UTL COMMENT:- I gotta make some of this stuff myself!!!

For over 30 years now, possibly more, The American Spectator has been holding monthly meetings, usually in local eateries. We continue to do this despite the atrocious manners of some of our guests, most notably guests who are members of Congress, usually from the Northeast. We invite them even when they arrive late and with precautionary soup stains on their shirts, along with other telltale signs warning that their manners are not up to snuff. We invite them because they have proven track records that they are lively conversationalists, though most are prone to lying. The most recent congressman to bend the truth was the Hon. Matt Gaetz from the great state of Florida — though he would have bent many more truths had I not taken immediate action. More on that matter later. It all began hundreds of miles from Washington, D.C., and many years ago. In fact, we auspicated the magazine where it all began, in Bloomington, Indiana, over 50 years ago. In those days, our guests were not as tony as they are nowadays, and, as I recall, many sat on the floor; and some drank their beer out of glass jars. Though back in those days, most of us had an excuse for our slovenliness. We were mere students at Indiana University. Still, some of our guests came from out of town, for instance, Pat Moynihan, at the time Sen. Pat Moynihan, and Bill Buckley, whose name you will doubtless recognize. Both of them spoke in a curiously accented English and neither of them drank their beer from a jar. Pat, in fact, drank vodka and Bill drank what he called claret. Those days were what is today called “the good old days.” They will never come again, alas. Now it transpires that Congressman Gaetz is, of a sudden, known as ex-Congressman Gaetz, and I like to think that it is in part because of a dustup that he invited upon himself at a meeting of our monthly club (which has come to be known as the Saturday Evening Club, though it never meets on Saturday evening). At any rate, somehow Gaetz wangled an invitation to be guest speaker at one of our dinners. I was waiting for him as he entered the room. In due course, rumor would have it that his nomination for attorney general was in trouble. There was talk of Gaetz being a womanizer, a drinker, a drug user, and other unseemly practices. Did he brush his teeth after dinner? Who knew? What could have President Donald Trump been thinking when he considered such a rogue for the highest legal position in the government? Well, it turns out that once again the president-elect had pulled a rabbit out of his hat. In merely contemplating Gaetz’s appointment by allowing the rumor to spread that Gaetz had the job locked up, the Congress was roused to action, and at no cost to Mr. Trump. Gaetz bailed and the president got a competent replacement, Pam Bondi. But what about me standing in wait outside our dinner that night at the Saturday Evening Club? As he approached, I prepared my riposte. “Congressman, after the way you treated my staff, you are no longer invited to the Saturday Evening Club,” I said. His eyes widened. I detected his temples were beginning to throb. He called his wife away from the bar. He had been stupendously rude to my staff. Mr. Gaetz was finished in Washington. The post Throw the Bum Out appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated San Francisco attorney Harmeet Dhillon to lead the Civil Rights Division of the federal Department of Justice. As NBC News reports, the India-born Dhillon is “also on track to be the first Sikh American to hold the position.” There’s more about Harmeet Dhillon that people should know, and NBC gives the people cause to wonder. An India-born nominee would be more accurately described as an Indian American, in the style of African American, Mexican American, and so forth. “Sikh” refers to a religion, not a nationality and it’s hard to think of Department of Justice officials described as Catholic Americans, Buddhist Americans, or Hindu Americans. India-born Harmeet Dhillon is dark-skinned, yet she is not described as a “woman of color” or “person of color.” This description is often invoked for DEI hires, but skin shade has nothing to do with qualifications for a key Department of Justice post. Dartmouth College graduate Harmeet Dhillon earned her juris doctorate at the University of Virginia, where she was on the board of the Virginia Law Review. Dhillon clerked for Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U. S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Constitutional Torts Section of the Civil Division (D.C.).  Dhillon is also a former member of the board of directors for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, but her critics are not impressed. “Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them,” contends Maya Wiley, president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. That invites a look at Dhillon’s record on civil rights. In 2020, when California Gov. Gavin Newsom shut down the state, Dhillon filed suit against his draconian stay-at-home rules. “The governor has chosen to limit protests to zero in this state which is outrageous and absurd,” Dhillon told reporters. For small businesses there was “no appeal process, no selection criteria,” and “going to church to worship communally is a First Amendment-protected activity and while it does not sustain the level of protection as protests, petitions, the press, other forms of speech, it is protected under the constitution and we believe it is unconstitutional for the governor to impose restrictions on worship that are broader than necessary to achieve the government’s interests.” Those unfamiliar with Gov. Newsom’s lockdown should also see California’s rules for gatherings during the pandemic. “All gatherings must be held outside” and “mixing between groups gathering is not allowed.” Masks were mandatory and the six-foot distancing rule enforced “in all directions,” but there was more to it. “Singing, chanting, shouting, cheering, and similar activities are strongly discouraged in all