'It might just end up saving the world'

“The joy of the duet, just the joy of meeting..." The post “The joy of the duet”: Aretha Franklin’s favourite collaborations first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The conventional wisdom concerning vice-presidential picks is that they don’t really matter because voters focus on the top of the ticket in presidential elections. This is ordinarily true, but 2024 is no ordinary election. This time the winner will be the oldest president ever inaugurated, so it’s eminently possible that his vice-president will be called on to finish his term. We know what that means if Biden wins, so Trump’s running mate will receive more than the usual amount of voter scrutiny. Thus, he must not choose another irascible white male or any Florida resident. This eliminates all but one of the four choices toward whom he is reportedly leaning. He has a compelling life story and, at 58, he’s young enough to be a vigorous chief executive if required. According to an NBC News report, Trump has narrowed his search to four top prospects: North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio. If the report is accurate, the first name that should be crossed off the list is Burgum. The last thing Trump needs in a running mate is an aging white guy from a state he won by 33 points in 2020. The next name that must be scratched off is Rubio. The 12th Amendment precludes electors from voting for a president and vice president who reside in the same state. The third name that should be removed from the list is Vance. He’s a good Senator but would bring nothing to the ticket that Trump doesn’t already possess. (READ MORE from David Catron: Merchan Will Jail Trump Unless SCOTUS Intervenes) Which brings us to Senator Scott, who is encumbered by few if any liabilities and has much to offer Trump’s ticket and the country. He has a compelling life story. Having grown up in a poor, single-parent household in South Carolina, he nonetheless believed the escape route from poverty was hard work and education. In 2010, he proved it by becoming the first Black Republican from South Carolina elected to the House of Representatives since 1897. In 2012, he was appointed to a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate and subsequently won a special election in order to finish out the term. In 2016 and 2022, he was reelected with more than 60 percent of the vote. He is a solid conservative who soundly rejects identity politics: I am living proof that America is the land of opportunity, and not a land of oppression … For those of you on the left, you can call me a prop, you can call me a token, you can call me the N-word, you can question my Blackness, you can even call me “Uncle Tim.” Just understand: Your words are no match for my evidence. The truth of my life disproves your lies. Nor does Scott pull his punches when discussing President Biden’s myriad economic blunders. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, he recently delivered this withering indictment of Bidenomics: President Biden and Bidenomics has devastated our economy and devastated people working paycheck to paycheck. The highest percentage of Americans with the fewest dollars in their savings account for an emergency is now because of President Biden and Democrats’ reckless spending … Prices across the board have certainly increased nearly 20 percent since Biden took office. In addition to being a serious conservative and a vocal critic of the Biden administration, Scott’s prowess as a fundraiser will not have been lost on Trump. According to a report in the New York Times, he will host a major event on June 19 that will include a number of billionaire donors, including Pershing Square Capital Management’s Bill Ackman, CrownQuest’s Tim Dunn, Citadel’s Ken Griffin and Apollo’s Marc Rowan. If Scott succeeds in convincing these people and other deep-pocketed donors to support Trump, which he probably will, his value to the former president’s campaign will increase exponentially. And his all important fundraising skills by no means exhaust the value Scott would bring to the Trump ticket. (READ MORE: Why Trump Eagerly Accepted Unfair Debate Rules) As the Associated Press reports, he has launched a $14 million outreach effort to minority voters: “Scott’s push comes as Trump’s campaign is ramping up its own outreach efforts to Hispanic and Black voters, especially Black men, in his expected rematch against President Joe Biden.” The polls have consistently shown that non-white working class voters are deeply dissatisfied with Biden’s job performance, particularly on the economy. As Scott himself puts it, “Much to the chagrin of many folks, there’s no doubt that African American men are wide open for a political shift of partisanship.” And he knows how to drive home the message that Biden is bad for all voters. Here’s how he put it on Fox and Friends yesterday: The one thing we know without any question: We cannot afford Joe Biden on the world stage. The best thing Joe Biden can do to restore American prominence on the global stage — stay off of it. We need Donald Trump back on the stage … We need a sharp President of the United States, protecting the Western alliance, defending our allies and doing the right thing for the American people. That person is Donald Trump. It’s time for us to fire Joe Biden. That clip should allay any fears that Tim Scott is too nice to play the “attack dog” role that vice-presidential candidates traditionally play in tight elections. He would be far better in this role than Mike Pence ever was and would also do a better job in a VP debate with Kamala Harris. His candidacy would be historic and kill any (serious) claim that Trump is a racist. He has a compelling life story and, at 58, he’s young enough to be a vigorous chief executive if required by unforeseen circumstances to move into the Oval Office. He has more experience in Washington than most of his rivals for the VP slot, yet has a positive vision of the United States that reminds us of the optimism that Ronald Reagan always exuded. In the end, Tim Scott is clearly the perfect running mate for Trump. We can only hope that Trump himself has the foresight to see that blindingly obvious reality. The post Tim Scott Is Trump’s Ideal Running Mate appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

