Look what they’ve done to my song‚ ma Look what they’ve done to my song It was the only thing that I could do half right and it’s turning out all wrong‚ ma Look what they’ve done to my song. Melanie‚ Look What They’ve Done to My Song‚ Ma I had a late sixties flashback last week prompted by two of the era’s female icons. It began glumly on Tuesday with the death of Melanie (Safka)‚ whose music stardom launched at Woodstock. I was a kid in 1969 but still remember clips from the decade’s ultimate concert. Amid all the gritty legendary rockers like Richie Havens‚ Arlo Guthrie‚ Joan Baez‚ the Grateful Dead‚ Santana‚ and Hendrix appeared a pretty‚ guitar-strumming hippie chick who went by the single name “Melanie.” Her career took off then and into the early seventies with hit songs Candle in the Rain‚ Brand New Key‚ and Look What They’ve Done to My Song‚ Ma. But being a movie nerd instead of a rock fan (that came in the eighties for me)‚ I most recall Melanie for her great‚ poetic main titles song to producer-director Stanley Kramer’s inept paean to late 60s campus turmoil‚ R.P.M.: Reason is the only way to stop what we’re creating But reason sometimes turns into another word for waiting But stop! I don’t want to hear it No‚ I don’t want to hear it anymore … Beginning in the 1950s‚ Kramer managed to stay on the cutting edge of social justice with fine pictures such as High Noon (1952 — McCarthyism)‚ The Defiant Ones (1958 — racism)‚ On the Beach (1959 — nuclear trepidation)‚ Inherit the Wind (1960 — Christian fundamentalist intransigence)‚ and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967 — racism). But things changed quickly in the late 60s‚ and when Kramer tackled college protests in 1970‚ the energy was already seeping out of them. Unlike the interminable George Floyd drumbeat‚ the longest legacy of the Kent State student shootings by Ohio National Guardsmen was the ghastly Crosby‚ Stills‚ Nash and Young song‚ Four Dead in Ohio. The new collegians are more contemptuous of conservative‚ Christian‚ Jewish‚ and Asian students than the Man ever was of liberals. Nonetheless‚ R.P.M. remains a fascinating cinematic curio to which Melanie’s lovely yet forgotten contribution‚ Stop! I Don’t Want to Hear It Anymore‚ is the highlight. The film depicts an administration building takeover by campus radicals led by a ridiculously too old Gary Lockwood (2001: A Space Odyssey). They demand the college president be fired and replaced with hip lib professor Anthony Quinn. Quinn tries to negotiate with the militants only to learn he’s now the Man in their view. Ultimately‚ after much absurd agonizing‚ Quinn feels he has no choice but to send in the state National Guard (archaic spoiler alert). The sequence of the Guards forcefully removing the students from the building is laughably reminiscent of the Odessa Steps massacre in Sergei Eisentstein’s Battleship Potemkin. Fifty-plus years later‚ the irony is palpable. Campus radicals comprise the main student body‚ with the faculty and administration people their Greek chorus‚ or would be if they still taught Sophocles instead of Ibram Kendi (AKA Harry Rogers) and Transgender Empowerment. The new collegians are more contemptuous of conservative‚ Christian‚ Jewish‚ and Asian students than the Man ever was of liberals. They don’t want to debate realists‚ they want them silenced‚ canceled‚ erased in pursuit of their fantastical utopia. And they make their disdain obvious. After losing its diversity-hire president‚ Claudine Gay‚ partly for not opposing Jew hatred on campus‚ Harvard University hired a possible anti-Semite as co-chair of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Semitism. Quotes from the new appointee‚ Jewish History professor Derek Penslar‚ include‚ “Israel’s displacement of Palestinians from their land and oppression of those who remain have made it one of the most disliked countries on the planet.” Former Harvard president Larry Summers has had enough and posted as much on X. “After Friday’s new anti-Semitism announcement‚ I have lost confidence in the determination and ability of the Harvard Corporation and Harvard leadership to maintain Harvard as a place where Jews and Israelis can flourish.” The open hostility of today’s miseducated youth toward opposing thought and members of the non-victim — read‚ “privileged” — class shook another late 60s icon‚ Ruth Buzzi. Buzzi became widely if briefly famous on the decade-ending massive TV hit‚ Rowan &; Martin’s Laugh-In.  She continues to be extremely funny on X with witty posts like‚ “An anonymous scam caller said‚ ‘I have all your passwords.’ I grabbed a pencil and paper and said‚ “Thank God. What are they?’” (READ MORE: All in the Homily: On the Death of Norman Lear) But Buzzi was recently far more melancholic reflecting on the decline of youth culture in America‚ which her old show once dominated. “Just browsing through X looks like vehement hatred in America is at an all-time high‚” Buzzi posted. “Those once in flowers and bell-bottoms singing about peace‚ tolerance and love for all are now‚ sadly‚ doing a whole lot of the hating.” The people Buzzi knocks no longer fight the Establishment like Gary Lockwood and company did in R.P.M.. They are the Establishment in the same way Anthony Quinn became part of it when his character took political power in the movie. Pity Melanie won’t be around to slam them for it. For look what they’ve done to her song. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Beauty Survives the Left Heroes and Zeroes of 2023   The post Look What They’ve Done to My Song appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Senate Republicans have reportedly agreed to a bill that would encompass both aid to Ukraine and Israel and some purportedly new authorities for President Biden to increase security at our southern border. Let’s set aside the foreign aid questions for the moment.  The first question is whether the Senate deal will force Biden to change his open border policy. The answer is a thunderous “no.” To begin with‚ it’s perfectly clear that there is no need for new legislation to enhance Biden’s authority to control illegal immigration. Laws already on the books give him more than enough power to slow — and stop – illegal immigration. Biden refuses to exercise the powers he already has to do that. How could anyone believe that he’s going to exercise new power when he’s done everything possible to keep the border open for nearly four years? As this column has pointed out frequently‚ a nation without borders is not a nation. The situation on our borders — both north and south — is a critical danger to our national security. Illegal immigrants also bring crime and are‚ disproportionally‚ a burden on the states’ public welfare systems. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: SCOTUS Can Help Drain the Swamp by Overturning Chevron) We know that among the approximately eight million people who have entered the U.S. illegally since Biden became president‚ there are hundreds (thousands?) of men of military age. They come from countries such as China‚ Russia‚ Somalia‚ and too many other nations that are our adversaries. Last week ten high-ranking former FBI officials wrote a letter to Congress in which they said‚ “In its modern history‚ the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and‚ yet‚ one is unfolding now. Military aged men from across the globe‚ many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States‚ are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands … by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.” There had been about ten thousand illegals coming in daily‚ a figure that has dropped in recent weeks. Biden has caused this crisis through his open-border policy. He has allowed people who may be terrorists‚ spies‚ and saboteurs into the nation without limit. Is it worth delaying the aid to Ukraine and Israel in order to fix the border crisis? Yes. Is it worth shutting down the government over it? Yes. At the core of Biden’s dangerous policy is the assumption that all illegals’ requests for asylum are justified. That leads to the wrongheaded policy that all should be paroled into the U.S. until their asylum claims are adjudicated. The new deal — which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) has already rejected — would allow four thousand people per day to enter the U.S. and only give the president the authority to close the border to others if the daily number rises to five thousand a day (measured weekly) or more than 8‚500 in a single day. Under the Senate bill‚ the authority to close the border to more than the daily quota would be triggered automatically if the weekly or daily figures are exceeded‚ and the Department of Homeland Security is supposedly required to deny those exceeding the quotas entry. But those people would in fact be admitted to the U.S. and then detained until their asylum claims were adjudicated. (READ MORE: Gov. Abbott‚ Send Every Illegal to Washington‚ D.C.‚ From Now On) There are too many problems with this approach to catalogue here‚ but let’s hit a few. First‚ the establishment of the entry quotas legitimates illegal immigration. Set aside those “gotaways” who evade the Border Patrol and successfully enter the U.S. unknown to any part of our government. No Republican — really‚ no American — should vote to legitimize any illegal immigration. (As an aside‚ remember what Kammy Harris said last week. The Democrats’ objective is to legitimize illegal immigration and create a path to citizenship — which means voting rights — for the illegals. No one who comes into the U.S. illegally should ever be eligible for citizenship.) Second‚ no one can believe that Biden or DHS Secretary Alejandro Majorkas would