The FBI and DOJ are finally holding someone accountable for the Trump Assassination attempt! No, we’re not talking about the attempt on President Trump’s life during a Butler, PA rally. Obviously,…

What happens when they vanish?

In Tune Twist, we run the lyrics of a hit song through multiple languages, then translate them back into English. Can you figure out what the song is, or who performed it?

Joe Rogan has his mind blown by inbreeding statistics: “This is blowing my mind.” “I’ve never heard this before.” UTL COMMENT:- I've known this for years how come he only 'just found out'? Source: https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1820593577744794056

Never keeping things together. The post Why Mick Fleetwood called Fleetwood Mac “the worst franchise in rock and roll” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

It was highly predictable, but once Kamala Harris announced that Minnesota governor Tim Walz (who?) was her choice for vice president, adoration and enthusiasm poured forth from all the usual quarters. You may know that it was Walz, in one of his ubiquitous appearances on MSNBC, who called his now-GOP counterpart JD Vance “weird.” But that might just be a little too rich for a lot of voters. For example, the smartass Right on Twitter picked up on something interesting in Walz’s record as governor of Minnesota: #TamponTim pic.twitter.com/eBPyEOSWPC — Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) August 6, 2024 What’s this about? Well, the Democrats would say it’s evidence of “misogyny” among Republicans. Walz was the governor who signed a state statute into law requiring that tampons be made available in all public school bathrooms in Minnesota. That’s a dumb policy for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that if tampon availability is a needful thing then certainly school officials — rather than the governor or the state legislature — ought to be able to make it happen. A state law on this topic is classic idiotic virtue-signal and a pandering to Democrat identity groups. But it’s not why the Tampon Tim nickname is sticking. This goes a little further: “Not all students who menstruate are female” – MN State Rep Sandra Feist. Sandra sponsored the bill which Tim Walz signed which requires tampons in boy’s bathrooms in schools.#TamponTim pic.twitter.com/Bou8GErwBG — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 6, 2024 One can almost appreciate this as a state-issued comedic license, considering what high school boys would think of in the way of hilariously disruptive, if not destructive, uses for those tampons. Either way, Tampon Tim isn’t going to go away because it’s a terrific avatar for the unserious idiocy of Hard Left governance. After all: This is Tim Walz’s trusted advisor. He was key in getting Walz to install tampon dispensers in boy’s bathrooms in Minnesota schools. #tampontim pic.twitter.com/dJPUBGsov8 — Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) August 6, 2024 Tim Walz’s Record Is Hardly Helpful What’s not so funny about Walz’s record is what happened in May and June of 2020. Walz did nothing as mobs of looters and rioters tore apart Minnesota’s largest city, offering only weak platitudes about St. George Floyd. It was four whole days before he deployed the National Guard to regain control; by that point, the damage was done and Minneapolis was a war zone. It’s even worse than that. Here is a bizarre clip from an interview with Gwen Walz stating that she left her windows open during the Minneapolis Riots so she could smell the burning tires. Her daughter also coordinated with rioters to let them know that the National Guard would not be activated one night. pic.twitter.com/ityW100Z4y — Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) August 6, 2024 Why would Harris pick this guy? Chemistry and rapport, she says. And maybe that has something to do with it. After all, Harris was raising money to bail Minneapolis rioters out of jail while this fiasco was unfolding. You wouldn’t think the Dems would want a reprise of the George Floyd mess, at least not while they’re in office, but apparently, you’d be wrong. It seems like a really bad idea. I have a different idea about this, and I’m pretty certain I’m right. Consider this: And there was a sense within Shapiro’s team that, unlike Walz, his interview with Harris did not go as well as it could have. There was “not a great feeling” coming out of it, according to a person in touch with his advisers. After their meeting on Sunday, Shapiro called Harris’ team and made clear that he was “struggling with the decision to leave his current job as governor of Pennsylvania, in order to seek the vice presidency,” according to a person familiar with the selection process. That’s POLITICO putting on as pretty a face as possible to what looks an awful lot like Josh Shapiro turning Harris down. Just as Gretchen Whitmer and Roy Cooper explicitly and publicly turned Harris down. There is no political universe in which you choose Tampon Tim Walz, who fiddled as Minneapolis burned, made Minnesota not just a sanctuary for illegal aliens but insane Munchausen-By-Proxy moms transing their kids in violation of red state laws, and changed the state flag to make it look like the Somali national flag, over Josh Shapiro who likely delivers Pennsylvania, which you cannot