No movement has been more destructive to modern Western civilization than that which pits women against their protectors and their own unborn children and mocked their essential purpose — raising a family. Yet for the past 60 years, feminism spread like cancer across the greatest country in the world, supplanting the wisdom of the ages with fanatical fantasy. While America fought Marxism abroad, academia embraced its basic tenet of oppressed versus oppressor and applied it to the sexes, vilifying men as the latter. No, the feminist agenda has to be advanced at all costs — including corporate disaster — with the blessing of little men like Iger. It was an idea crazy enough to be brilliant — redirect women’s natural emotions and frustrations into resentment toward a nonexistent enemy, the opposite sex. The fact that its most prominent champions were decidedly unattractive to the opposite sex initially slowed the advance. Then appeared the absurd concept of Sisterhood to entice enough naïve yet desirable females into the coven. And the agenda flourished beyond the plotters’ wildest dreams, upheaving the whole culture in just a short time. But bitter females alone could never have managed so much so fast. They needed the aid of the saddest specimen of all, male feminists who couldn’t compete for women against their manlier, tougher brothers. So, the latter had to be vilified as toxic, misogynistic primitives, while the sensitive feeble type got celebrated almost as much as their girl bosses. And this nonsense the left-dominated entertainment media wasted little time promoting. In less than a decade, real men effectively vanished from the screen, replaced or rivaled by fake women — or as a female friend of mine calls them, “male imitators” — minus any femininity, and for that matter authenticity. Film and television franchises like Star Wars, James Bond, the Marvel Universe, and Mad Max built on believable male heroes became ghastly dollhouses populated by pseudo-female beings and maneuvered by talentless man-hating shrews. Uncancellable true film artists such as writer-director Paul Schrader (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull) have no qualms about denouncing the current Hollywoke delusion. “The good news is that the superhero craze is fading,” tweeted Schrader. “The bad news is that it’s being replaced by the cinema of grotesqueries. (Furiosa I’m talking about you.)” This month, the Mad Max universe installment, Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, became the latest chick-action mega-bomb nail in the industry’s coffin. Ironically, the film’s star, Anya Taylor-Joy, was radiant as Jane Austen’s lovely manipulative title heroine in the 2020  version of Emma. In normal times, producers would have found an equally sweet romantic role for the actress. But sweet romance is sexist in today’s Hollywoke, which tried to mutate Taylor-Joy into a convincing warrioress, to empty theater seats. Which brings us to Star Wars. In just 12 years, the epic went from the boy-friendly successor to old-time swashbucklers and Westerns to a repulsive feminist fever dream. Yet no matter how much men and women increasingly reject this change, the producers keep shoving the girl-power crap down their throat, with gay and trans activism thrown in for spite. By now, anyone still interested in Star Wars has seen the video interview with the lesbian showrunner and ditto lead of the latest Star Wars series, The Acolyte, laughingly concurring that it’s “the gayest Star Wars yet.” Producer Leslye Headland’s previous credits comprise of several projects nobody ever heard of, including a 2018 TV series version of the 80s hit, Heathers, which lasted two episodes. Starlet Amanda Stenberg’s only recognizable title is The Hunger Games, in which she had a tiny part. And it was to these two that Disney, via Lucasfilm, entrusted the billion-dollar franchise that changed the course of cinema. There’s only one explanation for such a catastrophic dichotomy — feminism. Feminism trumps business, certainly the movie business. And feminism hates men, especially white men, and real girls. Leslye Headland knows she could never create anything as significant as Star Wars, and Amanda Stenberg despises the male audience that made it thus. But she was chosen by her likeminded boss, Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm, who was handpicked by George Lucas to run his company if not ruin his legacy. Which she has been doing for the last 12 years, since Disney bought Star Wars in 2012. And Bob Iger’s Disney is ground zero for the feminist anti-family crusade. It was a marriage made in woke hell. Consequently, rather than give the fans what they want, a manly hero a la Han Solo, Kennedy assailed them in the New York Times. “Operating within these giant franchises now, with social media and the level of expectation — it’s terrifying,” she said. “I think Leslye