The title track to the 1978 film "Grease," starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, brought three generations together and hit number 1 on the Billboard Charts. The song is based on a movie about teenagers in the ‘50s, sung by a legend from the ‘60s and written by one of the biggest hitmakers of the ‘70s."Grease" was written by Barry Gibb of the Bee Gees but sung by doo-wop legend Frankie Valli. Although the Bee Gees toured in the late ‘70s and made a comeback in the '90s, they never played the song live until 1997, when it was part of their “One Night Only” concert and album featuring many of their biggest hits.What’s impressive about the song is that even though Valli does a great job singing it on the original recording, when you hear the Bee Gees sing it, it sounds exactly like something you would have heard them perform in the late ‘70s.During the performance, Barry Gibb points to “Grease” star Olivia Newton-John, who’s seen dancing with her daughter, Chloe Lattanzi in the audience. In the third verse, Valli's vocal from the original is played so you can hear the difference. - YouTube www.youtube.com The magic started when producer Robert Stigwood, fresh from the Travolta-starring ‘77 hit “Saturday Night Fever,” went into production on a film adaptation of the Broadway musical “Grease.” The film promised a killer soundtrack filled with new versions of the classic show tunes, but it needed a song for the film's opening credits.So Stigwood tapped Barry Gibb, lead singer of the Bee Gees, the band that had just launched into the stratosphere after being featured on the “Saturday Night Fever” soundtrack. Stigwood also happened to be the band’s manager and planned to feature them in a Beatles-based musical, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.”Barry wrote the song “Grease" in one day. Instead of sounding like a '50s doop-wop or rockabilly track, it was a slick-sounding dico-adjacent number about a feeling of generational confusion. The song was given to Valli, who’d had a recent comeback with the songs “My Eyes Adored You” (1975) and the 1976 nostalgia-dazed Four Seasons doo-wop disco number “December 1963 (Oh, What A Night).” Valli had the option of recording the song or appearing as the Teen Angel who sings “Beauty School Drop-Out.” The “Walk Like a Man” singer opted to do the theme song and Frankie Avalon was given the Teen Angel role.“I just remember that it all happened in one afternoon,” Barry Gibb recalled. "I was babysitting and my wife was out. And Robert Stigwood called up and said. 'I have two wonderful new songs by John Farrar called ‘Hopelessly Devoted to You’ and ‘You’re the One that I Want.’ But we don’t have a song for the film's title. Could you come up with a song called ‘Grease’?” I said, “How do you write a song called ‘Grease’? I don’t understand what direction I would take to do that.' And Robert said, 'Just Grease duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, Grease duh-duh-duh-duh-duh.' So he wasn’t very helpful. But I understood that they really wanted something that was positive and sunny. It really all happened in that afternoon. I walked on the dock for a bit…."“Grease” was a box-office smash and became the highest-grossing film of 1978. Unfortunately for Stiugwood, his follow-up film, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” starring the Bee Gees, would be one of the biggest flops of the decade.To celebrate the 40th anniversary of “Grease” in 2018, Barry Gibb released the demo he originally recorded of the song accompanied by piano. - YouTube www.youtube.com

"The creativity was on a par with where they took themselves." The post The band Mick Fleetwood thought Fleetwood Mac would become first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