settings” and singers “should wear a face covering at all times.” Playing of trumpets, clarinets, and such “is strongly discouraged, and if played should use protective or tightly woven cloth barriers on the instrument bells.” And so on, with Gov. Newsom disregarding his own mask rules at a French Laundry bash with a squad of unmasked lobbyists. As it turned out, the masks were practically useless, and the six-foot distancing rule, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, “just sort of appeared” and was not based on science. As people across the country should know, the lockdown measures were hardly the only violation of civil rights. In 1996, Californians passed Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), which banned racial and ethnic preferences in state education, employment, and contracting. California’s education establishment fought CCRI from the start and has now established a vast DEI bureaucracy that serves no educational purpose and violates state law. If confirmed, California attorney Harmeet Dhillon could be the first Justice official to take on government DEI discrimination nationwide. So her nomination could indeed be historic. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Californians Could Seriously Benefit From DOGE in ‘Trump-Proofed’ California The Golden State Unleashes the Anonymous Snoop Dogs University of California at Planned Parenthood Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Harmeet Dhillon, Trump’s Choice for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Battled Woke Policies in California appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Dec. 26, 1991, the upper house of the Soviet legislature officially voted to end the empire that was the Soviet Union. The day before, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last ruler, announced his resignation, and Russian leader Boris Yeltsin had the Russian tricolour raised over the Kremlin. Geopolitically, the event’s historical significance rivaled Napoleon’s abdication on June 22, 1815, after the Battle of Waterloo, and the end of the Nazi-led German empire on May 8, 1945. All three events marked the end of a hegemonic challenge to the global balance of power. For the subjects of the Soviet Union, December 26, 1991, meant the end of an evil empire that rose from the ashes of the First World War.  The origins of the evil Soviet empire can be traced to the Jacobins of the French Revolution and the writings of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, Georgy Plekhanov, Alexander Herzen, Mikhail Bakunin, and Pyotr Tkachev, among others, as interpreted and implemented by Vladimir Lenin. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences. Lenin created what the great historian Paul Johnson called the “first despotic utopia.” Lenin personified, Johnson wrote, “the replacement of the religious impulse by the will to power.” Johnson described him as “the first of a new species: the professional organizer of totalitarian politics.” In What is to Be Done?, Lenin wrote that the Bolsheviks would achieve power not by passively awaiting the arrival of the historical forces noted by Marx and Engels, but by seizing power as “vanguard fighters.” The Bolsheviks seized power in the fall of 1917, in a classic coup d’ etat, not a popular revolution, and at once imposed the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which lasted until 1991.  As Richard Pipes noted, Lenin and the Bolsheviks “took power for the express purpose of beginning widespread armed conflict, first in Russia and then in Europe and the rest of the world.” But first, Lenin consolidated power in Russia. He founded the Cheka as an instrument of domestic terror and opened the first camps of the Gulag. He eliminated all other political parties while assuming control of the Communist Party. He ended the war with Germany and “defended the revolution” by winning a civil war inside Russia. When necessary, ideology was tossed aside in favor of practical power considerations, as with the New Economic Policy. But the goal of a worldwide communist revolution remained a cornerstone of the Bolshevik regime, as manifested in the formation of the Comintern, which was dedicated to promoting world revolution. Imperialism was in the DNA of the communist regime. Joseph Stalin did not stray from the Leninist program; he fulfilled it. He greatly expanded the Gulag, purged all political rivals within the party, and collectivized agriculture, which reproduced the conditions that had led to famine under Lenin in 1921, but on a much greater scale in Ukraine and elsewhere. The Comintern’s work was continued and expanded. Communist parties sprang up throughout Europe, Asia, and in the Western Hemisphere, including especially in the United States. Stalin readily allied with Hitler to begin the European phase of the Second World War and divide up Eastern and Central Europe. When Hitler double-crossed him, Stalin accepted aide from the U.S. and Britain to defeat Hitler while continuing his war against his own people. At war’s end, Stalin’s armies occupied territories in Europe and Asia that became part of the Soviet empire with Western acquiescence. Stalinism, as James Burnham wrote, was Leninism.  Stalin’s death in 1953 led to a lessening of the terror within the empire, but revolts were crushed in East Germany and Hungary, and later in Czechoslovakia. The empire remained evil and imperialistic. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets engaged in a massive conventional and nuclear weapons build-up and waged proxy wars around the globe. Dissidents within the empire were still killed, imprisoned in the Gulag or psychiatric hospitals, or exiled. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration exploited vulnerabilities within the empire to eventually end Soviet rule, but even in the 80s the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner, dropped bombs disguised as toys to kill Afghan children, attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II, and continued to imprison and exile dissidents. The Soviet empire was evil right up to the time it collapsed. The day it officially ended should be celebrated.  