, and in the style of America’s former President Donald Trump, they want out. If anything is missed here it would be that conservatism has been on the rise for decades. In 1960, having just nominated the moderate GOP Vice President Richard Nixon for president, the GOP convention’s delegates suddenly leapt to their feet when Arizona’s Senator Barry Goldwater, the Mr. Conservative of his day, took the podium for a speech, a speech in which he, in instantly famous style, growled: “Let’s grow up conservatives!” Four years later Goldwater himself was the nominee, defeating the GOP Establishment’s New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. From the get go Goldwater was facing a losing battle. Barely a year earlier the nation had been traumatized by the assassination of the young and beloved Democrat President John F. Kennedy. The astute and decidedly liberal Lyndon Johnson had succeeded JFK, and the country was in no mood for more change. As the GOP stared the coming defeat in the face, on October 27, 1964 a flare of light for conservatives shot across the political sky. Actor Ronald Reagan appeared on national television to deliver a speech for Goldwater titled “A Time for Choosing.” In which, among other things, Reagan said: This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down — [up] man’s old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. While Goldwater did indeed still lose in a 44 state pro-Johnson landslide, Reagan’s speech launched his own political career, with immediate calls for him to carry the conservative cause into the next (1966) election for Governor of California. The state GOP Establishment fought Reagan and his conservative followers, putting up the moderate GOP Mayor of San Francisco George Christopher. Reagan won going away, moving on to the general election and defeating liberal Democrat incumbent Governor Pat Brown. And with that, the conservative cause was seriously on the move, triumphant in 1980 with Reagan’s 44 state landslide over the Democrats’ President Jimmy Carter. There’s more, of course. But the central point here is that from Goldwater’s lonely scolding in 1960 — “Let’s grow up conservatives!” — to Reagan’s two landslide victories to the Trump 2016 win and his seriously possible repeat victory in 2024 — the conservative movement has flowered, becoming a serious force in American politics to this day. And without doubt, its leader today is former President Trump. So back to those headlines out of Europe. As with the conservative, now Trump-led cause in America, the conservative movement in Europe has had the same slow, gradual move to success. No better example is the gradual rise of Margaret Thatcher inside the UK’s Conservative party. It took a while, but eventually she was the decidedly strong Prime Minister Thatcher. As this is written the decidedly conservative Nigel Farage is upending the British establishment of our day. Farage is the “architect” of “Brexit” — the move to get Britain out of the European Union. He left the Conservative Party over the issue — a quintessential “Establishment vs. Outsiders” battle. A few days ago, Farage announced he was returning to elective politics waving the banner of the Reform UK party. Which is to say, the decidedly conservative Farage is yet again shaking up British politics. As Trump has shaken up American politics. And this time around, as the news stories suggest, there is a similar Trump-style revolt gaining steam inside other European countries, with France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium among them. All of which is to say, Donald Trump has emerged as the leader of a global movement, with others around the globe following in his footsteps. And while Americans are understandably focused on their own 2024 election, it is safe to say the undercurrents of that election are flowing across Europe. In two words: Buckle in. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Biden Should Withdraw Reagan Remembered The Curious Trump Tie: Alito’s Flag and Merchan’s Trial     The post Trump-Style Candidates Rising in Europe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Such a smart plan, it was. Get a blue state Soros D.A. like the undistinguished Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg to indict 45th and 47th President Donald Trump on something or other. On what? Who cares what? Indict on charges of Whatever. Pick something whose limitations statute has expired. Add some mayonnaise, some pepper, some paprika — you always add paprika — and file the indictment. If you are still too lazy or stupid to make up a valid crime, just leave it out. If you get an anti-Trump judge and an anti-Trump jury, you don’t need a crime. They will convict him anyway on 34 counts of Whatever. The Democrats’ brilliant foolproof lawfare strategy was structured to tie up Trump through November and pile on him guilty verdict after guilty verdict. So they get a judge who donates his own money to anti-Trump Democrats and whose daughter becomes a million-dollar-baby off anti-Trump merchandise. Then you get a Manhattan jury. Remember: a guilty verdict on a criminal case must be unanimous (except in Braggland). That means if you are on that Manhattan jury, and the jury