On Thursday morning‚ Melissa Mackenzie called me and suggested that we talk about Mike Johnson in one of the segments of next weeks Spectacle Podcast.My reaction was that I didnt want to.Of course‚ Im doing it anyway‚ here in this column and next week when we pop out The Spectacle. But I go reluctantly.Why? Well‚ as regular readers of this column know‚ Mike is a personal friend of mine. He has been for a long time. I know him to be a very good conservative‚ one of the best in Congress. Hes a man of principle and‚ if he had the means to truly make policy‚ he would be very much be the revivalist figure America needs in leadership.And I can say this out of far more than mere personal feeling. Because‚ as regular readers of this column know‚ Mike Johnson wrote the foreword to my book The Revivalist Manifesto: How Patriots Can Win The Next American Era. That was well before he became House speaker. And‚ after he won the speakership‚ CNN used my book to trash Mike Johnson as a friend of racists‚ homophobes‚ and conspiracy theorists (like me‚ apparently).Which ended up selling a lot of copies of The Revivalist Manifesto.The point being that Johnson believes not just in trying to preserve our corrupt status quo but in bringing back an America that was prosperous‚ successful‚ sustainable‚ and dominant on the global stage. I believe this‚ and I believe its borne out in his words and‚ when hes able‚ his deeds.But the when hes able part of this is the rub. And its why I know Ill be accused of shilling for Mike when I write or talk about him in a supportive way‚ and thats why Im reluctant to address this subject.Its impossible to be an effective speaker of the House when you have a majority as small as Mike Johnsons majority is. Utterly impossible.I noted this at The Hayride on Thursday after a bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act failed due to conservative opposition‚ which was seen as a blow to Johnson:A Speakers job is to make a majority‚ particularly on must-pass bills like the federal appropriations instruments. Arguably‚ the FISA renewal is such a bill.Johnson has members of his caucus who are either RINOs or who represent swing districts. Its hard to get them to come aboard for strong conservative reforms‚ for a couple of reasions: first‚ any such reforms are dead on arrival in the Democrat-dominated Senate‚ not to mention theyd be vetoed by Joe Biden if they made it that far. For those congressmen‚ theres nothing but downside to voting for those reforms: they arent going to be making policy‚ so theyre not actually changing anything‚ plus theyre now going to get attacked by Democrat special interest groups for having backed those reforms.In a House majority with 240 members‚ lets say‚ Johnson could simply excuse a few of those members to vote with the Democrats because he could bleed some votes and still pass the bill. He doesnt have that freedom now.This means that Mike Johnson isnt in the business of passing conservative legislation. Hes reduced to trying to pass moderate legislation because its a better alternative than passing leftist legislation or passing nothing and getting trashed for grinding the House of Representatives down into dysfunction.Most conservatives would be perfectly happy to see the latter including the grand spectacle of a government shutdown. The problem is‚ were not in the majority with such an opinion. Generally‚ voters think government shutdowns are a sign of incompetent governance and they generate negative political results.Which Johnson cant afford‚ because virtually any sort of Democrat success in November will make Hakeem Jeffries the House Speaker. And as it stands‚ Marjorie Taylor Greene has a motion to vacate the chair hanging over Johnsons head on the right‚ so he could lose his speakership in one of two ways.This is the reality staring Johnson in the face.I think Johnson was wrong to bring a FISA renewal bill that didnt have a requirement of a warrant for surveillance of Americans. My hope is that when he brings that bill back up next week‚ such a requirement will be present‚ and at that time hopefully it will pass.Not because I believe FISA renewal is vital to our national security. I think the FBI and CIA ought to be broken up and made much smaller‚ and powers granted to them under laws like FISA should be greatly curtailed until such time as the law enforcement and intelligence agencies that might replace the FBI and CIA can be shown to be worthy of such powers.But there is no congressional majority for that kind of reform. And thats Johnsons problem. He has no ability to make that kind of policy. All he can do is to try to make good or‚ at least‚ not awful policy along the margins. Because thats what he can sometimes make a majority for. And apparently there are some reforms in the FISA renewal bill. Adding a requirement for warrants would mean at least incremental positive change.Its an impossible job. Johnson cant really be judged until he has a working majority. He needs 20 more votes. And while this should be an election cycle in which those might be had in November‚ the larger question is whether Johnson can even hold on until then. This arising‚ of course‚ from the motion that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed against Johnson some weeks ago.But now it looks like Johnson is getting some wind