has struggled a little bit with it. I think a lot of the women who step into Star Wars struggle with this a bit more. Because of the fan base being so male-dominated, they sometimes get attacked in ways that can be quite personal.” It never even occurred to Kennedy to hire a male writer who appreciates Star Wars, understands the masculine dynamic, and would make the franchise fun again. No, the feminist agenda has to be advanced at all costs — including corporate disaster — with the blessing of little men like Iger. The madwomen-beta male alliance might have been more permanent if real men continued to ignore it. But they’re not. They’re slapping back the way Harrison Butker did last month over the wails of feminists of both sexes and the political party ruled by them. Last week, Argentinian President Javier Milei terminated the Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity. Next January, a new American President may take similar steps here. While a former feminist President shuffles away after his female leader. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: ‘Now Tarzan Make War’ – On the Democrats The Last Woke Memorial Day The Leftist Exorcism Has Begun The post Feminism’s Secret Weapon: Weak Men appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

FBI Agent Erika Jensen testified this week in Hunter Biden’s trial in which the president’s son is charged with falsifying a gun purchase form, saying that he wasn’t addicted to drugs. Joe Biden admitted threatening Ukraine’s government with withholding U.S. loan guarantees to get the prosecutor fired. According to a variety of news reports, Jensen testified to the authenticity of the infamous Hunter Biden laptop which she said contained evidence of Hunter’s drug and gun purchases. You should remember the “laptop from hell,” and most of its ramifications. Two of them aren’t getting the attention they deserve. First is the many intelligence officials who signed a letter saying falsely that the laptop was nothing more than Russian disinformation. The second is the other evidence from the laptop that implicates both Hunter and Joe in illegal influence peddling. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden’s Latest Gaza Deal) In October 2020, weeks before the presidential election, fifty-one current and former senior intelligence officials signed a letter saying that the laptop’s contents had all the characteristics of a Russian disinformation campaign. Among the signatories were several Trump administration intelligence officials as well as former CIA directors or acting directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Gen. Michael Hayden, John McLaughlin, and Michael Morell. The media immediately picked up on the letter and ensured that it was accepted as gospel. Only later did the evidence surface that the letter was the idea of Anthony Blinken, then a Biden campaign strategist and now secretary of state. The letter, not the laptop, was a deception. None of the 51 current and former intelligence officials have apologized for their wrongful and purely political declaration that the laptop was a Russian disinformation plot. All (or most) of the former intelligence officials have retained their security clearances. That is common among former top officials and some lesser figures. One of the most common bases for revocation of security clearances is personal conduct which indicates that a person might not keep our secrets secret. The government regs describe such conduct as any general conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules that could indicate a person might not protect classified information. All of the 51 displayed at least four of those types of conduct — untrustworthiness, questionable judgment, lack of candor, and dishonesty — in signing on to the Blinken letter. They all should have their security clearances revoked, but that will never happen with Joe Biden in the White House. Let’s set the question of security clearance revocation aside for the moment. The bigger problem with the letter is the other side of what Hunter’s laptop would show in any trial of Hunter or Joe on influence-peddling charges. Title 18 Section 201 of the U.S. code makes it a crime for any person to to offer, or for any U.S. official to accept anything of value in order to affect official acts. (That’s only one of the crimes both Bidens could be charged with but let’s stick with that one for now.) The laptop contains hundreds of documents that Senate Republicans said in 2022 are evidence that Hunter Biden was selling influence — i.e., access and possibly bribes to his father — to affect U.S. foreign policy. Those documents reportedly show that between 2013 and 2018, when Joe was Obama’s vice president, Hunter brought in at least $11 million from Ukraine’s Burisma energy firm and from Chinese businesses. He reportedly spent the money as fast as it came in on drugs, Porsche cars, and women. Hunter served as a Burisma board member without experience in energy. Joe has bragged that he, using a threat of withholding U.S. loan guarantees, caused the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma’s corruption. A jury could easily decide that was a corrupt official act by Joe Biden apparently brought about to conceal Hunter Biden’s illegal influence peddling. Joe has also denied having any connection to Hunter’s business transactions or having any meetings with Chinese “businessmen” at Hunter’s behest. That has also been proven false. Hunter’s “business partners” in China have evaded U.S. congressional investigations because congressional subpoena powers do not extend overseas. The Bidens have, as you would expect, denied any wrongdoing. In a closed-door hearing before congressional investigators, Hunter reportedly testified that, “I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never.” That, of course, begs the question. Joe Biden admitted threatening Ukraine’s government with withholding U.S. loan guarantees to get the prosecutor fired. The question remains: did he profit from that transaction or did he just do it as a means of quashing Shokin’s investigation, which would inevitably lead to Hunter’s evident corruption? It also begs the question of how and why Joe Biden met with Chinese “businessmen” who were Hunter’s partners. Joe Biden’s brother James Biden is probably also involved in at least the Chinese dealings.  