WASHINGTON —  Foreign workers seeking U.S. jobs enjoyed near-guaranteed visa success in fiscal year 2024, with immigration authorities approving more than 97% of H1-B visa applications, as reported…

Vice President Kamala Harris‘s stepdaughter, Ella Emhoff, has just landed some lucrative modeling work with Prada. The fashion company is known for sophistication, beauty and elegance. These are three…

"Hard for me to sing powerfully." The post “Sounds great”: How George Michael single-handedly improved a Christmas classic first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

As 2024 comes to a close, I’ve thought a lot over the past year about another year: 1984. Yes, 1984. What had me thinking were two recent political events felt keenly by readers of The American Spectator and any American focused on the political scene this election year. Though I had little to no interest in politics, I did like Reagan. Everyone did, even the minority that didn’t vote for him. The first was the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024. As readers here know, I immediately wrote about the event as I watched it live on television with my wife as we looked on in horror in fear for the lives of Trump, the spectators, and our 16-year-old son who was attending the rally. It was an intensely personal moment, and especially so because Butler is my hometown. That’s right, my hometown. How weird it has been to tell that to people since the Trump shooting. I was introduced at an event in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago as, “He was raised in Butler, Pennsylvania.” The audience gasped. But at least, praise God, the would-be next president of the United States wasn’t killed there that day. In fact, if he goes on to have a great second term, perhaps the Butler moment will be seen as providential. The Butler moment got my mind rolling back to memories from that town, particularly the year 1984. I moved to Butler at age four, starting kindergarten there. My parents relocated from a small coal mining town called Russellton in Allegheny County just outside Pittsburgh. My dad took a job in the steel industry. Ironically, the first text message that I got when Trump was shot came from the first person that I met when I moved to Butler in 1971. It was my lifelong friend Bob, my next-door neighbor in Westwood Manor III. Bob’s text said simply, “Butler! Only in Butler!” It’s a town with a rich history. The home of Armco Steel and Pullman-Standard, the famous Pullman railroad car was invented there, as was the Jeep. Growing up there, the town was filled with characters. I can’t begin to describe what it was like — what they were like: my friends, my best friends, the girls that I knew, our girlfriends. We were a crew. Growing up there was a blast. I can’t say we were good kids. I was a bad kid. I somehow barely graduated and was lucky I didn’t end up in jail. Oh, we had fun — a lot of fun. Too much. I’m lucky I’m alive. In fact, Donald Trump is lucky he’s alive. He’s fortunate that he, too, survived his time in Butler, Pennsylvania. Ultimately, I somehow graduated from high school: Butler High School class of 1984. There’s that year: 1984. The other political event that has had me thinking about 1984 was Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election on Nov. 5. Trump’s sweeping triumph of 2024 reminded me that this is the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s even more epic victory, the outcome of a reelection campaign that resulted in Reagan winning an astounding 49 of 50 states. Reagan took nearly 60 percent of the vote and crushed Walter Mondale in the Electoral College by a whopping 525 to 13. The only state he didn’t win was dopey Minnesota. And you can’t say that he lost Minnesota merely because it was Mondale’s home state. The reality is that Reagan never won Minnesota, in 1984 or 1980. He twice won California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and even Massachusetts, the most left-wing state in the country. But he never won Minnesota, the nation’s most politically bizarre state. Still, Reagan’s victory was historic. In the decades prior to and approaching 1984, many Americans thought of the year in terms of the dystopian novel by George Orwell. There was dread that 1984 could become 1984. But Reagan’s rise and triumph ensured the exact opposite. In his second term, Reagan would defeat the forces of totalitarianism. He ensured that our 1984 was the anti-1984. At the time, I wasn’t much interested in politics. We had been assigned to read 1984 in high school, but my circle of drinking buddies and druggie burnouts didn’t read it. We cracked open beers, not books. The film of the day that best reflected the atmosphere at Butler High School would be a cross between Fast Times at Ridgemont High (set in California) and a movie that nicely captured western Pennsylvania high-school football life, All the Right Moves (filmed on location in Johnstown, PA). As to the latter, western Pennsylvania has long been a haven of football greatness. I could demonstrate that by listing name after name. To simplify it, here are just some local quarterbacks of the day who went to the NFL Hall of Fame: Johnny Unitas, George Blanda, Joe Namath, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, and Joe Montana. The latter two exploded onto the NFL scene at precisely this time. It was the 