win without if you’re Harris. Such a universe doesn’t exist even if the assessments of Harris’ IQ as below average are accurate; Eric Holder is not an idiot and he was in charge of vetting candidates.b Staying Off the Ticket Is Better for Shapiro This Year There is, on the other hand, a political universe in which Shapiro sat with Harris on Sunday, and the “not a great feeling” is well-explained as Shapiro thinking that the last thing he would want is to play second fiddle to a woman whose team is afraid to put her in front of a press gaggle or even a long-form interview with a friendly journalist. Which they’ve refused to do for two and a half weeks now since she became the nominee. Let’s remember that there is no surer political death knell in American politics than serving as the VP nominee on a losing presidential ticket. You become worse than irrelevant; you become a joke. And Josh Shapiro believes himself to be the future of American politics. His eye is not on the vice presidency but the White House and the helm of the Democrat Party unencumbered by the whims and dictates of one Barack Hussein Obama, who is the current gatekeeper to political power. It’s far better for Shapiro to keep his powder dry or even to practice a bit of soft sabotage on this ticket so that the field might be open in 2028. I think he turned Harris down not because they didn’t get along but because he thinks she’s a loser. I think that’s true of everybody else who would have made more sense than Tampon Tim Walz. I think Kamala did the one thing women are told not to do. I think she settled. And because she did, she’s stuck as the head of the Make America Burn Again ticket. We’ll see if it works, but honestly? It’s a pretty weird move. The post Behold, Tampon Tim appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Kamala Harris was first elected to public office in 2003. Since that time, she has been criticized for creating a toxic work environment in each of her roles. One former staffer entered therapy to “resolve trauma from the on-the-job abuse” suffered under Harris, according to Business Insider. Another former staffer, Gil Duran, who worked for her when she was attorney general of California, publicly accused her of having “destructive patterns.” Another aide, who also worked for her before her elevation to the vice presidency, told the Washington Post, “With Kamala you have to put up with a constant amount of soul-destroying criticism and also her own lack of confidence. So you’re constantly sort of propping up a bully and it’s not really clear why.” (RELATED: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 66: Border Czar? Even the White House Wasn’t Impressed) Harris’ pattern of creating toxic work environments came under extensive scrutiny when her 2020 campaign derailed. The New York Times, citing 50 current and former staff members, reported that her campaign was “riven between competing factions eager to belittle one another.” When Harris’ state operations director, Kelly Mehlenbacher, resigned from the campaign, she said, “This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly.” Biden Administration Concerned by the Treatment of Harris’ Staffers When the same pattern of toxicity emerged under Harris’ vice presidency, it drew unprecedented attention. In June 2021, just six months into her tenure as vice president, Politico published an article headlined “‘Not a healthy environment’: Kamala Harris’ office rife with dissent.” The article reported that her team was “experiencing low morale, porous lines of communication and diminished trust.” Numerous former staff members and associates stabbed her in the back by describing their negative experiences to Politico. One staffer said, “[P]eople often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s**t.” Politico reported that the bullying was so bad that Biden’s team was “concerned about the way Harris’ staffers [were] treated.” Reports of the toxic environment in the vice presidential office prompted many former staffers, from California to Washington, to exchange messages in group texts about their similar experiences. “So many [former Harris staffers] recognized themselves in it, or recognized treatment they had seen or treatment they had heard about and dismissed,” explained a former staffer to Business Insider. (READ MORE: For Kamala Harris ‘Weird’ Is the New ‘Deplorable’) Several staffers shared their experiences with Business Insider: • Former staffers reported that Harris was known for abruptly ending calls if she didn’t receive the “answers she wanted.” • Former aides noted that she often required briefings three days in advance but would frequently accelerate the timeline without notice, and then criticize staffers when they weren’t prepared. One staffer described being subjected to “verbal abuse” for not being ready to brief the vice president on a revised schedule. • Staffers said she could demand to be given a Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pen at any given moment. • An aide said there was “a sense of paranoia” in her office and that “you never knew when [Harris] was going to snap at you.” By the end of the first year of her vice presidency, the White House had reached a breaking point of frustration. In November 2021, CNN reported: “Worn out by what they see as entrenched dysfunction and