James Biden’s testimony told congressional investigators, according to a February 2024 Wall Street Journal report that his brother wasn’t involved in his business ventures, saying he always kept his professional life away from their “close personal relationship.” But now we have an FBI agent who testified to at least part of the laptop’s content as credible evidence. The agent couldn’t have been expected to testify to the rest of its contents as truthful because it isn’t relevant to the current charges against Hunter. (READ MORE: Biden Is Morally Bankrupt) Hunter Biden is expected to stand trial for tax evasion in September. That trial, we should expect, will probably be delayed until after the November election. In that trial — whenever it occurs — the laptop evidence will be entirely relevant. Will the FBI again testify to its veracity? That evidence would probably be more than enough to convict Joe, Hunter, and James. It could result in Joe’s impeachment if — heaven forbid — he is reelected. Joe is taking considerable pleasure in saying, at every opportunity, that Donald Trump is a convicted felon. But there, but for the grace of Merrick Garland, goes he. The post Hunter’s Laptop: The Other Story appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Long ago and far away, as I was getting ready to leave the Gerald Ford White House speechwriting staff with the ultimate goal of Hollywood, one of my best friends, a simply brilliant writer named John R. Coyne, Jr., asked me why I wanted to go to a place as famed for chicanery and double dealing as the back streets of Casablanca. I have found my starlet. I have to keep my eyes on her because she will soon be an actual “star.” “I want to meet the stars of tomorrow before they are on the covers of music discs,” I said. “In other words, he wants to meet starlets,” interpreted John. I came to Hollywood on June 30, 1976. I was treated like a prince by Al Burton, Norman Lear’s head of production, from the first second I got off the Pan Am flight. Al had arranged for four stunning young girls in shorts and T-shirts marked, “I’m Benjy’s,” to meet me in my immense Cadillac limousine. They were great girls and it was a great experience, but the girls (young women, really) were not stars or starlets. They were just great girls. It took until now, Spring 2024, for me to meet a superstarlet. It was in the corridor leading from the valet parking station at my hangout, the Beverly Hills Hotel, after a lunch. A staggeringly blonde young woman in a jewelry shoppe smiled at me. I don’t think she knew “who I am,” so to speak. But I knew who she was: a superstar in the making. I struck up a conversation with her. My being in a wheelchair from botched surgery on my knees always helps the conversation. The young woman, a breathtakingly beautiful 25-year-old named “Doll,” was and is a singer/songwriter/musician and told me she was about to release her first full-scale “album.” Its name was to be — and is — simply “Doll.” She e-mailed it to me and I played it on my headphones. I WAS BOWLED OVER. She has a deep, powerful voice that reminded me of a female Nat “King” Cole. Her songs, all written by her, were about the pain and the anguish of love in the back alleys of Hollywood. I know Hollywood. I know love. I know heartache. These were genuine. These had blood, toil, tears, and sweat all over them. I was in shock. This young woman is also blindingly beautiful, with long blond hair and a perfect figure. I have found my starlet. I have to keep my eyes on her because she will soon be an actual “star.” Dear Faithful Reader: I don’t think I have ever made a find like “Doll.” Go for it. NOW!!! The last person I saw at a microphone was Jimmy Kimmel. He was a radio star and I had not ever heard of any of the artists he played. He immediately became a TV star by being my co-host on “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” one of the first “big” hits on Comedy Central. He’s still a star and a dear friend. Look for “Doll.” She’s got it. READ MORE from Ben Stein: Old Age Only Israel Is Not Allowed to Defend Itself Horror Show The post Hello Doll! appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Moscow’s propaganda machine is trying to discredit Volodymyr Zelensky as illegitimate to intentionally sabotage the upcoming Peace Summit in Switzerland. More broadly, the Kremlin’s information operation aims to capitalize on a complex — and potentially explosive — political issue in Ukraine to corrode the embattled country’s social cohesion and undermine Western unity and support. [T]he only obstacle in the way of elections in the country is not Zelensky clinging to power, but Putin clinging to Ukraine. Questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine’s political leadership is not new to the Russian disinformation ecosystem. In 2014, Moscow labeled the newly elected pro-European