1984 teams of Marino and Montana (the Miami Dolphins and San Francisco 49ers) who squared off in Super Bowl XIX. Though I had little to no interest in politics, I did like Reagan. Everyone did, even the minority that didn’t vote for him. We knew that it was a happy time for the country. Perhaps the partying life my friends and I and our girlfriends engaged in reflected the merry attitude of the country. It was a good time to be an American. (I would argue that the best decades of the 20th century to be an American were the 1980s, the 1950s, and 1920s — all decades the Left hates.) As I noted here recently in writing about reviews of our movie, Reagan, based on one of my books, today’s Left even finds ways to hate the positive Ronald Reagan of that film. (A sign of how much I personally changed after 1984 is that I went from being a Butler bum in high school to a leading biographer of Ronald Reagan. Go figure!) In sum, all of this has served to make me quite nostalgic in 2024 for all things from the year 1984: politics, films, music, sports, and remembering friends and best friends and girls and girlfriends who I’m saddened to have lost touch with. I’ll wrap up with a few favorites and highlights of that year, which many of you from that era can also relate to: Films and Music As for 1984 films, I came across a list of the top movies at the box office that year. Remarkably, there were a staggering 169 films listed. I remember the vast majority, as would most people who lived through the era. Before the fragmentation of the entertainment universe into niche audiences and multiple streaming platforms, watching movies in crowded theaters was still the predominant venue for mass entertainment. Movies were a glorious, shared cultural treasure. Still, it’s amazing that there were so many (click here to review). Topping the list at $220 million was Ghostbusters, followed by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the worst of the Indiana Jones films. A more interesting grouping is the top 50 list compiled by IMDb, which uses a different ranking metric. Its top five include The Terminator at number 1, followed by Amadeus, Once Upon a Time in America, and then Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters. Do I have a personal favorite among those? Yes, Amadeus. Sure, much of the film is apocryphal, but it was a masterstroke of brilliance to structure the film around a literal confession to a priest by Antonio Salieri, the Italian composer who came to loathe Wolfgang Amadeus so much that he scorned both the prodigy-genius and ultimately God as well. The opening scene with Salieri shouting the dead Mozart’s name after an attempted suicide, with the intense Symphony No. 25 thundering, is riveting. Other notable movies from 1984 were Beverly Hills Cop, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Karate Kid, Sixteen Candles (click here for a great scene), The Killing Fields, Bachelor Party (Tom Hanks from his comedy days), Purple Rain, Splash, This Is Spinal Tap, and a Cold War favorite, Red Dawn. As for music, Billboard’s number one song for 1984 was Prince’s “When Doves Cry,” not a song that I personally liked. As a Butler dude, my musical preferences were rock. Other notables reflecting the variety of that year were Van Halen’s “Jump,” Bruce Springsteen’s “Dancing in the Dark,” The Thompson Twins’ “Hold Me Now,” Quiet Riot’s “Cum on Feel the Noize,” and Madonna’s “Lucky Star” and “Borderline.” A word on Madonna: This era was still the cute Madonna before she became raunchy and lost all innocence. Personally, my favorite Madonna song was 1985’s “Crazy for You.” After that, Madonna decided that slutty was better than pretty. She went full skank. Sports I’ll wrap up with sports, on which I could go on and on. Without a doubt the biggest matchup of the year was in the NBA, pitting the two legendary teams of the decade. On June 12, the Boston Celtics defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in a historic seven-game contest that ended at the Boston Garden with fans storming the parquet floor. Dennis “DJ” Johnson and Larry Bird calmly sunk all their free throws in the closing minute to put the game away. Bird averaged 27 points and 14 rebounds and won the series MVP. I remember watching that game in Myrtle Beach in a packed, wild hotel room with a bunch of my buddies and girls we met. It was our graduation trip. Those were two phenomenal teams who ultimately sent 10 players to the NBA Hall of Fame, with the standouts being Bird, Kevin McHale, Magic Johnson, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. They were two dominant sports franchises. A similar battle of greats faced off in the NHL, with the Edmonton Oilers defeating the defending champs, the New York Islanders. Those two teams produced a staggering 13 Hall of Famers, including legends like Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, and Paul Coffey (all of Edmonton). In college basketball, Georgetown, then the beast of the Big East — the greatest basketball conference in history — won the national championship, led by Patrick Ewing and coach John Thompson. In college football, a no-name BYU squad went undefeated to secure its only national championship. The best college football memory of the season, however, was the Hail Mary pass by Boston College’s Doug Flutie to beat Jimmy Johnson’s defending champions Miami