ever use the authority that the Senate deal gives them. The senate bill reportedly gives them discretion to use the authority in “certain circumstances” which‚ under Biden‚ will never arise. Third‚ the Senate bill purportedly tightens asylum eligibility and would penalize repeat offenders by barring them from entry for a year. Why shouldn’t repeat offenders be barred permanently? Biden said on Friday that he would welcome the new quotas and is “excited” to exercise new border powers‚ but he demands new legislation before he does so. Again‚ no new laws are necessary. How could anyone believe that he’s going to exercise new power when he’s done everything possible to keep the border open for nearly four years? Simply put‚ no one can. Also on Friday‚ Speaker Johnson wrote a letter to the Republican House Caucus saying that the Senate bill would be “dead on arrival” in the House. Johnson wrote‚ If rumors about the contents of the draft proposal are true‚ it would have been dead on arrival in the House anyway. Nine months have now passed since we sent our Secure the Border Act (HR 2) to the Senate. As we have explained repeatedly‚ that bill contains the core legislative reforms that are necessary to actually compel the Biden administration to resolve the border catastrophe. The bill’s provisions include transformative corrections‚ such as the “Remain in Mexico” policy‚ the end of “Catch and Release‚” meaningful reforms to the existing broken asylum and parole systems‚ and continued construction of a wall at our southern border. Since the day I became Speaker‚ I have assured our Senate colleagues the House would not accept any counterproposal if it would not actually solve the problems that have been created by the administration’s subversive policies. Johnson has drawn a red line against the Senate bill and he must stick to it. Biden will never agree to his conditions‚ so the border legislation cannot be enacted. This column will always support aid to Israel and Ukraine because we have national security interests that require it. In Ukraine‚ it’s a derivative interest in stopping Putin. In Israel‚ it’s a vital national security interest that compels our assistance at every level. (READ MORE: Biden Urged Oppressed to Cross Border. Now There Are Caravans) Biden and the Dems insist that the border legislation should be decoupled from aid to Israel and Ukraine. If Johnson and House Republicans agree to decoupling the measures they will instantly give up their leverage on the border crisis. They can’t. Israel is continuing the war Hamas started with its October 7 attacks. It will do so with or without our help. As I’ve written elsewhere‚ Biden is trying to force Israel into a bad deal that will leave Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip and continuing its threat to Israel. At this point‚ Israel is better off without Biden’s “assistance.” Ukraine‚ on the other hand‚ is not doing well. Its armed forces are losing the war of attrition Russia is waging against it. The NATO/European Union nations are not doing what they should to aid Ukraine. We need to help both Ukraine and Israel. But those aid packages will have to wait until Biden is forced to change his policy on the border. Biden is agreeing to the Senate bill’s supposed limits on illegal immigration only because he believes that to not at least pretend to limit illegal immigration would hand the election to Trump. Johnson needs to stick to his guns. Let’s hope Trump will again focus on the border issue and regain the presidency. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Hitting the Houthis and Other Biden Mistakes Israel’s Implacable Court Foreseeable Consequences   The post Another Bad Border Deal appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Argentine President Milei’s recent address at the Davos Economic Forum sent shockwaves worldwide‚ particularly among developed nations. He vehemently criticized socialism and collectivism‚ asserting that these attractive ideals often mislead people‚ providing a pretext for ultra-left politicians to seize power and manipulate the economy. Historical evidence suggests that adherence to leftist socialism and collectivism leads to economic hardship and societal suffering. The recession presents a rare opportunity for democracies to demand structural changes in China that will separate the state from business.   