lack of focus, key West Wing aides have largely thrown up their hands at Vice President Kamala Harris and her staff — deciding there simply isn’t time to deal with them right now.” A Revolving Door of Staffers Staffers departed the vice presidential office in unprecedented numbers. Within the first 15 months of Harris’ vice presidency, the following top staffers quit: • Gabrielle DeFranceschi: deputy director of advance​ • Vincent Evans: deputy director of public engagement and intergovernmental affairs​ • Ashley Etienne: communications director​ • Tina Flournoy: chief of staff​ • Kate Childs Graham: chief speechwriter • Rajan Kaur: head of digital strategy​ • Symone Sanders: senior adviser and chief spokesperson​ • Karly Satkowiak: director of advance​ • Sabrina Singh: deputy press secretary​ • Peter Velz: director of press operations​ By late 2021, there was widespread media speculation about whether the dysfunction in Harris’s office might undermine her ability to run a presidential campaign. The Washington Post questioned whether concerns about her management style could “hamper her ability” to effectively “manage the presidency.” That article described her as “an inconsistent and at times degrading principal” and pointed out that many staffers who had negative experiences under her had been content working for other high-profile politicians. (READ MORE: Kamala’s Pee-wee Herman Strategy) Harris’ allies consistently offer the same excuse for her conduct: they argue that her reputation for creating a toxic environment is a result of people’s discomfort with a black woman being a tough boss. “[I]f she were a man with her management style, she would have a TV show called The Apprentice,” one ally told the Washington Post. Politico meanwhile reported that Harris’ defenders “note that women in power — Black women in particular — are subjected to standards that men often don’t have to clear.” Given the pattern of toxicity observed throughout Kamala Harris’ career over the past 20 years, we can expect that reports of similar issues will soon surface from her presidential campaign. The post Kamala Harris Has a Disturbing Pattern of Creating Toxic Work Cultures appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The publication of a new biography of Paul Nitze, who served in national security posts in Democrat and Republican administrations between 1940 and 1989, is a good moment to reflect on the need for knowledgeable, informed, and courageous experts to help guide and, at times, provide critical assessments of American national security policies. Nitze’s career is a testament to the invaluable contributions that such experts can make to help presidents and other policymakers navigate the often dangerous international political arena. In Nitze’s case, this meant thinking about the unthinkable — nuclear war — for more than 40 years. Paul Nitze was seven years old and was vacationing in Austria with his family in August 1914, when the First World War began. Like his friend and colleague George Kennan, Nitze came to regard war as having a devastating impact, according to his autobiography From Hiroshima to Glasnost, “on the structure of civilization, the disillusionment and brutalization of man and his humanity . . . such that the civilized world was never again the same.” (READ MORE: Former Trump Defense Official Makes the Case for Prioritizing Asia Over Europe) At the end of the Second World War, Nitze, after a successful career on Wall Street and service in several wartime agencies, traveled to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to assess the effects of the strategic bombing of Japan, the first and only use of atomic weapons in wartime. Thus began his intellectual and policy-making career of thinking about the unthinkable — a potential war between nuclear-armed powers. Keeping The US Ahead in the Nuclear Game In his autobiography, Nitze wrote that his experience in Hiroshima and Nagasaki “influenced my perception of how the postwar military establishment should be organized.” This included taking into account “the possibility that our enemies would have weapons as powerful and as destructive as our own.” This meant, Nitze wrote, that the United States’ defense establishment needed to carry out “a vigorous research and development program, to assure the optimum exploitation of science and technology for national defense,” including a much-improved intelligence gathering and intelligence analysis system “to avoid a repetition of the Pearl Harbor disaster.” Nitze joined the State Department in 1946, where he helped Will Clayton devise the Marshall Plan to aid the devastated countries of Western Europe. When Secretary of State George Marshall established the Policy Planning Staff, Kennan became its director and later named Nitze deputy director. In July 1947, Kennan had anonymously written his famous “X” article in Foreign Affairs, which explained the Truman administration’s policy of containment. Nitze recalled that he found it “persuasive.” Three years later, after Nitze succeeded Kennan as head of the Policy Planning Staff, he oversaw the drafting of NSC-68, the classified national security document that, building on Kennan’s containment policy, set forth a long-term strategy for winning the Cold War. That strategy, which was inspired by James Burnham’s analysis