Hurricanes on November 23. Flutie won the Heisman. As for the NFL, I noted the 1984 Miami Dolphins and San Francisco 49ers, with the marquee matchup of Dan Marino versus Joe Montana in Super Bowl XIX on January 20, 1985. Marino had a sensational second year as quarterback, setting the NFL single-season throwing record with 48 touchdown passes and 5,084 yards. There had never been a QB season like it, though Marino would surprisingly never win a Super Bowl. For Montana, known as “Joe Cool,” a different kind of passer but likewise superb, this was his second of four Super Bowl rings. Major League Baseball hosted one of the most underrated World Series matchups ever, as the Detroit Tigers, which won 104 games under former Cincinnati Reds legendary coach Sparky Anderson, defeated in seven games a San Diego Padres team led by former Oakland A’s coach Dick Williams. The teams included future Hall of Famers Alan Trammell and Jack Morris (Tigers) and Goose Gossage and Tony Gwynn (Padres). Other standouts included the Tigers’ Lou Whitaker and a young Kirk Gibson, who later made history as a Dodger by homering off Oakland A’s pitcher Dennis Eckersley in the 1988 World Series. Those are just some of my memories from a memorable year: 1984. I could say more, but I’ll stop. How about you? Did you live through 1984? What are your favorites? Like me, are you missing that year? Personally, looking back, I’d take 1984 over 2024 anytime. Bring me Back to the Future, dude. Wait, that was 1985. Also not a bad year. Give me the 1980s. I want my 1980s back. READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Lee Edwards, Dean of Conservatism, RIP Write That Damned Book — Now! The post Looking Back at the Year — 1984 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The best thing about President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees is that few of them are considered qualified by the expert Washington, D.C. governmental establishment. With a few exceptions, these progressive experts have been in control for a century. But over that time, Gallup polls have demonstrated the accompanying long decline in public support for progressive policies — especially regarding domestic issues but recently also on foreign policy. Today, six in ten Americans have little or no confidence in how their government works. This dissatisfaction pretty much decided the 2024 election in favor of President Trump and a Republican Congress. In the past, including 2016, incoming presidents have mostly chosen their Cabinet and other top officials from longtime D.C. Ivy League experts. Incoming President Trump wisely decided a century was enough and has now nominated outsiders. Not surprisingly, mainstream media and their chosen elites are upset with the results. Among others, Politico headlined that only three “people of color” had been nominated. But the text itself spent the rest of the article inadvertently recording the minorities actually nominated. The Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker noticed three Hindus, two Hispanics, the first female White House chief of staff, and the highest-ranking cabinet office for a gay man. More importantly, the nominees represented traditional conservatives, nationalist populists, libertarians, Democrats, foreign-policy hawks and doves, and many others across the political spectrum. Indeed, this diversity was so varied that Baker was not confident that such a Right coalition could “remain [even] half-attached” to traditional conservativism; or whether only Trump himself would count, governing “by whim” alone. It is true that most of the nominees do not have high executive branch or bureaucratic experience. But even those who did, like Department of Education nominee, Linda McMahon, who previously headed the Small Business Administration, were criticized. She was disparaged for not having experience in education, ignoring her service on the board of trustees at Sacred Heart University and the Connecticut State Board of Education. (RELATED: Controversial Appointees, Clay Pigeons, and Successful Governmental Politics) Indeed, there is no question that Trump’s appointees without government managerial experience will be walking into another world where nothing works like they think, including the former members of Congress. The hard fact is that government bureaucracy does not work like the private sector and success there misleads the unwary. After heading the U.S. budget office, the successful co-founder of Litton Industries, Roy Ash, warned many years ago about the difference: Imagine that you were the chief executive officer of your company and that the board of directors was made up of your customers, your suppliers, your employees, and your competitors, and that you required a majority vote on everything. Wouldn’t you conduct your business in a different way than you do now? Going from the private to the public sector is not going from the minor leagues to the major leagues in baseball: it is like going from softball to ice hockey. Dean Sayre of Columbia University summarized it this way: “There are many similarities between public and private administration — all of them trivial.” If one needs a more philosophical or administrative understanding of bureaucracy see the more detailed explanations of Ludwig von Mises or yours truly. Knowing how government really works, the Washington establishment