added to his sails thanks to another personal friend of his‚ Donald Trump:Former president Donald Trump isset to appear with Johnson at an election integrity event at his Mar-a-Lago resort Friday a joint event that hints at a burgeoning but tentative alliance between the two powerful Republicans.The upshot: Trump world isnt happy with Greenes threat to throw the House GOP into chaos once again. Theres a fear that an election-year speakership battle will undercut the partys goals of keeping the House and flipping the White House and Senate.One hundred percent distraction. Unwanted. And just stupid‚ one Trump insider said Wednesday night. Were not going to get trapped into this cycle of bullshit that comes out of members of the House.Its fair to say we dont think shes being constructive‚ another person close with Trump said about Greene. The internal fighting is not appreciated by [Trump].Those around the former president are growing weary of the constant motion-to-vacate threats‚ that person added: Its no way to run a party; its no way to run a House. You cant work in that environment.The larger concern is that Johnsons removal would create a power vacuum at a time when unity is essential and coordination between the Trump campaign and the speakers political operations is starting to tighten.For one‚ senior Trump adviser Chris LaCivita has been in close touch with Billy Constangy‚ Johnsons top political operative who has worked alongside LaCivita in the past. Hayden Haynes‚ Johnsons chief of staff‚ met recently with members of Trumps team‚ and theres talk about launching regular meetings between the Trump campaign and Johnsons operation‚ as well as the RNC‚ NRCC and NRSC.Team Trump is beginning to take on something of a pragmatic approach to politics that isnt universally positive. While Trump wasnt wrong per se in declaring abortion a state issue‚ and while he cant win the 2024 election if the Democrats are allowed to make it a national referendum on reproductive freedom or womens healthcare (the euphemisms for infanticide truly are nauseating‚ arent they?)‚ his announcement to that effect has certainly demoralized many in the pro-life community. (READ MORE: On Abortion‚ Trump Has Gravely Erred)And perhaps Trumps throwing in with Johnson might demoralize some as well.But Trumps camp is definitely correct that strengthening the Republican House speaker in advance of an effort to build a true working majority under him is a necessary project for a successful administration beginning in January of next year. And there is nobody available at present who can replace Johnson.This is essentially a pre-speakership for Johnson. Team Trump recognizes that.It would be nice if conservatives across the country recognized it as well.And it would be even better if Johnson were able to repay that confidence with a wide array of populist‚ decentralizing‚ revivalist conservative reforms flowing through the House starting in January.That scenario alone wont save the republic. But it cant be saved without that as a start.Trump sees it. Thats why hes acting to save Johnson. And its why hes right to do so.READ MORE:Bidens Never-Ending Lies Spawn a New Generation of LiarsThe Strange‚ Growing Demands of the Alphabet PeopleThe post Donald Trump Backs Mike Johnson. Heres Why the Rest of the GOP Must Follow Suit. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Houston‚ we have a problem.Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee took time off from leaving angry‚ obscene messages for underlings to give children a science lesson earlier this week.Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see a full moon is that complete rounded circle‚ which is made up mostly of gases‚ she told students at Booker T. Washington High School in Houston. And thats why the question is why or how could we as humans live on the moon? Are the gases such that we could do that?She went on to educate the students on the energy emitted by the moon‚ called it a planet‚ and offered the sudden proximity of the satellite with Earth to explain the cause of Mondays solar eclipse.The sun is a mighty powerful heat‚ she noted‚ but its almost impossible to go near the sun. The moon is more manageable.In the 15-term congresswomans defense‚ she never referred to Neil Armstrong as the first man to walk on the sun or theorized about the casein properties of the moon. And its not like anyone in Houston knows anything about space‚ anyway.Sunny Hostin surmised on The View of the solar eclipse‚ last Fridays northeasts earthquake‚ and the emergence of trillions of cicadas‚ All those things together would maybe lead one to believe that either climate change exists or something is really going on.Voices of science and reason Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar interrupted to set Hostin straight.At the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA‚ an activist-in-residence covering her face with sunglasses and a bandana and wearing gloves‚ a hat‚ and camouflage‚ instructed first-year medical students to pray to the ancestors and thank mama Earth. Lisa Gray-Garcia‚ who describes herself as formerly homeless and incarcerated‚ labeled Los Angeles occupied land‚ called private property a crapitalist lie‚ and referred to European Americans as settlers. According to theWashington Free Beacon‚ she led