As then-candidate Ronald Reagan said to then-President Carter during their 1980 debate when Carter yet again falsely accused Reagan of opposing Medicare: “There you go again.” That memorable moment comes to mind as President Joe Biden, with mere days left in his solitary term, takes to the pages of the Washington Post to write an op-ed titled: “Joe Biden: What Americans should remember about Jan. 6,” with the subtitle “Four years ago, our democracy was put to the test — and prevailed.” In which the president speaks one blatant untruth after another, illustrating exactly why Americans wanted him out of the Oval Office. Let’s go through them. Right off the bat, Biden, speaking of the quadrennial election certification ceremony, says, “For much of our history, this proceeding was treated as pro forma, a routine act. But after what we all witnessed on Jan. 6, 2021, we know we can never again take it for granted.” The link Biden provides in his article is to a seriously dishonest Washington Post piece headlined: “The Attack.” The article opens by saying this: “President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020, when he issued a flurry of preemptive attacks on the integrity of the country’s voting systems.” What that Washington Post story (and Biden) leave out — deliberately, it would seem — is the Democrats’ repeated dalliance with corrupted elections. As I long ago noted — with specifics — just in my own state of Pennsylvania, Biden’s Democrat Party has a repeated history of voter fraud. That Biden wrote his piece in the Washington Post should come as no surprise. My own piece on this subject back then in 2022 in NewsBusters was headlined “Washington Post’s Fairy Tale on Pennsylvania Voter Fraud.” I noted that the Washington Post was ignoring repeated voter fraud efforts in my home state of Pennsylvania by Democrats in elections like those in three Pennsylvania elections alone — 2014, 2015, and 2016. Stories that made headlines in the day, replete with indictments and convictions of Democrats by the U.S. Justice Department. But alas, no word on this history from the president in his op-ed. Fresh from ignoring that reality, Biden does it again. Saying: An unrelenting effort has been underway to rewrite — even erase — the history of that day. To tell us we didn’t see what we all saw with our own eyes. To dismiss concerns about it as some kind of partisan obsession. To explain it away as a protest that just got out of hand. Hello? I was not at the Capitol on that Jan. 6. But I did have a front-row seat at the rally on the White House ellipse where President Trump appeared and specifically called for his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” What I saw with my own eyes were tens of thousands of Americans protesting in exactly that fashion — peacefully and patriotically. Biden, in the dishonesty that characterized his presidency (see: Hunter’s business pals with Biden, the hiding of Biden’s mental and physical health, etc, etc, etc) simply states a decided untruth about Jan. 6, trusting he will be believed. Then he states: “We cannot allow the truth to be lost.” Exactly. Yet it is Biden himself who is doing his best in this column of his to hide the truth. To rewrite history with blatant untruths. The president’s piece ends by saying: “But on this day, we cannot forget. This is what we owe those who founded this nation, those who have fought for it and died for it.” Note well: President Biden completely ignores the one American who did die that day: Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, shot to death by a Capitol policeman in full view of the cameras. In short, this Biden op-ed, as his single term closes out, will serve as a black-and-white testament as to just why the Biden presidency will rank so poorly in history. Bad economic and foreign policy, dishonest politics, and the telling of outright untruths. Whether untruths about his participation in Hunter’s business dealings, building a Biden empire by influence peddling with his various public offices, or the reality of his own deteriorating mental and physical health. Not to mention policies that invited Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine and Hamas to invade Israel, plunging the world as close to World War III as it has come since the ending of World War II in 1945. (READ MORE: Is Biden Trying to Start World War III Before Trump Takes Office?) In a classic case of zero self-awareness, this Biden op-ed will stand as its own answer as to just why the Biden presidency failed. Not to mention it will explain the failure of his vice president to win the 2024 election as someone who supported his agenda and could not think of, per her answer to a question from a liberal commentator on the left-wing The View, anything she would change or do differently from Biden were she to win. Vice President Kamala Harris just presided over the official certification of President-elect Donald Trump’s considerable victory. And right there in his Washington Post op-ed, President Biden unwittingly provides exactly the reasons for that Trump victory. In short? No, Joe, it ain’t so. Shocking. Not. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Biden Rewards Liz Cheney for Betraying the Constitution If Not Speaker Johnson — Who? The Trumpian Future Beckons for America The post No, Joe, It Ain’t So appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Jan. 6, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he was stepping down as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. This is a big step that for some time has been greatly longed for by the vast majority of Canadians who can no longer tolerate him. But the significance of this move can only be understood in the details. Trudeau was facing a no-confidence vote brought by the Conservatives and slated for Jan. 27 when parliament was scheduled to go back into session. But before making his announcement, Trudeau asked Governor General Mary Simon to prorogue parliament for 11 weeks until March 24 so the no-confidence vote could no longer happen. This is the longest that parliament has ever been prorogued in Canadian history. Parliament must meet by the end of March because the government will run out of money without a new budget by then. All budget votes are technically no-confidence votes but one held at the end of March may still pass because Jagmeet Singh, leader of the socialist New Democratic Party may yet find another excuse to prop up the Liberal government even though he has recently tried to distance himself from Trudeau and the Liberals. (Note: the NDP is presently impecunious and cannot afford to go into a general election.) Meanwhile, the Liberal Party will hold a leadership race to determine who will replace Trudeau. Theoretically, anyone could throw his or her hat in the ring but more likely it will be someone with name recognition who will try to boost the party’s standing in the polls, which is now down to about a 28 percent approval rating. The Liberal caucus is now in open revolt but it must be remembered that most Liberal members of Parliament are go-along-to-get-along drones and the revolt is mainly due to the fact that they want to distance themselves from Trudeau in the hope of saving their own seats. It must also be remembered that all of the potential contenders with any chance of winning the leadership race are Trudeau acolytes. That is to say that they are World Economic Forum globalists, you know the folks who are famous for saying such inspiring things as: “We are the Future”; “You will own nothing and be happy”; “You will eat bugs”; “We will be able to read your thoughts and memories”; and “We will blot out the sun with clouds of balloons to stop global warming.” Those folks. In 2017, at a gathering at Harvard University, Klaus Schwab, then head of the World Economic Forum, singled out Trudeau as his pet disciple and stated that fully half of Trudeau’s cabinet was on board with the World Economic Forum agenda. One possible contender for the Liberal leadership is Chrystia Freeland who was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance until she recently had a public falling out with Trudeau over the projected deficit. She is obviously trying to distance herself from him in the hope of becoming Party leader and eventually Prime Minister. This won’t be easy to accomplish because, for almost a decade, she has been at his side every step of the way in his systematic destruction of Canada. Indeed, she is arguably the foremost chief architect of that destruction. Who can forget the smirk on her face when she announced that she was “de-banking” the peaceful protesters of the Truckers Freedom Convoy as well as their supporters? Another prominent contender often mentioned is Mark Carney, a former governor of the Bank of Canada, followed by a stint as governor of the Bank of England. A couple of months ago, he was engaged as an economic adviser to the Liberal Party, perhaps to bring him back into the limelight, but not because the party was considering a change of course. He too is a staunch globalist and is a member of the World Economic Forum’s Foundation Board of Directors. Carney’s public advice for economic recovery is “de-carbonization” which he claims to be really competitive. As witnessed by what has been happening to the German economy, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Germany has for decades been at the forefront of de-carbonization to fight the boogeyman of climate change. It has decommissioned coal and nuclear power generation like crazy, opting instead for unreliable solar and wind generation, and, consequently, its energy costs have wildly soared leading to the steady deindustrialization of the Ruhr and the recent shrinking of the German economy. (READ MORE: Lights Out in Germany) Unlike Trudeau, Carney does not sound like a fool when he opens his mouth. He would never say