and recommendations in The Coming Defeat of Communism, called for conventional military and nuclear weapons build-up, a tripling of the defense budget, and political/psychological/economic warfare to undermine the Soviet empire. Nitze also weighed in on the debate within the Truman administration as to whether the United States should move forward with the development of the hydrogen bomb. He favored moving forward with the project (Kennan, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and David Lilienthal of the Atomic Energy Agency opposed it) after meeting with Edward Teller regarding its feasibility. He also guessed, correctly, that the Soviets might be working on a similar bomb. Indeed, as Nitze explains in his autobiography, Stalin had decided to develop a Soviet H-bomb three months before Truman made the final decision to move forward with the American H-bomb. “There can now be little doubt,” he wrote, “that had Mr. Truman not acted when he did, the Soviets would have achieved unchallengeable nuclear superiority by the late 1950s.” (READ MORE: Becoming a Moral Person Takes Work) Throughout the 1950s, Nitze became more and more involved in a field that became known as “strategic studies.” That field attracted other experts, including Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter, Henry Kissinger, William Kaufmann, and later Raymond Aron, Edward Luttwak, Andrew Marshall, and Colin Gray. Nuclear weapons would eventually be fielded on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, bombers, and intermediate and short-range tactical delivery systems. The nuclear strategists dealt with arcane issues such as missile “throw weight,” warhead accuracy (circular error probable), megatonnage, fixed and mobile launchers, anti-ballistic missile systems, multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs), “first-strike” possibilities, counterforce and counter value weapons, civil defense, and anti-satellite and other space weapons. We Need Another Paul Nitze In the 1950s, Nitze criticized the Eisenhower administration’s doctrine of “massive retaliation,” which he claimed relied too heavily on nuclear as opposed to conventional deterrence. In the 1960s, while serving in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in the defense department, Nitze participated in the ExComm meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis and later opposed Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s commitment to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a nuclear doctrine. Nitze believed that the only thing preventing a Soviet takeover of Western Europe was U.S. strategic nuclear superiority, and he argued that we should do whatever it takes to maintain that superiority. Despite his Democratic Party credentials, President Richard Nixon appointed Nitze as our chief arms control negotiator in the SALT and ABM talks with the Soviets. Nitze later wrote that Nixon and Kissinger were too eager for an agreement to buttress Nixon’s reelection effort. Both the SALT I and ABM Treaties, he believed, were flawed because they failed to place sufficient limits on Soviet heavy missiles, such as the SS-18. He believed that the Soviets were using arms control to develop a “first-strike” capability. He feared that as nuclear weapons became more accurate, the Soviets could attain the theoretical capability of destroying most of our fixed, land-based missiles, many submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) bases, and intercontinental bomber bases in a first strike, which would leave an American president with the unenviable choice of responding by targeting Soviet cities and thereby inviting Soviet retaliation (i.e, committing national suicide) or surrender. (READ MORE: Biden’s Awfully Bittersweet Deal For Hostages) Nitze’s fears grew when Jimmy Carter, whom he voted for in 1976, became president. Carter’s approach to arms control and the negotiations of SALT II caused Nitze to join the Committee on the Present Danger. David Callahan in his biography of Nitze, Dangerous Capabilities: Paul Nitze and the Cold War, recounts a meeting between the Committee and Carter where Nitze and Eugene Rostow attempted to persuade the president to increase defense spending and change his approach to the SALT II talks. Carter dismissed their concerns, leading Rostow to later say that “the degree of ignorance and naivete by the President was appalling. We were just stunned . . . The notion that that fellow was President was just frightening.” In his memoirs, Nitze recalled that he found Carter’s “attitude towards politics grounded in a hortatory Wilsonian approach, which had been impractical even in Wilson’s day, and which seemed even more out of tune with the realities of the 1970s.” Nitze later wrote a lengthy critique of the SALT II agreement that Carter signed (but which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), which accused the administration of ignoring the “counterforce aspect of nuclear strategy” and creating a “perilous situation” for the United States. Ronald Reagan was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, and when he became president he appointed Nitze as his chief arms control negotiator in talks which initially dealt with intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe but later spread to strategic missiles. Reagan first engaged in a conventional military and nuclear weapons build-up. He also promoted the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). James Graham Wilson notes in the new biography that Nitze supported Reagan’s nuclear and conventional build-up but was initially a skeptic of SDI. He later viewed SDI as a useful bargaining chip in dealing with his Soviet counterparts. As the Cold War wound down, much to Nitze’s surprise, arms control became more feasible. The Soviet empire collapsed. The United States won the Cold War. Paul Nitze was present at both its beginning and its end, and his expertise and critical analyses helped the United States bring about a peaceful end to the U.S.