Milei contends that embracing economic freedom‚ grounded in private property rights and the abandonment of state intervention‚ fosters economic growth and prosperity. He identifies Argentina’s economic challenges as stemming from an expansive welfare system‚ irresponsible fiscal policies stifling private initiatives‚ and a plethora of bureaucratic obstacles. Argentina boasts the largest welfare system in the developing world‚ encompassing utilities‚ transportation‚ and retirement. For instance‚ the government subsidizes electricity consumption‚ resulting in a nominal monthly bill of merely five cents. (READ MORE from Shaomin Li: The Sickness and Outlook of the Chinese Economy) Argentina is not alone in this uncontrollable state expansion. All developed economies face the same problem of a bloated bureaucracy‚ unsustainably high welfare‚ and inflationary policies. Thus‚ Milei’s speech is a much-needed wake-up call for Western capitalism that is creating Dr. Frankenstein’s monster in virtually every developed nation. Capitalism exists in many forms‚ and some of them do not deliver economic development but are ridden with corruption and poverty. While bad capitalism may be in many forms‚ good capitalism‚ the types that deliver growth and prosperity‚ all have the following four building blocks. First‚ a fair and effective rule of law; second‚ a well-protected system of private property rights; third‚ a market of free exchange; and fourth‚ an effective system of incentives‚ i.e.‚ low taxes. In the West‚ the leftist policies are undermining the rule of law and distorting the market; high taxes and welfare reduce people’s incentive to work. Milei told the world that restoring good capitalism requires small government or even no government intervention‚ where individual property rights are protected‚ and people exchange freely in the market. In a perfect world‚ he was right.  But there is one country in this world‚ China‚ which is the opposite. Not only has the government not shrunk‚ but it continues to expand and has more and more control over society and the economy. Moreover‚ the CCP’s model of control over the country is not inefficient and has high levels of welfare‚ as Milei portrays. While the world is focusing on how Milei’s speech shook the West‚ many observers conveniently ignore the most powerful threat to free market capitalism — the Chinese Communist Party. China’s problems are not the socialist path that Milei criticizes. China is a CCP-led capitalism. In terms of the intensity of competition‚ China is actually very market-oriented; for example‚ in consumer goods and services‚ competition is cut-throat. So‚ the problem is not that the Chinese economy under the CCP’s powerful rule is inefficient and wasteful or lacks competition. (READ MORE: Why Has the CCP Banned Demonizing America?) The problem is that the Chinese Communist Party manages the whole of China as a giant corporation‚ which I call China‚ Inc.‚ with the CCP as the management and the general secretary as the CEO. The CCP can mobilize the resources of the entire country to compete as a company in the world market. China is the only country in the world that practices this model.  If we use sports as an analogy‚ in a capitalist country that abides by the rule of law‚ the free market is an arena where individuals and enterprises are the athletes in the arena‚ and the state is the referee. This model can be extended to the international market‚ where investors and companies are athletes‚ and governments still play the role of referees through the WTO‚ the United Nations‚ etc. Of course‚ they may also act as coaches for the athletes in their home countries. However‚ governments must refrain from being athletes who compete in the market for business. However‚ through China‚ Inc.‚ the government is an athlete competing in the international market. With the huge resources of the government and the high flexibility of enterprises in the international market‚ China‚ Inc. is predatorily competitive. Private companies in other countries around the world‚ no matter how big‚ are no match for it.  The way in which China‚ Inc. dominates an industry in the world is that it first assigns high priority to the industry‚ mobilizes resources from the entire country to support it‚ bars foreign competitors‚ acquires the most advanced technologies‚ legally or illegally‚ and mass-produces to improve efficiency and to achieve low costs‚ and finally‚ dominates the world’s market. China‚ Inc. has successfully dominated the world markets of telecom‚ EV batteries‚ solar power‚ and high-speed rail. The most recent case is the EV industry. The CCP invested heavily in domestic EV makers and invited Tesla to China so that the Chinese firms could learn from it. It hired talent away from Tesla‚ and some even suspected that it sent agents to work in Tesla as workers. Then‚ the CCP imposed restrictions on Telsa’s market in China. If Tesla had accidents‚ the state’s propaganda department would highlight them in media and fan criticism‚ but when domestic maker BYD’s batteries exploded‚ the state banned reporting. With the support of the CCP‚ BYD has become the largest EV producer and exporter in the world. Elon Musk recently commented‚ “If there are no trade barriers established‚ they [the Chinese car makers] will pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world.” Asked