president Petro Poroshenko “illegitimate.” Now it’s Volodymyr Zelensky’s turn. Since Zelensky’s five-year term as president of Ukraine expired on May 20, Russian officials have repeatedly drawn attention  to the fact that he still continues to serve as the head of state of the embattled country. During a recent visit to Belarus, Russian President Vladimir Putin openly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy as Ukraine’s president. While repeatedly stressing that Russia is ready to negotiate, Putin said, “We must be completely sure that we are dealing with legitimate authorities.” Did the Ukrainian comedian-turned-politician scrap the elections in a desperate bid to hold on to power? Is his rule illegitimate beyond May 20, rendering any negotiations with his dictatorial regime a futile exercise? Hardly. Putin’s and other Kremlin officials’ statements are just one facet of a broader disinformation campaign. (READ MORE: The US Is No Longer a Trustworthy Ally) To start with, the Kremlin’s twisted narrative is rooted in the belief that Ukraine has been under the control of a U.S.-funded puppet government since 1991, set up by Washington as a bulwark against Russia. Moscow insinuates that every major event leading to a pro-Western shift in the past 20 years in Ukraine were due to Western meddling. It was either a CIA operation or a Soros-funded coup. According to this narrative, the pivotal moment when Ukraine truly lost its status as an independent state was the Maidan Revolution or “Euromaidan” in 2013-2014, which culminated in the pro-Russian then-president Viktor Yanukovich fleeing to Russia. According to Russia, the revolution was a coup supported by the U.S. and the EU to install Petro Poroshenko as the leader of a “puppet junta.” Zelensky’s victory at the 2019 presidential elections, which was allegedly marred by significant irregularities and manipulations, was portrayed by Russia as reflecting the desires of the country’s American overlords rather than expressing the will of the people. Zelensky received 75 percent of the vote in 2019 to Poroshenko’s 25 percent during the second round, and within days was congratulated by virtually every Western leader independent of their party background from Polish President Andrzej Duda to U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. At the same time, Vladimir Konstantinov, head of the Russian-controlled Crimean Parliament, succinctly summed up the Kremlin’s position in March: “After the 2014 coup in Kyiv, everything is illegitimate, including all institutions and election results.” Are they? Today, legally speaking, it is the legal regime of martial law — instituted due to the country being at war — that explicitly forbids holding all Ukrainian and local referendums, as well as any presidential, parliamentary, or local elections, and enacting changes to the Constitution. This legislation was put into effect by former President Petro Poroshenko, with relevant passages remaining unchanged since 2000. Although the Ukrainian Constitution expressly prohibits holding parliamentary elections under martial law, the text is silent on presidential elections during war. A minimum of 10 percent of the Verkhovna Rada’s deputies could appeal to the Constitutional Court to hold elections, but members are reluctant to do so, mainly because of the fear that an appeal would only feed the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. In addition, the agreement reached in November 2023 during an EU parliament–facilitated dialogue also highlights a relatively unified political resolve regarding the issue of elections. Members of the Verkhovna Rada, including significant opposition parties, agreed to postpone national elections until after the war and the lifting of martial law. This decision was based on the widely held belief that conducting competitive and inclusive elections during a full-scale war would be unfeasible. The United Kingdom reached the same conclusion when it postponed parliamentary elections for more than 4 years while it was locked in a total war against Hitler during World War II. In Ukraine’s case, it would be extremely challenging for a large portion of the population, including hundreds of thousands serving in the army and millions more scattered across Europe as refugees, to participate in the vote. Furthermore, Ukrainians living in territories occupied by Russia would have to be excluded entirely. Ukrainian society would almost certainly question the results of an election held under total war and occupation as free and fair. A March survey conducted by the Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov highlighted the lack of domestic support for a wartime election, with only 12 percent of participants believing it would unite Ukrainian society, while 45 percent anticipated it would cause further division. Overall, a mere 22 percent of participants favored holding any form of national election during the war. Although there is a wide consensus on not holding war-time elections, domestic dynamics are more nuanced. Mounting setbacks on the front, delayed Western weapons shipments, a passage of a divisive new mobilization law as well as continued corruption scandals have been chipping away at Zelensky’s public support. His favorability rating stood at 60 percent in February (down from 77 percent in December), according to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. At the same time Zelensky’s political opposition is getting louder. Although they do not question Zelensky’s legitimacy beyond May 20, they do increasingly call out the president for his allegedly autocratic