types know that the secret to political success is to understand that any change from the bureaucracy’s status quo will be reported immediately to the media, with complaints that it will destroy the essential health, education, welfare and national security of the U.S. in some way or another. The story will begin in the Washington Post and be picked up nationally and beyond. And the targets seeking change will look foolish with no supporters beyond family. That is why the secret to political ascendancy in government is not to do anything but to follow the herd and be considered a success by all. All presidents want loyalty but also expect that appointees will have the skills and courage to confront the bureaucratic state. But as Ronald Reagan’s first director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, I can report that those appointees who did the best, who were the most courageous, were the first to be run from D.C. That is why Trump was so wise to identify nominees with courage over resumes, and to do so early, learning from his previous experience. To a great degree President Trump himself will and should be in charge of executive policy. But what about Baker’s worry about his dominance? My experience is that Trump does listen to arguments from his agency heads and is willing to change when confronted with sound arguments. As far as Baker’s concern for the historic conservative coalition, Ross Douthat has identified two forces within the Trump orbit as possibly portending its future. There is a dynamic libertarian-type leader in the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and a more traditionalist populist type in Vice President-elect JD Vance. Douthat notes that they differ, but also finds that both agree on aspects of the other’s positions: “Musk has moved in a populist direction on immigration, while Vance has been a venture capitalist.” He continues: So you can imagine a scenario, in Trump’s second term and beyond, where these convergences yield a dynamist-populist fusionism — a conservatism that manages to simultaneously aim for the stars and uplift and protect the working class, in which economic growth and technological progress help renew the heartland (as Musk’s own companies have brought jobs and optimism to South Texas) while also preserving our creaking social compact. That’s the potential Musk-Vance synthesis. But the potential tensions here are also important, as are the ways in which each man’s worldview can fail. Douthat’s pragmatism leads him to warn that “a dynamism that imagines itself capable of waving a magic wand over the government and making much of the welfare state somehow disappear will end up meeting the same fate as the Tea Party” promoting “an unrealistic libertarianism.” But what his analysis recalls to this Reaganite is how similar Douthat’s fear is to the one raised against Reagan’s successful synthesis between the libertarian and traditionalist aspects of his time. Without him making any historical connection, consider the terms Douthat seems forced to utilize — “fusionism,” “synthesis,”  “tension,” and “social compact” — are all concepts right from Reagan himself. To me, that is a prospect more for hope than for concern. READ MORE from Donald Devine: Controversial Appointees, Clay Pigeons, and Successful Governmental Politics What Are Serious Conservatives to Do About the Presidential Election? What Cracked Up Conservatism in the 1990s, and What Can Recover It Today? Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles. The post Trump’s ‘Unqualified’ Courageously Diverse Appointees — and a Conservative Hope appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hey, ‘80s kids — our time has come. If you hadn’t noticed, those about to take control of running the government of the most powerful nation on earth are, mostly, our age. From Millennials like Vice President-elect JD Vance, incoming Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Department of Government Efficiency co-leader Vivek Ramaswamy to others such as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lee Zeldin, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Director of the FBI Kash Patel who were all born in 1980 (just a year before Millennials) — there’s a new Brat Pack in town. We have arrived, but what does it mean for our future? Politics has been an old man’s game for decades: The average age of members of the House at the beginning of the 117th Congress hovered around 58 years old, with Senators around 64 years old. One of the best illustrations of this is a 70-year-old photo of a young Nancy Pelosi with then-Senator John F. Kennedy. The same people, with the same mindset, and same experiences (or lack thereof) have been leading America for more than a generation. But time is the enemy no one can outrun. The “olds,” as we affectionately call them, are on their way out. Suddenly, it’s our cue to enter stage right. Our generation is unique. Perhaps that’s why we’ve been the most studied. Personally, I can attest to the fact that we often feel like the last ones left who understand what it means to do something hard and survive difficulty without letting it define or break us. We might go to a lot of therapy, but it’s not because we’re weak. We have some well-earned trauma and disillusionment, sure, but we also have grit. For Millennials especially, character matters. Character, like