fails to convict, you must go back to your job in Manhattan the next day and explain why you screwed up and let Trump get away. Then you have to answer to your Manhattan neighbors, your Manhattan church friends, your Manhattan clients or patients, your Manhattan family. So you avoid the hassle, vote to convict for Whatever, and call it a day. (READ MORE from Dov Fischer: American Lawfare? Time to Bean Them With a High, Hard Fastball) Witnesses? You don’t need real witnesses in Braggland. Heck, just pull some people who knock on people’s doors every Sunday morning and who hand out The Watchtower — people who call themselves “J Witnesses.” You want more? Well, let’s get a stripper and hooker. That will guarantee a worldwide audience. And, after all, if you cannot trust a hooker who can you trust? And, just for good luck, bring in a convicted conman, crook, and perjurer, and make him your star witness. Made for TV, based on a true story. Not enough? Put a gag order on Trump, but let everyone else defame him. Deny his main witnesses the right to testify in their areas of expertise. Yell at one of his witnesses and threaten to throw that guy in jail because you don’t like the way he is looking at you. And tell the jury in that criminal case that they don’t have to be unanimous. OK, that is Democrat Lawfare Step 1. So they put on their show, get their hooker, get their bag man, get their 34 counts of Guilty-of-Whatever in a day.  And Trump’s supporters start donating so many tens of millions so fast that even Michael Cohen would not be able to collect and tally it all, and take half of it for himself.  Even “Never Trumpers” were driven to donate to Trump because the Trump campaign is no longer neatly something that “Never Trumpers” can oppose with gusto. They are now forced to fight for the future of their democracy. It may be fun to virtue signal and say, “I am a Republican, but I will not vote for a dictator.” Lovely. But now they come face-to-face with the unappetizing reality that, with Democrat Lawfare like that of Stalin’s NKVD and KGB, and like Hitler’s People’s Court under the Honorable Judge-President Roland Freisler, tyranny is here. Bragg and Juan Merchan got their verdict. And Trump cashed in. But what do the polls say? How badly has this hurt Trump? The polls are okay but do not matter anyway. Elections are five months away. In October, no one will remember Juan Merchan or his 34 counts. Remember how much people were exercised about Putin invading Ukraine? No one cares about that now, except for those on both sides of the aisle who have focused on it passionately from Day One. Remember all the tears for Israel after the October 7 massacre? No one cares about that now, except for those on both sides of the aisle who have focused on it from Day One. Honestly, do 90 percent of Americans know the differences among Jabaliah (a New Orleans food?), Khan Yunis, and Rafah? (The Philadelphi Corridor? I didn’t know Gaza was in Pennsylvania!)   Remember how every day everyone on TikTok talked about nothing but Taylor Swift? She is so “yesterday.” Now it’s all about Caitlyn Clark. And when was the last time anyone mentioned Cardi B? Thus, Democrats who passionately hate Trump will carry the 34 verdicts to November. Those who support him will donate 34 times as much money to him as they ever did before. And the vast middle ground of Undecideds and Independents will wonder whether gasoline under Biden will hit $34 a gallon and whether illegal immigration will hit 34 million. The Democrats’ brilliant foolproof lawfare strategy was structured to tie up Trump through November and pile on him guilty verdict after guilty verdict. So what has unfolded? The crooked “January 6 Prosecution,” run by a Democrat who has a partisan record, is all tied up itself. Procedural and substantive appeals have jammed it on hold, while the Supreme Court first must decide on the boundaries of presidential immunity, and determine whether and how the real law distinguishes between a president’s “private” acts and his “public presidential acts.” They will figure it out and eventually hand down their decision. My predictions on that one: Sotomayor is a political hack and will hold that Trump can be prosecuted for everything and forever — even for Whatever. She Who Cannot Define a Woman also is a hack and will join with Sotomayor, as she always does.  Kagan will write an honest, thoughtful liberal opinion. Roberts probably will go with her to prove that there are no Obama Judges or Trump Judges. And the other five probably will rule that a president has some immunity but not absolute immunity. So the case will go back to Jack Smith, and he probably will not have enough time to prosecute it before the November election. Thus, Lawfare Step 2 has become a nullity. Nonetheless, Trump will be able to raise more money off it and gain more sympathy from Independents. And what about Lawfare Step 3, the Florida Documents Case? That judge is being deeply judicious, making contemplative decisions on pre-trial motions, and that case probably will not go to trial before November. The Democrat Lawfare Mafia are going insanely crazy — bat-feces crazy — over that one. Every day now, another left-wing newspaper or online magazine