leadership style and centralization of power, in hope of reaching some kind of power-sharing arrangement with the government. (READ MORE: What the Red Ball Express Teaches Us About Ukraine) By loudly questioning Zelensky’s legitimacy, the Kremlin wants to sow chaos leading to political instability and societal unrest. Ukrainian intelligence services already warned about the operation dubbed Maidan-3 in November 2023. Moreover, the same narrative could come in handy to explain Moscow’s unwillingness to participate in any sort of peace negotiations. According to Putin’s interpretation of the Ukrainian Constitution, Zelensky should resign and the speaker of the Parliament should step up as acting president. Only 10 percent of the Ukrainian population would support such a scenario, according to a February poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. Ukrainian attitudes toward the parliament is steadily declining, and according to a recent poll its trust rating is trending at around 19 percent. Moreover, on May 28, Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk rebuked Putin’s interference declaring that “Volodymyr Zelensky remains and will remain Ukraine’s president until the end of martial law.” The Kremlin’s portrayal of Zelensky’s allegedly illegitimate rule as the only obstacle to negotiations and peace is just a part of the Kremlin’s disinformation strategy. The Russian president’s real goal is underlined by the fact that the ousted pro-Russian ex-president Yanukovych joined him in Minsk. Putin’s goal is the same as before the full-scale invasion: regime change in Kyiv. As tensions are running high in Ukraine, policymakers in the U.S. should remember: the only obstacle in the way of elections in the country is not Zelensky clinging to power, but Putin clinging to Ukraine. The post Is President Zelensky Still Legitimate? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) recently released a new plan to increase defense spending and replenish America’s military arsenal. As the highest-ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wicker is on the frontlines in Congress, warning his colleagues of the global threat America faces and the danger of being defeated by another superpower in a war. “Regaining American strength will be expensive. But fighting a war — and worse, losing one — is far more costly.” In the New York Times, Senator Wicker details senior military officials telling him in private that we face challenges not seen since World War II and that our military is unprepared to meet the call. “We struggle to build and maintain ships, our fighter jet fleet is dangerously small, and our military infrastructure is outdated.” Wicker went on to say that “America’s adversaries are growing and getting more aggressive.” (READ MORE from Alex Adkins: Larry Hogan Will Help Republicans Take Back the Senate) Wicker’s policy prescription is a “generational investment in the U.S. military,” which he calls “21st Century Peace Through Strength.” This overarching plan combats the ’emerging Axis of Aggressors’ and increases the defense budget by raising spending from 2.5 percent to 5 percent of the country’s GDP by 2030. Much to the disappointment of the isolationist wing of the GOP, the plan also calls for an additional $55 billion in the defense budget regarding China, Russia, and Iran’s ascension.  Under this proposal, the Pentagon would enlarge its joint force capabilities by expanding the number of naval warships to 357 and increasing the number of Air Force fighter jets to a minimum of 340 within five years and more spending allocated to our submersible fleet and sub-pen stations. A key concern is the Indo-Pacific region, which faces an $11 billion deficit for maritime defense readiness and an accumulation of $180 billion in military maintenance and readiness. In the past year, the world saw 183 live conflicts, the most in the past 30 years. The U.S., as the sole unipolar power in the world, faces turmoil on all fronts. Russia is engaged in a 27-month war with Ukraine. Iran attacks Israel with the help of terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. North Korea is conducting its missile tests and launching satellites, while China is threatening Taiwan and the Philippines with an invasion.  These fights across the globe are coordinated efforts to oust America as the leader of the free world. Wicker’s Pentagon plan is out at the right time, as Chairman Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin of Russia have embraced their alliance within the past month. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping and Putin have met with each other over 40 times, recently in Beijing. Just before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin signed a “‘no limits” agreement with Xi’s China and congratulated each other on the “great changes in the world not seen in a century,” according to Chairman Xi.  The current status quo is failing the U.S. on the world stage. The Biden Administration’s preference for deterrence and passivity is not stopping autocratic regimes and their rogue actors from eroding America’s influence and attacking our allies. Some troubling developments preceded Biden, but his actions have only accelerated these problems.   President Biden’s requested defense budgets in his first term are not large enough to cover the military’s basic needs for our national security. His prioritizing welfare spending and letting entitlements get out of hand has led to inflation in the way of fully funding defense. Leaving American military forces vulnerable will only cost more down the road and cost lives with the inevitable prospect of war. (READ MORE: Freedom Conservatives: A Stand Against Progressivism and Populism)  Senator Wicker’s plan is expensive. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, he recognized that this deal exceeds the 1 percent cap on expanding the defense budget that congressional Republicans and the White House agreed upon in the debt ceiling negotiations for 2023. The price tag on this defense bill is unlikely to keep up with inflation, and it will take some political maneuvering to convince Congress to increase spending caps.  It is indisputable that Congress is facing limitations, as domestic spending programs and interest on debt leave little room for other expenditures. However, a military defeat would stifle America’s economy and national standing worldwide. Senator Wicker said it best: “Regaining American strength will be expensive. But fighting a war — and worse, losing one — is far more costly.” It is encouraging that Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is endorsing Wicker’s plan as support is growing among Senate Republicans and hopefully some Democrats. Speaker Johnson’s passage of military aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan in the spring was an excellent bi-partisan moment for American leadership and freedom abroad. The Wicker plan is a continued step in that direction to ensure the U.S. continues to lead with peace through strength. The post In Defense of Our Defense: Senator Wicker’s Plan appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Citing threats to public safety and national security “so elevated all at once,” FBI director Christopher Wray seeks a budget of $11.3 billion, a 6.1 percent increase over fiscal year 2023. While members of Congress think it over, they might run a few questions by the director. Threats to national security may indeed be escalating in 2024. So are threats to the rights and freedoms of the people. Last August in Utah, an FBI SWAT team killed Craig Robertson, a 75-year-old woodworker, for threats against Joe Biden he had allegedly posted on line. Utah Sen. Mike Lee wonders if the shooting of Robertson was justified, but Wray has kept rather quiet about the killing. The agency tasked to protect the president is the Secret Service, so why did the FBI mount this deadly operation? Has the bureau conducted an investigation of this shooting? Will the FBI release the autopsy report? Who gave the order to use deadly force? Did the FBI shooter or shooters receive any kind of commendation? (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: The New South-North Economic Dialogue) “The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” If so, why is the FBI arresting pro-life activists such as Mark Houck for simply exercising their right of free speech? Last year Houck was acquitted on federal charges stemming from a 2021 incident in Pennsylvania. Has that challenged the FBI over the wisdom of this policy? Are parents who protest peacefully at school board meetings really domestic terrorists and violent extremists? “Ahead of the threat through leadership, agility, and integration — outlines the FBI’s desired strategic position,” reads the FBI’s vision statement. “The FBI will achieve this by continuously evolving to mitigate existing threats and recognizing and anticipating threats it has not yet seen.” The people have a right to wonder how this vision plays out in reality. In 2016, actual terrorist Omar Mateen gunned down 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Why did the FBI fail to prevent this act of terrorism? Why did the FBI play no role in the takedown of Mateen? In 2015 in San Bernardino, California, terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people and wounded more than 20 others. Why did the FBI fail to prevent this mass murder? Why did the FBI play no role in the takedown of the terrorists? As in Orlando, that was accomplished by local police, with no civilian casualties. Russian intelligence warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Why did the FBI fail to prevent Tamerlan and brother Dzhokhar from bombing the Boston Marathon in 2013? The attack claimed three lives and wounded more than 250 others. In 2009, the FBI was aware that U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a self-proclaimed “soldier of Allah,” was communicating with al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about killing Americans. The Washington office of the FBI judged that Hasan was “not involved in terrorist activities” and dropped the surveillance. On November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas, Hasan murdered 13 American soldiers, including Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was pregnant. The more than 30 wounded included Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who took seven bullets from Hasan. Who gave the order to drop the surveillance on Hasan? Was any FBI official disciplined, demoted, or dismissed over that failure?  Why did the FBI fail to stop the massive terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? That year the FBI was involved in the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in which military tanks were deployed. Seventy-five people perished, including 25 children. The year before in rural Idaho, the FBI deployed military force against the family of Randy Weaver. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot dead Randy’s wife Vicki as she held her infant child. The mother was unarmed, not under arrest, and not wanted for any crime. Snipers are trained carefully to “acquire” the target, so slim chance the shooting was accidental, as the FBI maintains. Director Wray, who was never an FBI agent, is doubtless aware of this incident. What are his views on government deployment of military force against civilians? The people have a right to know, especially in an election year. Members of Congress might also ask Christopher Wray if the FBI has covert operations such as  “Crossfire Hurricane” or “Midyear Exam” in the works against any candidate, member of Congress, or private citizen. The people have a right to know. (READ MORE: Biden FCC Threatens Free Speech by Restoring Internet Regulations) Threats to national security may indeed be escalating in 2024. So are threats to the rights and freedoms of the people. Congress should hold off on the $11.3 billion until Christopher Wray answers some hard questions about the FBI’s actual record upholding the Constitution. To guard against mounting security threats, the incoming Congress might look for better ways to spend $11.3 billion. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Does the FBI Deserve $11.3 Billion? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Lina Khan, President Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chairwoman, says that she isn’t a fan of anti-consumer monopolies. That’s great; both sides of the aisle should agree that action against problematic behemoths is warranted. However, cherry-picking which companies do and don’t receive government scrutiny, seemingly for political reasons, is not so great. Unfortunately, this “winners and losers” approach to Khan’s regulatory work has become commonplace, and it’s greatly affecting American consumers’ welfare. Comer must identify any revolving doors that exist between this agency and its favored industry actors. Case in point: Recently, the Biden FTC again went after groups known as pharmacy benefit companies, which health plans hire to negotiate their prices down. Khan and others have accused these companies of skimming too much of the cost-savings they accrue for themselves. While it’s fine that Khan keeps looking into PBMs — it’s her job, after all, and I supported strong oversight and reviews of PBMs while in Congress — it’s quite odd that, over the last three years, she hasn’t seemed willing to even initiate a cursory investigation of any of the other corporate entities within the supply chain that may be ballooning consumers’ healthcare bills. Thus far, the Big Pharma companies that shower political leaders with campaign contributions have evaded her scrutiny, as have the problem hospitals that data shows are price gouging. When it comes to healthcare, it seems that the special healthcare interests that treat the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress well have evaded scrutiny. In contrast, the interest groups they disfavor regularly receive the administrator’s regulatory gulag. This isn’t how the FTC — one of the leading pro-consumer agencies in the country — is supposed to function. To her credit, Khan has remained reasonably transparent about being unfair throughout her FTC tenure. In 2021, her commission even rescinded the consumer welfare standard. This policy guidepost ensured the FTC interceded in the economy when consumers faced harm from predatory business interests — and only in such cases. (READ MORE: Beware Congress’ Latest Big Pharma Enrichment Scheme) Rescinding this standard benefited the Biden administration, giving it more political power. It has significantly increased the White House’s ability to weaponize the state against its political enemies in various industries while keeping other potentially harmful conglomerates that it sees as allies protected. But this increased power came at an incalculable cost to the health of the American republic. It transformed yet another once invaluable governmental institution into dust, turning one of consumers’ most reliable public sector allies into an enemy. Republicans need to stop this mockery of our age-old institutions. Although the GOP doesn’t control the White House or the Senate, it does control the House of Representatives. It’s here that they can shine in rooting out any potential corruption at the FTC and recovering its consumer-oriented mission. The best man for this job is Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who has chaired the powerful House Oversight and Accountability Committee since 2020 and served it well. His committee, the main investigative committee of the House, has earned a hard-won reputation for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. So far, on healthcare specifically, Rep. Comer has (like Khan) held extensive hearings on PBMs, but he hasn’t yet started investigating the drug companies or hospitals. He needs to add them to his healthcare investigatory pile to ensure that Khan and Biden don’t get away with picking winners and losers — and fair pricing and level playing fields in the healthcare industry can finally emerge. (READ MORE: FTC: Let Europe Run America) Beyond this one issue, Rep. Comer should also go broader and investigate Lina Khan and the Biden FTC more broadly. He needs to determine if there have been meetings or other questionable interactions between the commission and Big Pharma and the other special interests helped by the commission’s selective regulatory agenda. Comer must identify any revolving doors that exist between this agency and its favored industry actors. We’re all keeping our popcorn on standby. Renee Ellmers is a Registered Nurse and former member of Congress from North Carolina. The post Biden’s FTC Must Not Pick Winners and Losers appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.