chats during the mandatory class of Free‚ Free Palestine and called medicine white science.Physicians‚ heal thyself?One ventures an unscientific guess that at least one of the three Jackson Lee‚ Hostin‚ or Gray-Garcia displays an In this house‚ we believe in science sign on her front lawn. So do those who regard guys wearing Sonny Crocketts stubble and Holly Golightlys dress as women and imagine bacteria found on the fourth planet as life on Mars but deny that a fully formed baby inside her mother amounts to human life.Christopher Columbus famously hoodwinked the natives into doing his bidding by telling them God planned to inflame the moon with his wrath out of his displeasure with them. The Jamaican islanders reacted to the eclipse that the scientific-minded Columbus anticipated by showering provisions upon the explorer and his men.Jackson Lee‚ Hostin‚ Gray-Garcia‚ and the like see themselves as advanced‚ cutting-edge‚ and liberated from the benightedness of the past. They really demonstrate that beliefs we imagine as primitive thrive in 2024. One embarrassing difference separates then from now. Today‚ hubris rather than humility strangely accompanies ignorance.The trio appears more akin to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‚ who pointed to the earthquake and the eclipse to warn that God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent‚ than to anyone wearing a lab coat‚ pressed against a microscope‚ or who knows that a Petri dish does not refer to German cuisine.From leafy and tweedy universities‚ the botoxed and manicured on screens‚ and the marble halls of Congress‚ an unga-bunga quality pervades.To paraphrase Arch Oboler‚ It is earlier than you think.READ MORE:What PBS Got Wrong‚ and Right‚ About William F. Buckley Jr.The Meta Debate About the Presidential Debates (or Lack Thereof)The post The Eloquence of Unga-Bunga appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hannahs Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth DearthBy Catherine Pakaluk(Regnery‚ 256 pages‚ $30)Women are shedding the girlboss mindset of no man needed‚ no children wanted. Though the term originated with millennial businesswoman Sophia Amorusos 2014 memoir #GIRLBOSS‚ the paradigm has much deeper roots. A combination of contraception‚ increased access to higher education‚ ingrained feminism‚ and careerism brought family and work into increasing conflict for the American woman.The girlboss lifestyle reached its peak in the 2010s‚ and the glow is starting to wear off. Hardcore feminists always rejected the paradigm because it wasnt sufficiently anti-patriarchal. But other women are reconsidering the girlboss narrative because it gives short shrift to love‚ marriage‚ and maternity.In recent years‚ the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction‚ giving rise to the tradwife phenomenon on the right. Unlike the girlboss‚ the tradwife embraces an aesthetic that imitates traditional images of femininity‚ often hearkening back to times before the sexual revolution. The archetypal tradwife bakes bread‚ wears long‚ flowy sundresses‚ and takes pride in cooking a meal for her husband and children. Shes the pioneer woman with an Instagram audience.In some ways‚ the tradwife paradigm has gained prominence because it attempts to respond to the consumerism and isolation of modern life. The family has been under attack‚ both philosophically and politically‚ for decades. Americans are waiting longer than ever to get married if they get married at all. On top of that‚ American women arent having enough children to sustain a stable population. Replacement rate is 2.1 births per woman‚ but American women had 1.64 children on average as of 2020.The tradwife trend emphasizes good things that many women desire‚ like marriage and family‚ but it is first and foremost a consumer phenomenon reliant mainly on aesthetics. Unable to survive apart from the social media ecosystem‚ the trend lacks a basis in anything substantial. Theres no religious component‚ nor is there a substantive concept of womanhood beyond what women wear and do. Without a foundation‚ tradwife-ism is prone to exaggeration on nearly every front. If cooking for your family is good‚ then churning your own butter is better. If having one child is good‚ then having five children is better.Now‚ if you asked the women interviewed in Catherine Pakaluks book Hannahs Children: The Women Defying the Birth Dearth‚ theyd probably agree that bigger is better when it comes to family but not because theyre part of the tradwife trend. In fact‚ quite the opposite is true.Though large families used to be fairly common 20 percent of women had at least five children in 1976 only 5 percent of women have five or more children today. The number of big families started dropping in the 70s‚ but it stabilized by 1990‚ with the number of women with five or more children hovering around 5 percent for the past three decades. The 5 percent are‚ as Pakaluk notes‚ strangely immune to the trend toward below-replacement fertility.Despite their persistence as a small but consistent demographic population‚ these women with above-average fertility havent been taken seriously. Instead‚ they are generally regarded as outliers with little to contribute to demographic studies. As a mother of eight herself‚ Pakaluk wanted to illuminate the