publishes an op-ed article or generates a “news” story quoting a frustrated source, ruefully fuming that the “case” won’t make it to trial before elections because the judge overseeing it is incompetent and an idiot. The judge, the Hon. Aileen Cannon, has issued a ruling indefinitely delaying the trial, and all the left are ganging up on her, saying she is an idiot incapable of making up her mind. (If Republicans said that about a female Obama Judge, they would be called misogynists and mansplainers. And, since she is of Colombian parental heritage, Dems also would call her critics anti-Latinx.) (READ MORE: A Disgusting, Filthy Corruption of American Justice) Well, is Judge Cannon really that much of a moron? Maybe. All I know is that she graduated from Duke, then from University of Michigan Law School magna cum laude and Order of the Coif. That’s as good as it gets, and that law school regularly is ranked in the Top Ten out of 196 American law schools.  Then she was an attorney at a Top 15 national law firm Gibson Dunn, then served successfully as a federal prosecutor for seven years. So, waddya think? Maybe she’s a dope? In order to prove that Judge Cannon is a Latina dummy, virtually all media go to the same one guy for juicy quotes, attacking her. Their pit bull is a retired, ex-state court judge. MSN quotes him. CNN digs him up. Huffington Post, too. Also Salon. And Newsweek. And Mediaite. And Yahoo. A retired guy could make a nice side income just on the residuals for attacking her. Ah, and that leaves the best for last: Lawfare Step 4 — the Fani Willis Circus in Georgia. You know: the one with the married-to-another-woman guy, Nathan Wade, who spent time with Fani when the bedroom lights went out at night in Georgia. Oral argument on the motions to disqualify her or even to throw out the whole “case” is scheduled for October 4. Briefs will be filed. Appellate judges will deliberate. Draft opinions will be circulated among the judges before a final version is published. Text will be tightened. Spelling and grammar will be checked and improved. Cases will be Shepardized to make sure all citations are kosher and not mischaracterized or ChatGPT ideations. So that one will not be tried until after elections. Thus, the Biden Lawfare Scheme. As with Biden himself — too smart by half. The Lawfare cases will not be tried before elections, after all. Just the one Bragg-Merchan case. That was the one that led to Trump raising $53 million in 24 hours, for a total of $141 million in May (as compared to $76 million the month before, which itself was his all-time high until then, powered by that month of Braggadocio). And along the way, while physically confined to New York for the trial Trump’s handlers were practically forced finally to schedule him for speeches and huge campaign events in black-majority Harlem, and Hispanic-majority South Bronx, shocking nay-sayers that Trump has enormous support there, too — much more than imagined — among American blacks and Hispanics. Or, as Biden would say to America’s African Americans: “If you’re for Trump, you ain’t black.” It is fascinating to watch the corruption of justice turn on its corrupters. The post Biden’s Lawfare Against Trump Ain’t Following the Script appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Besides devoting a whole month to celebrating one of the seven deadly sins (for the poorly uneducated, that would be “pride”), annual Pride Months are intended to normalize and even promote an ever-expanding list of sexual orientations (pan-, grey, or demi-sexual, anyone?) and gender identities. We are a long way from the simpler times leading up to Obergefell, where the main focus was on gays, lesbians, and whether their intimate relationships and, if they formed them, households, were just as likely to be healthy, in every important respect, as heterosexual ones. These debates seem almost quaint now that, for the most part, gay rights arguments about the healthiness and normalcy of same-sex sexual relationships have triumphed in public opinion and our laws, whether these claims are empirically valid or not. Studies like this, and social scientists willing to honestly report politically incorrect results from them, are pretty hard to come by. Yet there is a set of facts, assiduously ignored or downplayed by mainstream media, that bucks the now-standard narrative. It has to do with violence against women by their intimate partners — that is, spouses, ex-spouses, boy- or girlfriends, live-in lovers, and so on. Now, female victimization by intimate partners is a real problem that ought to concern all citizens of good will. But not only have progressives focused more attention on this over the years, they have often been selective in doing so, concentrating more on promoting feminist ideology vilifying men and casting doubt on the safety of heterosexual marriage than upon alleviating the plight of most real women. For example, a disproportionate amount of liberal commentary on intimate partner violence has focused on abusive husbands, despite decades of hard data verifying that women in stable marriages face much lower risk than those in other relational situations. When they are not casting suspicion on husbands (ridiculously, often by