about Musk’s comments‚ the Chinese foreign ministry said that it was unaware of the reports but advocated “maintaining a fair‚ just‚ and open business environment.” What the CCP official really means is that it wants all governments to open their markets‚ stay out of business‚ and allow China‚ Inc. to take their markets freely! This‚ of course‚ is not sustainable for the rest of the world. From this perspective‚ leaders of democracies around the world‚ including Milei‚ need to think carefully: If the world’s developed democracies become small governments‚ how can they stand up to China‚ Inc? (READ MORE: China’s Li Keqiang Is Finally Free) If they allow China‚ Inc. to roam freely in the world market‚ before they can restore “small government and no intervention‚” they will be demolished by it. Unfortunately‚ most do not even know how the CCP runs the country and the real threat of China‚ Inc.   (To help the democratic world understand and effectively counter China‚ Inc.‚ I have written extensively about it.)  The flipside of China‚ Inc.’s unified command is its susceptibility to CEO errors. Now‚ its CEO‚ Xi Jinping‚ has made a series of policy blunders‚ pushing the Chinese economy into a recession. The recession presents a rare opportunity for democracies to demand structural changes in China that will separate the state from business.   Shaomin Li is a Professor of International Business at Old Dominion University and the author of The Rise of China‚ Inc.: How the Chinese Communist Party Transformed China into a Giant Corporation. The post China Is One Giant Corporation … And It Cheats appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

RETURN ADDRESS: Mr. Abraham Lincoln Eighth and Jackson Streets Springfield‚ Heaven 77777 January 29‚ 2024 Hon. Donald Trump The Mar-a-Lago Club Palm Beach‚ Florida 33480 My Dear Sir: Our mutual acquaintance‚ Pres. Nixon‚ asked me to reach out to you.  We were at the weekly poker game last night‚ with some of the other Republican gentlemen‚ and he told me about your situation‚ and asked me to write to you‚ to give you what little guidance I could provide.  I know he thinks very highly of you‚ and wishes you the best.  Oh — and Pres. Reagan conveys his good wishes to you as well. In regards to your recent comments regarding the great Civil War‚ I greatly appreciate your offer‚ and I wish you had been available back then to assist me in preserving the Union.  I can assure you that I certainly tried‚ again and again‚ to negotiate with the Southern Democrats.  But they were dead set to protect their peculiar institution and they just wouldn’t be reasoned with.  When I tried to do so‚ they took up arms and instigated their great insurrection. Speaking of which‚ I was told that the Democrats are trying to keep you off the ballot on some states‚ claiming that you yourself have led an insurrection against the Union. As Mr. Reagan has said often about these gentlemen‚ there they go again!  In my first election‚ the Democrats also barred me from some state ballots in the South. What they are doing to you seems unfair to me‚ but then again‚ maybe‚ in all humility‚ we should acknowledge that the Democrats certainly do have some expertise regarding insurrections. Mr. Nixon has told me that you like to write letters.  As I understand him‚ these letters aren’t written on paper‚ but on something else‚ and they are sent through the air‚ attached to some sort of a tweeting bird.  I am guessing a sparrow.  He mentioned something about the letter X too‚ but I must confess that I didn’t really understand it.  As an old country lawyer from Illinois‚ I don’t always comprehend that new technology you modern gentlemen have. Mr. Nixon also said that sometimes your letters were just a little bit too mean for people‚ and‚ as a result‚ they have been used against you.  I understand that.  We all sometimes get a little too heated for our own good.  There have been plenty of times I have done that‚ myself. But I have found that it is dangerous to write letters which can possibly be distorted.  There are men on the constant watch for such things out of which to prejudice others against you. Mr. Nixon asked me to tell you my tale of Edwin Stanton‚ my Secretary of War.  Stanton is a bright fellow — I still see him every once in a while‚ up here — but he sometimes has a terrible temper. One day‚ Stanton was cussing up a storm‚ stomping his feet‚ and his face was turning a bright shade of red.  One of our generals — I forget which one — had done something foolish‚ and Stanton was distressed about it.  So‚ after hearing him complain for more than a few minutes‚ I suggested that he write a letter to that general expressing his true feelings on the matter.  I encouraged Stanton to stick it to‚ even scorch‚ the general‚ if he thought it was appropriate. Well‚ Stanton went home‚ and two days later‚ he came back to me with that finished letter.  