ways that women with many children make decisions regarding fertility and how they understand their motherhood. For her research‚ she spoke with dozens of mothers across the United States‚ all of whom have at least five children.Across various differences like religion‚ location‚ level of education‚ and the age at which they became mothers the women Pakaluk interviews all expressed a similar attitude toward childbearing. These mothers expressed a deliberate rejection of an autonomous‚ customized‚ self-regarding lifestyle in favor of a way of life intentionally limited by the demands of motherhood‚ she writes. Having children requires sacrifice‚ but these mothers chose children time and again‚ despite the opportunity costs.In nearly all cases‚ these mothers saw maternity as being intertwined with deeply held religious convictions. They spoke about their children as eternal beings‚ shared memories of turning to God in prayer to discern their readiness for another pregnancy‚ and viewed their motherhood as participation in a long chain of being connecting past‚ present‚ and future. Most strikingly‚ these women adopted a posture of openness to children as a way of life and not a mere season‚ Pakaluk writes.From the outside looking in‚ these women are living the tradwife dream they have a house full of children and a loving‚ lifelong marriage to a dedicated husband and father. But the defining frameworks in their lives are faith and trust in Gods providence‚ not an image-conscious social media phenomenon.Understanding the decision-making process of mothers with five or more children is central to Pakaluks project‚ and she spends considerable time examining the costs of childbearing. Ultimately‚ Pakaluk says‚ women today face a different calculus than their grandmothers did:In the horse race between family and career enabled by the Pill‚ the family unless valued very highly loses to the alternative: dividing time between career and family‚ having children plus income‚ status‚ and other goods but fewer children.The forces discouraging childbearing are immensely strong‚ and the only real force capable of overcoming the costs is a religiously motivated openness to life. By comparison‚ the tradwife trend is merely reactionary‚ though thats certainly part of the appeal.By emphasizing the importance of marriage and family life‚ conservatives run the risk of putting undue pressure on young conservative women to get married as soon as possible and many of those young women‚ eager to take advantage of peak fertility‚ certainly put that pressure on themselves. In a way‚ it was comforting to read the stories of the women in Hannahs Children‚ some of whom were pregnant well into their 40s when Pakaluk spoke with them. Life is neither as short nor as long as it seems when youre a twentysomething.The desire for marriage and children is a good one‚ but its a desire best expressed by an openness to marriage and children on Gods timeline‚ not your own. Theres a fine line to walk between seeking out a good thing and trusting that you cannot miss what God intends for you. This is‚ after all‚ what both the girlboss and the tradwife miss: the good life is a collaboration with God‚ not a project of self-actualization on ones own terms.Pakaluk focuses on women with big families because theyre living a radically different life than most women. But the real lesson from Hannahs Children is that the best number of children to have is the number of children God gives you.Mary Frances Myler is a writer from Northern Michigan now living in Washington‚ D.C. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler:Holy Land Christians Celebrate Easter Amid WarBidens New Electric Vehicle Policy Will Drive US Auto Workers Out of JobsEngland Bans Puberty Blockers‚ American Activists Double DownThe post Defying the Birth Dearth Isnt Just a Trend appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to hear a case addressing one of the most pressing issues of our time: whether public schools can secretly transition children behind the backs of parents. The case arises from a policy of the Montgomery County Board of Education (MBCE) in Maryland that obligates school officials to hide childrens gender choices from parents. Parents Defending Education‚ a non-profit watchdog‚ estimates that the MBCE policy is just one of the 1‚060 such policies in the nation that cover more than 10 million children. Under these policies‚ children‚ with the help of school officials‚ live out one gender identity at school‚ and school officials communicate with parents as if nothing has changed‚ as if their child isnt living a new life and going by a new name and using new restrooms.The parents challenging the policy lost in the lower courts and appealed to the Supreme Court in late 2023. In a positive sign‚ the Supreme Court asked the school board to submit an opposition brief‚ indicating that the court is seriously considering whether to weigh in on the dispute. Gender identity ideology has infected the nation‚ and it is spreading particularly fast through the public school system. The court should take the case and vindicate the bedrock principle that has governed western civilization for centuries: that parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and moral upbringing of their children including at public schools.The Gender