READ MORE: 46 Years Ago, the Soviet Empire’s End Was Set in Motion The History of Communism Must Not Be Repeated Leftists Blatantly Celebrate Lenin’s Legacy in New Book The post Dec. 26, 1991: The Soviet Union Officially Dissolves appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It is Christmas time. Sometimes we have to spend these days in the hospital. Sometimes in bed, with the thermometer and piles of medicines. Sometimes we have to spend these days away from home. Or in solitude. Sometimes we have to spend these days under the pain of depression, and the joy around us repels us, makes us feel even further away from the real world. Sometimes we have to work, or travel, or the broken-down car prevents us from arriving on time for dinner, or a friend with a serious problem needs our presence at such an important time. Sometimes we have just been dumped by a girlfriend, sometimes it bothers us to share a table with the new faces of the extended family, sometimes it hurts us to see up close the small or big miseries that, as everywhere, appear amongst those closest to us.  Sometimes the soul is asleep and we neither pray nor are moved to contemplate the Nativity Scene, sometimes the old carols make us too sad, and no longer warm our hearts. Sometimes we are too focused on the fact that in a few days something important will happen at work. Sometimes even the joyful cries of children may annoy us, make us want to run away from the noise and happiness of others. Sometimes we don’t manage to feel quite right at Christmas, sometimes the major days of these celebrations pass us by in a hurry, and sometimes time passes so slowly that even the rituals we used to enjoy are tiring. Sometimes our body gives off signs that it is not quite well, sometimes the doctor has forbidden us to go near Christmas delicacies, and sometimes a simple domestic malfunction ruins our Christmas peace. Sometimes you have to hide in your room and cry because it’s hard to see for the first time how a father or grandfather doesn’t remember what they said just a minute ago, or they don’t even know who we are, sometimes you don’t feel like talking and everyone wants to give you conversation, and sometimes even the most harmless joke at the table eats away at you and scratches at your soul. Sometimes the years and days weigh you down, sometimes you would like to be older to gain independence, sometimes your country is a totalitarian cage and it is hard to celebrate, and other times you simply have to do it on the sly because radicalism has settled around you. Sometimes there is no money and austerity is so extreme that images of yesterday’s lavish parties keep popping up in your imagination, sometimes you are ashamed of the nonsense you say after three glasses of wine, and sometimes you miss all the family board games because your head is so many miles away.  Sometimes you miss too much the one who is not there, sometimes you feel that you lack the peace that everyone seems to overflow with these days, sometimes you look at the sky searching for God and do not find him, and sometimes you think that nothing will ever be like in the bright days of yesteryear. Sometimes you dress listlessly out of sheer apathy and condition your celebration to fail, sometimes you cook and burn your turkey or homemade Christmas treats, sometimes you don’t find any Christmas memes funny, and sometimes you miss Capra movies on modern television. Sometimes Christmas seems to have forgotten to return to your home, sometimes the sky bursts into rain and there is no more snow, sometimes someone scolds you unfairly on Christmas Day. Sometimes the bells of your home are unable to ring, sometimes not even the books want to keep you company, sometimes you wish, in short, that this year there was no Christmas. I’m sure that at least some of these things have happened to you, and believe me I understand you, because I’ve felt like that too. And yet, the great miracle of these days is that it doesn’t matter what happens around us, what our heart bleeds, the loneliness we may endure. It is Christmas, God becomes a Child in Bethlehem, and because He is a child, daring, funny, and reckless, He will come to your heart and make a place for Himself, accommodating Himself to your circumstances. That’s why it’s always, always Christmas when Christmas comes. Thanks be to God. Merry Christmas to my friends and readers of The American Spectator. The post It’s Always Christmas at Christmas, Even When Things Don’t Feel Quite Right appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In an era where digital interaction often eclipses physical connection, the conservative movement must champion not just the preservation of traditional values, but also the protection of our most vulnerable: our children. The pervasive influence of social media on the young psyche cannot be understated, and while the digital realm offers unprecedented opportunities for connection and knowledge, it also harbors a dark underbelly that threatens to undermine the very fabric of childhood. Here, I propose not merely a ban on social media for children under 16, but a reimagining of our digital society through a conservative lens. The crux of conservatism has always been about conserving what is good, about protecting the innocence and development of our youth. Social media, in its current form, is antithetical to these ideals. It’s not merely about curbing the hours spent on these platforms; it’s about safeguarding the mind from the relentless barrage of content designed to captivate, addict, and, often, corrupt. First, let’s address the elephant in the room: mental health. The correlation between social media use and the rise in anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues among young people is not coincidental. The algorithms of social media are sophisticated, designed not to educate or uplift but to ensnare users in a cycle of engagement for profit. This is digital dopamine, a virtual