a diamond, can only be formed under extreme pressure and pain, both of which we’ve had in spades. It’s why we consider things like the values or charity work of the places we buy things from. We started life in a season of plenty. Born into Reagan’s America, we began full of the kind of small-town American patriotism and idealism of the ‘80s that bring about immediate feelings of nostalgia. We rode our bikes around neighborhoods, unabashedly loved fireworks, and the Goonies were our heroes. We were shaped by the films of John Hughes, Steven Spielberg, Nora Ephron, and 1990s action stars. We were Freaks and Geeks. We had Seinfeld, Fraser, The Office, and the Gilmore Girls. We read magazines cover-to-cover, shopped in mail-order catalogs, and loved the mall. We waited in lines for hours for tickets and new releases. We created reality television. We memorized phone numbers, printed out MapQuest for directions, and were the last generation to have the freedom of not having every moment of childhood or college documented by smartphones. We were spoiled, the Boomers thought, and called us narcissistic, selfish, and lazy, while publicly labeling us the “Me Me Me Generation.” Then, suddenly, things changed. We didn’t have a soft launch into the world but were spit out into it like rockets with too much fuel and not enough direction. Most of us witnessed first-hand the attacks on 9/11. Many went on to serve and sacrifice in the War on Terror. We graduated college in the financial crash of the early 2000s and muddled through our early 20s dealing with the Great Recession. As young adults, we scrambled to find jobs in a market that was shifting to digital faster than anyone could anticipate. Careers one dreamed of as a child disappeared, while, a few years later, as mid-level professionals finally starting to hit our stride, we were hit with disasters like COVID and faced setbacks yet again. We work harder and longer than anyone but get paid less and rarely take vacations. We’re less likely to own a home or be wealthy. Because of all these issues, we are often considered the “Unluckiest Generation in U.S. History,” but we are also the most educated. Here’s the reality: We are fighters, survivors, and innovators. From serving our country to becoming entrepreneurs, startup creators, and influencers at home — we’re comfortable taking risks because we’ve had to do it most of our lives merely to survive. We’re scrappy and unafraid. This is why America needs the ‘80s kids right now. Sandwiched between two generations who feed off incessant propaganda, we’re frustrated at the fact many Boomers believe everything they read on Facebook, while most Gen Z’ers know only what the TikTok algorithm dictates to them. We yearn for things to be as we know they once were, but also better. We aren’t jaded because we can’t afford to be. Hence all the therapy. How will this play out in the new Trump administration? Research from the Reagan Foundation shows that “Far from wanting us to isolate ourselves, millennials seem to want us to engage. However, what they want from that engagement is diplomacy and cooperation, not the use of military strength.” We fought the wars. We have the battlefield scars and the PTSD to prove it. We want to go back to that idealism (and strength) that Reagan embodied during his meetings with Gorbachev. We want to put America first because we are the citizens who have paid the cost of previous generations not doing so. We aren’t interested in paying for endless wars while there’s so much work to be done at home. Ours is a generation of hope and survival. We believe that we can change our stars and that America truly is a place where anyone can become anything. We believe this because we’ve experienced it firsthand. JD Vance grew up dirt-poor in Appalachia, raised by his grandmother because he had a drug and alcohol-addicted mother. He went on to become a U.S. Marine, attend Yale Law School, and serve as a U.S. Senator. He’s now going to be the Vice President of the United States. Tulsi Gabbard was born on a tiny island in American Samoa. Raised in Hawaii, she was first elected to office at just 21 years old, was the first Hindu member of Congress, and served in Iraq with the National Guard. Pete Hegseth, a self-described “low-level” Princeton basketball recruit from “nowhere Minnesota,” outhustled and outworked competitors on the hardwood and in the classroom, propelling himself through two Ivy League degrees, multiple combat deployments, and a successful career as a newscaster and author. Vivek Ramaswamy is a first-generation born American with parents who immigrated from India. He grew up in Ohio, went to Harvard University and then Yale Law School, and possessed an entrepreneurial spirit. By the time he was in law school, he was worth millions — by age 38, his wealth was almost a billion dollars. These are not Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Bushes, or Roosevelts taking America’s helm. These are young Americans who have served their country, worked hard, and overcome the odds out of sheer determination and self-motivation. That’s the American dream. And we’re here to tell you that it’s very much alive and well. So, call me crazy, but I feel like vindication is coming for us children of the ‘80s. Buried beneath the memes and regrettable fashion choices of our youth resides something missed by the countless studies, criticisms, and magazine articles — hearts that beat for One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All. READ MORE: Trump Cabinet Picks Will Balance Energy Abundance With True Conservation Controversial Appointees, Clay Pigeons, and Successful Governmental Politics Americans Need Brendan Carr as FCC Chair to Rein in Big Tech Tiffany Marie Brannon is the writer and host of the TMB Problems podcast. The post New Kids on the Block appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Democrats are making populist pratfalls trying to imitate Donald Trump.  