PolicyMBCEs Guidelines for Gender Identity are designed to ensure that all students feel comfortable expressing their gender identity and to [s]upport students so they may participate in school life consistent with their asserted gender identity. To accomplish that goal‚ the guidelines guarantee all students prekindergarten through 12th grade at least two things: (1) the right to keep private ones transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation and (2) the right to express their gender identity at school. Critically‚ school staff are instructed to use the students legal name and pronoun that correspond to the students sex assigned at birth when communicating with parents unless the student has specified otherwise. For those students wrestling with their gender identity‚ school officials should develop a gender support plan that ensures the student is not discriminated against in his or her new gender identity‚ including which names and pronouns to use‚ athletics‚ locker rooms‚ extracurriculars‚ bathrooms‚ etc. The support plans are also designed to ascertain whether the students parents are aware of and supportive of the students gender identity. If the students parents are deemed nonsupportive‚ school officials are instructed to withhold information from parents. (READ MORE: I Read Ellen Elliot PagesPageboy‚ and It Shows Just How Half-Baked Transgenderism Is)Based on this policy‚ students as young as 5 can transition to a different gender‚ and their parents may never even know about it. And it isnt as though the public schools are passive players in the gender ideology war. School districts across the nation are aggressively indoctrinating children in gender identity ideology and actively facilitating the transition of young children all while hiding this information from parents.Legal Issues Debated by the Supreme CourtThe parents primary argument is that the policy violates their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Before addressing that issue‚ however‚ there is a second‚ antecedent issue at stake: whether the parents even have a legal right to bring the case. This doctrine‚ known as standing‚ is an important constitutional doctrine rooted in separation-of-powers principles that seeks to ensure that courts decide real cases between parties who are actually injured by the law or policy being challenged. Standing keeps courts in their proper lane in our constitutional republic and ensures that most political and legal issues are resolved not by unelected judges but by using our normal democratic processes elections and the court of public opinion. The Constitution reserves many issues to we the people‚ and standing helps preserve this important principle.But not here. Our independent judiciary stands as a bulwark against tyranny‚ and no court should hide behind secondary legal doctrines to shirk its primary duty upholding the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the parents had no standing to bring this case because they didnt allege that any of their children were struggling with their gender identity or that the schools were withholding any information from them. The court is dead wrong on this point‚ as the dissenting opinion made clear. Indeed‚ how could parents know this information when the policy itself prevents them from accessing the very information that the majority says is needed to bring the case? Moreover‚ the law doesnt require citizens to wait to suffer irreparable harm before they can bring suit to vindicate their constitutional rights. If that were the law‚ parents would have no right to bring a case until it was too late‚ until their son or daughter had already undergone a social transition with the help of school officials. As the dissent noted‚ if the 4th Circuits decision stands‚ gender issues perhaps the most sensitive and important topic a child can face today will be pulled from the family circle to the public schools without any avenue of redress by the Parents. That cannot be the law.Even more important than standing is the merits of the case. Do parents have any say‚ any rights‚ over their childrens education after they enroll them in public school? According to one side of the debate‚ the answer is no. Once parents choose to send their children to public school‚ any rights they may have had are gone‚ and children belong to the state.This is not the law. The history of Western civilization and our nation makes clear that parents‚ not the state‚ possess the fundamental right to educate their children and direct their moral upbringing. And both simple logic and cases from our early history make clear that parents retain this right at public schools. While schools do stand in place of the parent for limited purposes‚ such as teaching children core subjects like math and science‚ courts should never presume that parents have delegated authority to schools to instruct and indoctrinate children in what the Supreme Court calls matters of public concern‚ i.e.