drug that our children are unwittingly addicted to from an age when their brains are still forming critical neural pathways. Numerous studies have quantified the alarming impact of social media on youth mental health. A 2020 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that teenagers who spent more than three hours a day on social media were 60 percent more likely to experience depression and anxiety compared to their peers who spent less time online (Hertz et al., 2020). Furthermore, a 2019 report by the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) revealed that Instagram in particular had a profoundly negative effect on young people’s mental health, with 45 percent of respondents ages 14 to 24 reporting that the platform made them feel inadequate or unhappy. These statistics underscore the urgent need for measures to protect young people from the corrosive effects of social media, and a ban on under-16 access is a crucial step in this direction. The conservative ethos values personal responsibility, yet how can we expect children, whose prefrontal cortexes are not fully developed until their mid-20s, to exercise such maturity? The onus should not be on the child to navigate this treacherous digital landscape but on society to shield them from its more predatory aspects. Here, government intervention is not an overreach but a necessary guardianship. Moreover, the argument for privacy and security has never been more compelling. Social media platforms collect vast amounts of data, often with little regard for the privacy implications for minors. In a conservative view, where individual rights and freedoms are paramount, the digital footprints of our children should not be bartered for corporate gain. A ban would force a reckoning with how we approach data privacy, potentially leading to a more responsible internet ecosystem where children’s data is not the currency. From an educational perspective, we’ve seen a decline in critical thinking and real-world interaction, which are foundational to conservative ideals of education. Social media often encourages a culture of instant gratification and shallow engagement. By removing this distraction, we could see a renaissance in the value of deep learning, of reading, of engaging in activities that do not require a screen. Imagine a world where children are encouraged to explore nature, engage in sports, or delve into books, rather than being tethered to an algorithm’s whims. But let’s not shy away from the cultural implications. Social media has become a breeding ground for ideologies that often oppose conservative values, from radical political views to distorted body images, to the erosion of traditional family structures. By delaying exposure to these platforms, we give children a chance to form their identities within the nurturing confines of family and community before the cacophony of the global digital village overwhelms them. Yet, this isn’t merely about shielding our children; it’s also about redefining the digital space. Banning under-16 access can be the catalyst for tech companies to innovate toward platforms that are not just safe but beneficial for young minds. Here’s where conservatism can lead: by pushing for a digital environment where technology is a tool for education, creativity, and constructive social interaction rather than a portal for consumption and manipulation. Now, to address the liberal critique of such a ban infringing on free speech: This isn’t about censorship but about timing and appropriateness. Just as we have laws preventing children from engaging in certain activities for their own good (such as voting, drinking, or driving), we should consider social media in the same light. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from age-appropriate protections. The implementation of such a ban would require a nuanced approach. Age verification could be handled through secure, non-invasive methods, perhaps with blockchain technology ensuring privacy while confirming age. Enforcement could be more about incentivizing responsible platform behavior than punitive measures, encouraging companies to develop safer digital playgrounds. This proposal isn’t about turning back the clock but about moving forward with intention. It’s about ensuring that when our children eventually step into the digital world, they do so with a foundation of moral clarity, critical thinking, and resilience. It’s about redefining our digital future so that technology serves the human spirit, not the other way around. This isn’t just a call for a ban but a call to action for conservatives to lead in reimagining our digital society. It’s an opportunity to set a precedent globally for how we view the intersection of technology, childhood, and society. By advocating for this ban, we are not only protecting our children but also paving the way for a digital culture that aligns with conservative values of responsibility, privacy, education, and moral integrity. Let us not wait for another generation to be lost to the digital void. Let’s act now, with both heart and foresight, to ensure our children’s digital inheritance is one of empowerment, not entrapment. The post Conservatives Should Safeguard Kids From Social Media appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Remember that H1B-visa workers wrote this memo AT FACEBOOK directing them to implement more DEI, be racists against whites, and open the floodgates of H1Bs to “China”. Lets make this go viral, ?? ?? pic.twitter.com/o4JNMhhJvI — Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower (@Perpetualmaniac) December 26, 2024

from Dr.Bryan Ardis: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Your News: A recently released CIA document reveals a startling remote viewing experiment suggesting Mars may have been home to an advanced civilization facing extinction. By yourNEWS Media Newsroom A recently resurfaced CIA document, declassified in 2017, describes an extraordinary experiment conducted on May 22, 1984. Part of the U.S. government’s secretive “Project Stargate,” the […]