something like, “The budget will balance itself.” But aside from outward appearances and his vaunted success as a central banker, he is still a climate change alarmist (possibly due to the influence of his wife, Diana, who is known for her social justice and environmental activism). So don’t count on an election in Canada right away. It may not take place until late spring or possibly not even until October 25 which is the legal hard deadline to call it. Meanwhile, expect a lot of Liberal Party image management from now until then in the hope of regaining the confidence of Canadian voters. The Liberals are desperate. If they cannot increase their poll numbers, they may not even be able to attain the status of the official opposition in the next election. It is even possible that they will be assigned to oblivion. Meanwhile, Canadians are hurting for reasons similar to those that Americans have been hurting under the Biden administration. These antics by the Trudeau Liberals to cling to power may backfire and hurt them even more — just as appears to have happened to the Democrats in the run-up to the November election. It is said that people get the leaders that they deserve and there is some truth to that, but with modern methods of manipulating popular opinion, it’s much easier than it used to be to fool the people. Canadians are said to be nice, and they really are nice, but unfortunately too nice for their own good. Trudeau’s appeal has always been to the emotions of Canadians and not their reason. Canadians are now finally ready for the commonsense “revolution” of the Conservative Party of Canada. It looks like lessons have finally been learned — the hard way. READ MORE from Max Dublin: The Road Ahead for America and Canada Chabad Fulfills Its Mission, the UN Does Not Has Canada’s Taxman Been Weaponized? The post Exit Trudeau Stage Left appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Panama Canal is back in the news. President-elect Donald Trump, a few days before Christmas, suggested that he might try to regain control of the Panama Canal, saying that it was “foolishly” ceded to Panama by President Jimmy Carter. Writing in the National Interest, Alexander Gray, who served on the National Security staff in the first Trump administration, agrees that the Canal should be under American control because it “serves essential military purposes for the United States.” Gray argues that “the preponderance of U.S. naval power in a crisis from the East Coast to West Coasts and eventually into the Pacific Theater itself will require unobstructed access to the canal.” The canal today is “on the front lines” of our geopolitical rivalry with China (which has acquired ports on both ends of the canal), and U.S. control of the canal is directly related to the continuing legitimacy of the Monroe Doctrine. (RELATED: Rejuvenating the Monroe Doctrine) Gray, in his article, mentions a fascinating debate over ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties that was aired on William F. Buckley’s Firing Line in January 1978. It is worthwhile watching that debate (on YouTube courtesy of the Hoover Institution) when judging whether Trump and Gray have a point. The participants in the debate make the program educational and entertaining. The main debaters were William F. Buckley Jr., who led the team that favored ratification of the treaties that would eventually surrender control of the canal to Panama, and then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan (two years before he won the presidency) who argued for U.S. retention of the canal. Buckley’s team included the great James Burnham (Buckley’s colleague at National Review and the author of seminal books on U.S. foreign policy), George Will (conservative syndicated columnist), and retired Admiral Elmo Zumwalt (former chief of naval operations). (RELATED: James Burnham: the Sage of Kent, Connecticut) Reagan’s team included Patrick J. Buchanan (columnist and former speechwriter for President Nixon), Roger Fontaine (an academic expert on Latin American affairs), and retired Admiral John McCain (former commander-in-chief of Pacific Command). The American diplomat Elsworth Bunker, who negotiated the treaties for the United States, also participated. It was a lively and informative debate that took place at the University of South Carolina and was moderated by Senator Sam Ervin of Watergate fame. Buckley and Reagan gave opening statements, then were questioned by Burnham, Will, Buchanan, and Fontaine. Admirals Zumwalt and McCain provided opposing views from a naval perspective. Reagan stressed both U.S. commercial and vital military interests that were served by American control of the canal. Admiral McCain seconded that argument. Buckley emphasized, seconded by Admiral Zumwalt, that the treaties preserved American commercial and military interests and would generate goodwill towards America by the Panamanian people. Reagan countered that the