They know they have a problem with the American people, even as they publicly deny it.  Yet, as they try to address it, they only make their problem worse.  The reason is that instead of talking to “the people,” Democrats are talking to “their people” instead. Exit polling showed Democrats losing voters making less than $50,000 by 48-50 percent and voters making less than $100,000 by 47-51 percent. That the Democrats are out of touch is clear.  At least it is to all but their Woke elements.  Democrat strategist James Carville sounded the warning right after the election, attributing much of the Democrats’ problems to “the unfortunate events of what I would refer to as the woke era.”  For a large portion of the electorate, “the image stuck in people’s minds that the Democrats wanted to defund the police, wanted to empty prisons.” Senator Bernie Sanders comes to the same conclusion from the opposite angle: “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.” Despite coming from opposite ends, the two arrive at the same conclusion: Democrats have lost touch with America’s middle and working classes. Although Democrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi refuse to acknowledge this, Democrats are clearly trying to rectify it. Immediately after the election, a host of Democrat officials announced defiance to an administration still months away from taking office.  They have thrown down their gauntlets on abortion, illegal immigration, transgender surgery, and electric vehicles. In some, they have upped the ante: Illinois Governor Pritzker vowed more transgender surgeries in his state, while San Diego declared itself a “super sanctuary” for illegal immigrants. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tried to also sound the populist tocsin saying, “people can only be pushed so far” and that “the visceral response from people across the country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system.” As these positions demonstrate, the problem for Democrats is that when they reach out to “the people,” they invariably reach out to their people.  Such cocoon conversations make them tone-deaf as they take positions more important to them than to the majority of Americans — or worse yet, that Americans oppose. As evidence, simply look at Biden’s approval rating on the issue would-be Democrat populists most frequently raise: illegal immigration — a primary reason Democrats lost in November.  According to Real Clear Politics’s Dec. 18 average of national polls, only 34.8 percent of Americans approve of Joe Biden’s performance on immigration, while 63 percent disapprove.  Vowing to oppose Trump on illegal immigration only plays to average Americans’ prejudice against the Democrat Party on this issue. Abortion is another issue on which Democrats believe they are speaking for “the people” when instead speaking for their own.  In November, Harris won overwhelmingly with those wanting to go beyond Roe v. Wade.  According to exit polling, Harris won 88 percent among those who want abortion “legal in all cases” (i.e., beyond the restriction that Roe v. Wade allowed); however, those holding this position made up just 33 percent of 2024 presidential voters. Clearly, Democrats imagine they are helping themselves with their recent attempts at populism.  However, Democrats’ failure to connect with “the people” doesn’t lie in pursuing the wrong issues (though they are) and saying the wrong things (though they are doing this too).  Democrats’ real problem runs far deeper. Simply, for Democrats, their people are not “the people.”  Democrats have become an elitist tribe that revels in their self-perceived superiority.  They therefore can’t talk to “the people” because they don’t know them, they can’t talk like the people because they don’t listen to them, and they can’t talk about the people’s problems because they don’t share them. # # # READ MORE from J.T. Young: Democrats Double Down on Elitism Don’t Mistake the Gaetz Nomination for a Misstep Biden’s Perfect Payback J.T. Young is the author of the new book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing and has over three decades’ experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury, and OMB, and representing a Fortune 20 company. The post Democrats Mistake Their People for ‘The People’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from DollarVigilante: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by John Binder, Breitbart: Tens of millions of native-born Americans are out of the labor market as foreign-born workers account for all net job growth over the last year, new analysis details. The analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) tracks the decline in labor force participation among native-born Americans from 1960 to 2024 — an […]