‚ fundamental worldview issues. As a brief submitted to court for this case states‚ This is particularly true given the changes in public education occurring over the last two centurieschanges including compulsory education‚ the inability of parents to sign employment contracts with the state‚ the coercive economic power of the state in public education‚ and state-mandated educational agendas.Gender ideology is certainly a matter of public concern‚ as the Supreme Court itself has made clear. The ideology‚ the brief explains‚ is rooted in a worldview called expressive individualism‚ which holds that human identity is primarily sexual and is rooted in a persons own psychological and subjective view of oneself. It touches on the deepest moral‚ social‚ and religious questions‚ even going to the heart of what it means to be human. Accordingly‚ decisions related to childrens gender choices are reserved for parents‚ and the state has no right to facilitate a childs social gender transition or hide it from them.At issue in this case is one of the pillars on which our nation and Western civilization itself was built: the right of parents to direct their childrens moral formation. Rebuking these schools and vindicating the rights of parents is critical to preserving liberty and stemming the rising tide of totalitarianism on the left.Ernie Walton is an assistant professor at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach‚ Virginia. Some of the content from this article was taken from his articles and the brief he and his colleague submitted in the case.The post Supreme Court Must Protect Parental Rights From the Transgender Movement in &;lt;i&;gt;John and Jane Parents vs. MBCE&;lt;/i&;gt; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Whether we like it or not‚ artificial intelligence is taking over the internet. Content creators use it to generate images‚ videos‚ and text‚ programmers use it to generate code‚ and writers use it to generate illustrations. But AI is trained on woke‚ left-leaning content (like the New York Times). That may not impact computer scientists‚ but it does matter for those of us in the business of ideas. (READ MORE: The Spectacle Ep. 79: New Tech Is Woke. Just Look at Gemini.)The American Spectator is launching a series. Every Friday well give AI software (this week its OpenAIs ChatGPT 3.5) a prompt. Your challenge as readers‚ should you choose to accept‚ is to fact-check and critique the machine. Is the writing clunky? Streamlined? Is the machine biased? Or is it missing important context? You decide in the comments below.*****PROMPT:Write a 500-word piece about the role Republicans have played in emancipating Black Americans. Cite specific examples from the Civil War‚ Reconstruction‚ the civil rights movement‚ and during the 21st century.AI:The Republican Party has played a crucial role in the emancipation and advancement of Black Americans throughout American history. Since its inception in the mid-19th century‚ the party has been at the forefront of efforts to secure equality and civil rights for Black citizens.During the Civil War era‚ Republicans led the charge against the institution of slavery. President Abraham Lincoln‚ the first Republican president‚ issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863‚ declaring all slaves in Confederate-held territory to be free. This landmark executive order was a pivotal moment in the fight against slavery‚ laying the groundwork for the eventual passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution‚ which abolished slavery nationwide. The Republican-controlled Congress played a significant role in ratifying this amendment in 1865.In the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War‚ Republicans continued their commitment to securing the rights of Black Americans. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 and 1868‚ passed by Republican-led Congresses‚ aimed to rebuild the South and ensure the political and civil rights of freed slaves. These acts granted Black men the right to vote‚ hold political office‚ and participate fully in the democratic processan unprecedented step towards racial equality in the United States.During the 20th century‚ the Republican Party remained a steadfast advocate for civil rights. In 1957‚ President Dwight D. Eisenhower‚ a Republican‚ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957‚ marking the first major civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. This act aimed to protect the voting rights of African Americans and laid the groundwork for subsequent civil rights laws.The Republican Party continued to play a prominent role in advancing civil rights during the turbulent 1960s. Republican leaders such as Senator Everett Dirksen were instrumental in the passage of landmark civil rights legislation‚ including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These laws‚ which were signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson‚ a Democrat‚ enjoyed bipartisan support and helped dismantle legal segregation and voter suppression tactics that disenfranchised Black Americans.In the 21st century‚ Republicans have continued to champion policies aimed at promoting equality and opportunity for Black Americans. While there may be differing views within the party on certain issues related to race and social justice‚ many Republicans have supported initiatives such as criminal justice reform‚ economic empowerment programs‚ and educational opportunities aimed at narrowing the racial wealth gap and addressing systemic inequalities.For example‚ the First Step Act‚ signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2018‚ was a bipartisan effort aimed at reforming federal sentencing laws and reducing recidivism rates‚ particularly impacting Black communities disproportionately affected by mass incarceration.In conclusion‚ the Republican Party has played a significant role in emancipating and advancing the rights of Black Americans throughout American history. From the abolition of slavery during the Civil War era to the passage of landmark civil rights legislation and efforts to address contemporary issues of racial inequality‚ the party has been a driving force in shaping the trajectory of civil rights in the United States.The post Fact-Checking AI: Are Republicans Racist? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It wasnt about Israel.It was Nov. 28‚ 1941. Israel‚ founded in 1948 seven years later did not exist. The territory of modern-day Israel and Palestine was then under the control the British.Europe was at war. Adolf Hitlers Germany was on the march. It had conquered France‚ Poland‚ the Czech Republic‚ and invaded Russia.But on this November day‚ meeting at his office in the Reich Chancellory in Berlin‚ Hitler was meeting with a decidedly non-European individual.Hitlers visitor was one Haj Amin al-Husseini‚ the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and a Palestinian Arab. A careful record of their conversation was kept. And over there at theTimes of Israel‚ the essence of that conversation has been published.Among other things said to Hitler by the Grand Mufti was this:The Arabs were Germanys natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany‚ namely the English‚ the Jews and the Communists.To which Hitler replied that:Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. Germany was resolved‚ step by step‚ to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem‚ and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.As soon as Germany had won the war‚ Hitler said:Germanys objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world.In other words?The existence of Israel is not at the center of the current war in the Middle East.The center of this war as the hardcore history of the decidedly pre-Israel HitlerGrand Mufti meeting a full 83 years ago so vividly demonstrates is about killing Jews. Exterminating an entire race of human beings. And doing so for no other reason than hatred of Jews. Which is exactly what motivated Hitler to launch the Holocaust.That was the position of the Palestinian Grand Mufti in 1941 and it is the position of Hamas and Iran and their allies today.The question for Americans now is why President Joe Biden doesnt understand this most basic fact in world history.Only in the last few days have Jew-haters gathered in Dearborn‚ Michigan‚ to shouts of Death to Israel! and Death to America! What they really mean‚ of course‚ is Death to Jews.Reuters reports: Biden‚ 80‚ has evolved in the face of a challenging 2024 reelection bid‚ threats by some would-besupportersto withhold their votes over his lack of backing for Palestinians‚ and a warning from formerPresident Barack Obamathat Israels actions could backfire.What happened on Oct. 7 was‚ simply put‚ an attack designed‚ Hitler-style‚ to kill as many Jews as possible. If there was a wave of a magic wand that could replace Jews in the Middle East with‚ say‚ Presbyterians or Catholics or Black Baptists‚ it is entirely possible none of whats happening would be happening.The hard central fact of not just our time but seemingly time immemorial is hatred for Jews. Which all too frequently results in murderous wars designed to kill Jews at a maximum‚ or‚ at a minimum‚ anti-Semitism. An anti-Semitism that has sadly erupted in 21st-century America on one college campus after another.The question is obvious.When will America in this case Joe Biden as president of the United States take on this virus of Jew hatred directly? To call it out for what it is‚ whether in Dearborn‚ Michigan‚ the rest of America‚ the Middle East‚ or any other corner of the globe where it can be found?Pretending that what the Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler were about in 1941 is no longer happening‚ or ignoring it altogether in todays 21st century‚ will not solve what is a very real and dangerous problem.READ MORE:Biden Is Morally BankruptBiden Pulls a Bait and Switch on IsraelA Political Movement Upends the Word GenocideThe post Hitlers Meeting With Grand Mufti Shows War in Middle East Is About Hatred of Jews appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In my more than 40 years of practicing law‚ I have learned that while lawsuits can bring disputes to an end‚ they cannot solve problems. Unfortunately‚ not all other lawyers have learned the same thing‚ and the effects of this can be vexing both to the law and to public policy.READ MORE: John Eastman and the Lefts War on the Legal ProfessionAs early as 2006‚ it was noted by Victor Schwartz and Phil Golberg how some state attorneys general and personal injury lawyers have been trying to convert the tort of public nuisance into a cutting-edge legal theory and to move it far outside its traditional boundaries by using it to sue product manufacturers in an effort to circumvent the well-defined structure of products liability law. While this may be a tempting shortcut around state legislatures for attorneys general to achieve their own policy ends‚ it represents a