lumping them in with boyfriends, live-in lovers, ex- or separated spouses, etcetera), they are fretting about males in general, amidst hand-wringing about “toxic masculinity.” (READ MORE from David Ayers: Marriage, the Catholic Way) Lesbians being victimized by their female lovers? In the mainstream (although not LGBT)) media ignoring or downplaying the degree of intimate partners violence experienced by lesbians, while focusing almost exclusively on abuse of heterosexual women by their partners, is the norm, evident in many college classrooms and media punditry. But the fact is that, among women, in most measured areas lesbians are consistently somewhat to much more likely to experience intimate partner violence, compared to heterosexuals. Women certainly are not generally safer in the arms of other women. But this reality is inconvenient for progressives pushing the “gay relationships are just as likely to be as healthy as everyone else’s” narrative. Three researchers compared intimate partner violence victimizations for homosexuals and bisexuals versus heterosexuals.  Published in 2013 by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it drew upon a national survey conducted in 2010. The sample was huge — 16,507 adults, 9,086 of whom were women. Since only about 1.3 percent, or roughly 118, of the women identified as lesbian (despite the bogus, inflated numbers often tossed around by gay rights activists), differences between them and heterosexual women that would be statistically significant with a larger lesbian sample were not in this study. But the differences are mostly consistent and clear none-the-less.  This study is important and routinely cited by those concerned with intimate partner violence in the LGBT community. It is not the only research highlighting these realities, but it is probably among the largest and most detailed. Studies like this, and social scientists willing to honestly report politically incorrect results from them, are pretty hard to come by. I cannot cover all of their findings here. But I can give readers a flavor. The study defined physical violence as “a range of behaviors from slapping, pushing, or shoving to severe acts such as being beaten, burned, or choked.” The percentages of women experiencing such violence at some point in their lifetimes were 40 percent for lesbians compared to 32 percent for heterosexuals. For “slapped, pushed, or shoved” these percentages were 36 percent for lesbians and 30 percent for heterosexuals. For “severe physical violence” (including such actions as beating, burning, knives and guns, kicking and hair pulling), the percentages were 29 percent for lesbians versus 24 percent for heterosexuals. These differences were not statistically significant (see above) but they were not tiny and this data was consistent. In each measure, heterosexual women did better. The authors reported the sex of perpetrator for a handful of measures. One was for overall intimate partner violence, in which they combined rape, stalking, and physical violence. Despite the inclusion of rape (where offenders are overwhelmingly male), over 67 percent of lesbians had only ever been intimate partner victimized in one or more of these ways by other females. Thus, this victimization does not primarily reflect the experiences lesbians had during some phase in which they had male intimate partners. Overwhelmingly, it is female-on-female violence. Psychological aggression is harder to define. The list of behaviors the study identified in this category was lengthy and serious, including anger perceived as dangerous, name-calling and humiliation, demeaning, various threats including physical harm to the victim and others they love or even pets, preventing the victims from using their own money or contacting family and friends, destroying their property, and the like. Sixty-three percent of lesbians had experienced some form of psychological aggression by an intimate partner, compared to 47.5 percent of heterosexuals. Overall differences in psychological aggression actually were statistically significant, again, despite the small number of lesbians surveyed. Putting findings like these together with what we have known about the relative intimate victimization rates of married women, the notion that we can be sure that lesbians are as likely to be in healthy intimate relationships as heterosexual women, and especially married ones, does not appear to be accurate. This runs counter to the pervasive image portrayed in the mass media. (READ MORE: IVF Companies Depend on Abortion) Yet, other than shoring up the public image of lesbians in committed relationships, how does this muting of the facts help them? There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about these realities that have nothing to do with hating homosexuals or trying to marginalize and demean them. When are people going to be able to discuss facts like this, and the possible reasons for them, openly and honestly—not just in the gay press or scientific literature but in the public square — without fear that they will be accused of homophobia, cancelled, or worse? The post Intimate Partner Violence In Lesbian Relationships appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.