-Soviet rivalry. In the post-Cold War era, Nitze continued to comment on international relations. He opposed the first Gulf War and U.S. intervention in Somalia but supported U.S. air actions in Bosnia. He signed a letter with other experts urging President Bill Clinton to refrain from enlarging NATO, which he believed would revive Russian imperialism. And he bought into the theology of climate change, viewing it in his last years as an existential threat to the planet. Nitze died in 2004 at the age of 97. In the second decade of the 21st century, the United States now faces a peer competitor in China, which is steadily growing its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, Russia, which has a “strategic partnership” with China, fields the largest deployment of nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons, as do the countries of England, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and probably soon Iran. We need to start thinking about the unthinkable again. We are going to need a Paul Nitze in the near future to help us navigate the dangerous nuclear developments of this century. Our very survival as a free nation may depend on it. The post Paul Nitze: A Career of Thinking About the Unthinkable appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — If you’re a Republican, you’ve been through this drill before — that moment when a group of establishment Republicans reveal that they are voting for a Democrat because they deem the GOP nominee to be unworthy. They sign a group statement with a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger pronouncement that surprises absolutely no one. (READ MORE: ‘Nationalism’ Over ‘Conservatism’) And then the Democrat wins — an outcome that got no boost from the perennial GOP strays. So, yes, with Kamala Harris heading the Democratic ticket, a Georgia group calling itself Republicans for Harris was inevitable. There will always be a conservative rump more interested in virtue signaling and garnering praise from the New York Times editorial board than winning. Donald Trump Should Mend Fences, Not Burn Bridges Then again, at times, Donald Trump doesn’t seem to be overly concerned about winning, either. Over the weekend at an Atlanta rally, Trump should have been focused on tying Harris to far-left Joe Biden policies that have ravaged the economy, softened the Southwest border, and emboldened America’s national security rivals. But he also went after Brian Kemp, Georgia’s popular Republican governor. Problem: Trump may need Kemp voters to win the pivotal Peach State in November. At a moment when most candidates would be reaching out to undecided voters and mending fences because they want to win, Trump prioritized payback. His rhetoric seems almost as if it was designed to tempt moderates and conservatives to support, of all things, a California progressive. (WATCH: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 66: Border Czar? Even the White House Wasn’t Impressed) Kemp, you see, would not give in to Trump’s pressure campaign in 2020 when the then-president wanted the Georgia governor to deny that his state’s voters had preferred Joe Biden. So Trump used the rally to call Kemp names — to wit, “a bad guy,” “disloyal” and “Little Brian.” This isn’t a one-time thing. A Wasted Golden Opportunity On July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a would-be assassin fired a high-powered rifle at Trump that clipped part of his ear, Trump’s defiance and decision to stand tall within seconds of the assault showed that Trump was brave and strong. Republican National Convention attendees last month arrived in Milwaukee in awe of the courage Trump exhibited in Butler. His acceptance speech at the end of the confab presented a unique opportunity to showcase how the near-death experience had made Trump more aware of the stakes. But no, the former president instead chose to squander the Milwaukee moment so that he could revisit and recite his litany of petty grievances, all of which America has heard before. Trump knows that women don’t like the way he talks. He told Atlanta rallygoers that his wife, Melania, doesn’t like it when he calls people puerile names or impersonates Biden’s frailty. The former first lady “hates it when I do this” — Trump shared that she sees his bombast as “unpresidential.” (READ MORE: The Second (Rate?) Gentleman) He doesn’t care. I know many conservative women — I am one — who love the policies but not the lack of self-discipline. And really, I think as I watch Trump, why does he have to make supporting him so hard on people who harbor doubts? Why couldn’t he try to win over those on the fence, like other politicians? If Trump had done as much in 2020, he would not have lost the election and Biden would not have been president. Just this one year, couldn’t Trump put the country before his unchecked need to badmouth his list of enemies? Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Is Trump Trying to Prod Georgia Voters to Go With Harris? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There is only one thing that bothers me more than waking up and that is being woken up. I hate waking up in the morning, getting up, rousing, getting out of bed, and all that. If I could, I would work horizontally. So I’m never going to be convinced by some obnoxious slogan that enthusiastically proclaims, “Wake up!” This is why I have decided to lead a new social movement, a movement that will truly unite the world across races, ages, and cultures, a movement with which we will attain world domination because there are more of us, we are better and, above all, we are much smarter; my movement will be called: Sleep! Painkillers, anxiolytics, anesthesia, drugs, alcohol, television, the atomic bomb, all the important inventions of the last centuries were meant to stupefy us, not to wake us up. Were all our ancestors wrong? Who do you trust more, your great-grandparents or Kamala Harris? Who would you buy a second-hand president from? I just know you’re on my team. (READ MORE: Sound of Hope: Step Up for Children) Don’t get up! Rest! Calm down! Be silent! Be still! All these exclamations are heavenly music to my ears. The Left seems comfortable counterposing woke ideas to extreme right-wing ideas. But their theory doesn’t work. Definition of far right: everything that the Left abhors. If I used the same thought pattern, my ultra-right would be cabbage soup. So the antonym of woke is not right, but common sense, and at best, laziness or sloth, the only cardinal sin that is sin, I suppose, but not so cardinal. The rules of my Sleep! catechism will be based on three major statements of principle: 1) What do you care? 2) Leave me alone! 3) Postpone for five minutes. My particular BLM is SM (Sleep Matters). Forget about massive demonstrations. That’s noisy and you have to walk too much. In the digital age, it’s easier to demonstrate behind a hashtag on Twitter than with a banner traipsing through the streets and bothering everyone. The basis of Sleep! is solidarity; ie. sleep and let sleep. Just Stay Put Racism? There are more people out there on the lookout than there are racists. Harassing someone because of the color of their skin implies actually harassing someone. I break out in a sweat just thinking about it. Sometimes I think one of the reasons for the birth of Wokism is that the Left doesn’t know how to be on its own. It needs a reason to be en masse, jumping, screaming, and burning trash cans. Normal people who have this same restlessness are fond of some sport in which they can shout and hit things: in the United States, football, in Europe, soccer. But the Left needs a more intellectual cause than just scoring a goal, such as making us believe that Biden is in perfect health to lead the West. Be that as it may, progressives love the woke movement because they love the masses, the noise, and the fire. And the only masses I love are masses of pizza. I get enough noise from Cardi B records. And as for the fire, I only need it for the cigarette before bed. (READ MORE: The Tories’ Immigration Policies Spawned This Chaos) Feminism? Haven’t you guys screwed over enough girls yet? My theory — don’t tell anyone — is that the Left deeply hates women, that’s why they want to turn them into dudes via sex change, encourage them to have abortions, and teach them to hate the family: to extinguish them. By the way, sex change? Jesus Christ, do you know how much that hurts? Just stay put. Multiculturalism? Horrible word. Just pronouncing it makes you imagine a market crowded with strange people, shouting, stepping on each other, and speaking in languages that are impossible to learn if you were not born on top of an oil well or under a cactus. The opposite of multiculturalism is localism, my neighborhood, the simple life, the culture we all know: good food, good drink, friends to argue with, and the occasional sports competition so I can yell at the TV from time to time. To hell with the sum of cultures and other woke nonsense. Send that to sleep too. I’m Sleepy. We’ll Start Tomorrow. Environmentalism? In the hypothetical case that global warming was real and that you and I could do something about it, a true Sleeper! would never do it. As lovers of sleeping inaction, our ultimate goal is to sleep forever. If the world explodes, our paradise will come: Eternal sleep! And finally, I confess that there is also a powerful aesthetic reasoning behind all of this. Woke is Kamala Harris, Whoopi Goldberg, and Nancy Pelosi. Sleep! is Ivanka Trump, Holly Balance, and Eva Vlaardingerbroek. You know which of the two movements you want to fund. (READ MORE: Tell VP Harris, VPs Lose Presidential Elections) Anyway, friends, we are the Sleepers! and we are going to change the world and sweep the woke culture from every corner of the planet. No doubt about it. But not today, I’m sleepy, we’ll start tomorrow. The post Woke? Nope. Back to Sleep. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.