To be a citizen is to own and be owned in turn. The civis possesses a stake in the civitas, and is entitled to a share in its common life, even as he is bound by its rules and regulations. He is a subject of the same laws that protect him; he is bound by the same standard of justice he appeals to for redress of grievances. The citizen and the city belong to one another, and it is — by necessity — a marriage of exclusivity. If the city were open to all, its rights and privileges would be available to none. If the citizen belonged to all, it would dilute the very concept of belonging itself. The bill proposes to do exactly what its title implies: “Require newly elected Members to disclose dual citizenship within 90 days of being sworn in.” It is for this reason that Teddy Roosevelt denounced the concept of dual citizenship as “a self-evident absurdity”: “The full performance of the duties of American citizenship,” Roosevelt wrote in 1915, are “necessarily exclusive of and inconsistent with the profession of citizenship in or allegiance to any other nation.” At the time, Roosevelt was merely expressing the common citizenship assumption of the early 20th century” — i.e., “that national loyalty is indivisible,” wrote David A. Martin, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “This was not just an American view. “By 1915 virtually all other governments followed the same theory of nationality.”  But “the consensus against dual nationality was subtly eroding from what may have been its high-water mark around the time when TR wrote, in 1915,” Martin wrote. “As far as American rules are concerned, the erosion started in the political arena, but later found its real momentum in the courts.” (READ MORE from Nate Hochman: Tim Walz: The Mogadishuan Candidate) A long line of legal rulings over the course of the next half century steadily weakened the federal government’s safeguards against Americans (or would-be Americans) seeking to voluntarily naturalize in — or take an oath of allegiance to — a foreign state. By the latter half of the 20th century, almost all had been ruled unconstitutional. The objections to dual citizenship are both practical and principled. While advocates of the institution may argue otherwise, ultimately, full loyalty can only ever be granted to one nation. (If two countries went to war, and both called up a draft, the man with legal citizenship in both would soon learn which of the two he was truly willing to die for). Duality reduces citizenship from a sacred and indivisible bond to a mere legal formality. Without the demands of exclusivity, the ancient institution that united a people across space and time becomes a procedural classification. The idea that citizenship is something that could be duplicated or held simultaneously — that one could have a “backup plan” home in case the current one doesn’t work out — is fundamentally at odds with the very idea of citizenship itself.  I am an American. This is my country. It belongs to me, and I belong to it. I will never belong to any other — nor would I ever even want to. My loyalties are to America first, only, and always. I have no “escape plan” if things take a turn for the worse — no country B to flee to, with a familiar language, culture, and people to take refuge in. My investment in the nation is absolute, because my membership in the nation is absolute. Why shouldn’t I be able to expect the same of my fellow citizens? If the mere act of belonging to more than one civitas is a “self-evident absurdity,” one can only imagine what Roosevelt would say of the prospect of dual citizens serving in public office. And yet in today’s America, they do, although the absence of mandatory disclosure makes it impossible to know the exact degree and extent. Congressman Thomas Massie, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, sparked a controversy today by suggesting that perhaps they shouldn’t. A number of Massie’s critics countered that they weren’t aware of any dual citizens currently serving in Congress, thereby unwittingly revealing the problem — we don’t know. The share of foreign-born members of Congress is small but growing — 18 lawmakers, or 3 percent of the current Congress, were born outside the country — but dozens have at least one foreign-born parent: All together, according to Pew Research, there are 81 immigrants or children of immigrants in the 118th Congress — roughly 15 percent of the body. Those who are familiar with international citizenship laws will likely be aware of the principle of jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” which governs the way that the overwhelming share of the world’s nations grant citizenship today. In most countries, a citizen’s child is entitled to citizenship too — even if they were born abroad. (And even if their other parent is a non-citizen). If a child is born in America to an American father and a Mexican mother, they are entitled to Mexican citizenship. And if that child goes on to become a member of the United States Congress, they are under no obligation to disclose their dual citizenship, let alone renounce it. (As it happens, Mexico is the most common nation of origin for the 81 lawmakers mentioned above). (READ MORE: The Tories’ Immigration Policies Spawned This Chaos) There are, of course, simple solutions to these issues — although “simple” is not quite the same as “easy.” As America 2100 noted on X today, Congressman Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, introduced the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act earlier this year. The bill proposes to do exactly what its title implies: “Require newly elected Members to disclose dual citizenship within 90 days of being sworn in.” The premise seems so painfully obvious and unobjectionable that one can’t help but wonder why it isn’t yet law. If Congress ever decides to make itself useful again, that would be a good place to start. The post Two’s a Crowd When It Comes to Citizenship appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Cristina Laila, The Gateway Pundit: Kamala Harris and her stolen valor running mate Tim Walz arrived in Pittsburgh to kick off their “Road to Chicago” bus tour. They were joined by Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz’s wife Gwen Walz. They will make a few stops in western Pennsylvania on Sunday as they […]

from The Last American Vagabond:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/