misuse of the legal system and could set a concerning new precedent for the use of public nuisance law.Schwartz and Golberg explain that public nuisance law has a long‚ albeit narrowly applicable‚ history. They note that the essence of public nuisance law is to allow governments to use the tort system to stop quasi-criminal conduct that‚ while not illegal‚ is unreasonable given the circumstances and could cause injury to someone exercising a common‚ societal right. That could mean blocking a public roadway or‚ in recent times‚ dumping sewage into a public river or blasting a stereo when people are picnicking in a public park. A corollary of this history is that members of the public who are inconvenienced can only sue for damages‚ while governmental bodies can only sue to stop or abate the nuisance but cannot sue for money damages.Many have identified the tobacco litigation of the 1990s as the watershed event in the process of turning product liability claims into nuisance claims. It also marked a significant step in normalizing contingency fee arrangements between private law firms and government entities‚ as it was the first time that attorneys general in a number of states entered into such agreements to support their legal efforts. Coincidentally‚ not only did these law firms stand to rake in huge amounts of fees from these no-bid contracts‚ but they frequently turned out to be top contributors to the hiring attorney generals campaign fund.ThenConnecticut Attorney General (and now Sen.) Richard Blumenthal‚ for example‚ hired four firms in total including three that were in-state to support his litigation efforts. These included Blumentals former law firm‚ his former partners wifes firm‚ and a firm whose managing counsel served as personal counsel and counselor to thenConnecticut Gov. John Rowland. Those three law firms‚ each of which was plugged into the attorney general or the governor‚ split $65 million in legal fees.The attorneys general of other states‚ including Kansas‚ Texas‚ and Missouri‚ also hired friends and gave them giant paydays. Most notably‚ thenMissouri Attorney General Jay Nixon hired five law firms that had made contributions of more than $500‚000 to his campaigns over eight years. Even though Missouri was the 27th state to join the tobacco litigation and‚ as a result‚ the legal heavy lifting was already done those firms split $111 million in fees.Yet despite this blatant display of cronyism and backscratching‚ many current attorneys general seem intent on making the same mistake today. As Schwartz and Goldberg further explain‚ Even though no court validated the use of public nuisance theory in the tobacco litigation‚ the use of public nuisance theory quickly became a misleading aspect of the state attorney general tobacco litigation legend. Such misconceptions have pushed attorneys general to continue to move forward with this flawed legal strategy in other lawsuits‚ even though this litigation is hardly a model to be emulated.The latest iteration of that legend has seen public nuisance statutes used by states and localities to pursue reimbursement for the effects of opioid addiction. The state of Oklahoma and the city of Baltimore have both contracted with plaintiffs trial counsel to pursue claims of reimbursement for the effects of opioid addiction in their jurisdictions. Fortunately‚ the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed a judgment in favor of the state‚ reasoning that public nuisance law was not an appropriate remedy for the harm caused by opioid abuse‚ but Baltimores lawsuit continues to move forward and poses a serious legal threat.The use of public nuisance claims by governmental bodies to pursue reimbursement for costs they claim to have suffered turns that theory on its head. Those actually injured by opioids are those who have abused them‚ something that the governmental bodies bringing suit havent done. Their proper role under public nuisance theory is to seek to abate the nuisance‚ not pursue damages. It is also odd to apply public nuisance law to a commercial activity‚ particularly one that is so highly regulated as the prescription drug industry.More to the point‚ if one product can be the object of a public nuisance lawsuit‚ where is the stopping point? Other lawyers have solicited governmental bodies to hold energy producers liable for claimed injuries attributable to climate change. As Judge William Alsup observed in 2018‚ the lawyers behind the lawsuits were asking for billions of dollars for something that hasnt happened yet and may never happen to the extent youre predicting it will happen.Should an attorney general successfully bring a public nuisance case against an opioid manufacturer or energy company‚ it could leave the door open for them to go after other politically undesirable industries and effectively sue them out of business‚ ultimately achieving a policy end run when they are legislating through litigation.In the end‚ courts should be far more alert to efforts by lawyers to use them to solve problems. As is clear‚ lawsuit decide cases; they dont solve problems.The post Lawsuits Decide Cases They Dont Solve Problems appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The NPR-Listening ';Elite 1%';

The Lesson for Gun Owners in James and Jennifer Crumbley Convictions

Trump';s Abortion Statement