dictator of Panama who signed the treaties did not necessarily represent the will of the Panamanian people and that many Panamanians who lived and worked in the canal zone opposed the treaties and the loss of American control. Pat Buchanan noted that under the treaties Panama would have control over both ends of the canal in 1980 when Jimmy Carter would still be president, and suggested that Carter would shrink from sending in the Marines to protect U.S. interests if Panama decided to close the canal to U.S. commercial or naval ships. Buckley retorted that Carter would send in the Marines, if necessary. James Burnham noted that five American presidents had participated in negotiations with Panama, and suggested that this showed a bipartisan consensus that the canal should eventually be given to Panama. In closing remarks, Reagan emphasized that only American control could guarantee that the canal would remain open to all commercial traffic and, more importantly, would continue to enable our country to protect its security interests in the Western Hemisphere — a clear reference to the continuing validity of the Monroe Doctrine. Reagan also argued that surrendering the canal to Panama would constitute yet another strategic retreat on the part of the United States that would concern our allies and embolden our adversaries. Buckley, on the other hand, made legal arguments on behalf of Panama’s sovereignty over its territory, including the canal, and raised the specter of American colonialism in defiance of American ideals. None of the participants in the debate invoked Alfred Thayer Mahan, but those opposing the treaties should have. Mahan was a historian, naval strategist, and America’s chief geopolitical thinker in the late 19th and early 20th century. As Mahan biographer Robert Seager II noted, Mahan “had long agitated for an isthmian canal, one that would be completely under American control.” In June 1893, he wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly titled “The Isthmus and Sea Power.” Mahan called the Central American isthmus a “natural center, towards which … the current of intercourse between East and West inevitably must tend.” “Control of the Central American isthmus,” he explained, “means naval control, naval predominance.” America’s interest in an isthmian canal, he wrote, was “both commercial and political.” Geographically, U.S. control of the canal would “bring our Pacific coast nearer … to our Atlantic seaboard.” And U.S. control of the canal would provide our predominant influence over the Central American/Caribbean Sea region. It would also mean “freedom of interoceanic transit.” But if foreign nations exercised that control or achieved the ability to interfere with our control of the canal, Mahan believed, we would endanger our national security by placing the Monroe Doctrine at the mercy of a foreign power. Mahan had a friend and admirer in President Theodore Roosevelt, who made it American policy to construct and control a canal through the Central American isthmus. (READ MORE: The Continuing Relevance of Mahan) In Mahan’s day, the foreign powers that caused concern were Great Britain, Germany, and a rising Japan. Today, the foreign power that causes concern is China, which, as Alexander Gray points out, is using economic and political power to “gain coercive economic and political control” of the canal. China controls ports at both ends of the Panama Canal and is increasing its economic and political footprint throughout the Western Hemisphere. As Gray notes, “It would be the height of naivete to assume Beijing’s interest in Panama and the canal has nothing to do with the strategic significance of the waterway for U.S. national defense.” Reagan and his team had the better argument in the 1978 Firing Line debate held 47 years ago this month. Trump and Alexander Gray have the better argument now. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Presidential Medal of Freedom to George Soros Avoiding the McNamara Trap With China The US Presidents Who Really Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize The post The Panama Canal and the <i>Firing Line</i> Debate appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Dr. Will Falconer, DVM, The Tenpenny Report: It seems the feline world is very challenged by this bird flu virus. The question nobody seems to be asking is: “How are cats now susceptible to an avian virus?” And the likely answer: Gain of Function (GoF) research, funded by you and I… We are facing the reality […]

by Jeff Thomas, International Man: In 1776, Thomas Jefferson was asked to create a draft for a founding document for what was to become the United States. In his second paragraph, he said. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain […]

Never mind the width, feel the quality: With five albums in 46 years, Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour isn't the most prolific of solo acts, but the standard is high