I read it‚ and I must confess‚ it definitely was a humdinger.  So‚ I ripped it up.  Then I told him my own belief‚ which I say again to you — you don’t want to send that letter.  Put it in the stove.  That’s what I do when I’ve written a letter when I’m angry.  It’s a humdinger of a letter and you’ve had a hell of a good time writing it.  Now burn it and write another letter to send out by your sparrow. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity.  I tell it merely to express a truth that I have learned from hard experience. In regards to your campaign for the Presidency‚ I say let no feeling of discouragement prey upon you‚ and in the end‚ you are sure to succeed.  Never doubt that a just God‚ in his own good time‚ will give us the rightful result. Your Sincere Friend and Obedient Servant‚ A. Lincoln PS: I believe I once met your opponent‚ during my travels in Delaware.  He was quite a talkative young fellow‚ but without a lick of common sense‚ if I remember correctly. READ MORE TAS Satire: A Message for the New Year The New York Times Apologizes … Sort Of General Strangedove‚ or How I Learned to Stop Winning and Love Defeat Adam Turner is a foreign policy expert and national security professional‚ with two decades of experience on Capitol Hill and in Washington DC.   The post A Letter From Lincoln appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The advanced age of Joe Biden is on the ballot in November‚ when he will be almost 82 years old. You can view his physical stumbles‚ his angry tirades at the sky‚ his sentences that trail off into the void where they die a cold and lonely death‚ and rightly wonder what goes on behind closed doors in high-level discussions about the economy‚ Russia and China. You can watch his cringe-worthy live appearances that include shout-outs to dead people and hand-shakes with the thin air‚ and conclude‚ like 75 percent of Americans‚ that he is simply too old to be president. You can also view video of Biden from just a few years ago and note the rapidity of his decline. Which brings me to vice president Kamala Harris. Joe Biden is no Dwight Eisenhower. And for that matter‚ Kamala Harris is no Richard Nixon. Harris is not just a heartbeat away from the presidency; she is a slip and fall away from the presidency. The problem for the Democrats is that the lightweight Harris polls even lower than Biden‚ no small feat. What to do? The Washington Post has put forth a solution. In a recent article about the election of 1956‚ the Post noted many similarities to today. Dwight Eisenhower was then the second oldest man to run for president and he had a heart condition (Biden is now the oldest man to run for president). Richard Nixon was then Eisenhower’s unpopular vice-president. Likewise‚ Harris is now Biden’s unpopular vice-president. (READ MORE from Kevin Brady: College Presidents and the New Multi-Racial America) And yet Eisenhower won re-election. He went on to a successful second term without having to resort to his vice-president‚ who‚ in any event‚ was later twice elected on his own. Isn’t it obvious? Biden can win! Harris can wait! Yes we can!  Pondering this over‚ I retreated to my local watering hole and fell into a reverie over my favorite bar room conversation: Who was the greatest American president — and why? If you find yourself in this situation and the guy on the stool next to you names Jack Kennedy‚ which has often happened to me (a consequence of spending too much time in Irish bars)‚ read on. My own choice‚ which I reveal now publicly for the first time‚ is Dwight D. Eisenhower (‘Ike”). Hear me out. Conservative Governance Let’s start with Ike’s last public statement‚ his most famous‚ where he warned the country about the military-industrial complex: “Every gun that is made‚ every warship launched‚ every rocket fired signifies‚ in the final sense‚ a theft from those who hunger and are not fed‚ those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers‚ the genius of its scientists‚ the hopes of its children.” Not exactly what you would expect from a life-long soldier and the five-star general who planned Operation Torch in North Africa‚ the D-day invasion‚ and led the Allies to victory in Europe in World War II.  Ike’s parting comments on the military-industrial complex were far-sighted. He perceived the rise of unelected officials and lobbyists within the Washington beltway as a real threat to democracy. That threat lives on today in the deep state and has become‚ if anything‚ more dangerous. Ike saw it first and was not afraid to sound the alarm on behalf of the country. Ike’s rhetoric was entirely consistent with his record in office‚ where he reduced military spending from $ 515 billion in 1952 to $ 370 billion in 1960. How did he do it during the frozen depths of the Cold War? In 1953‚ his first year in office‚ Ike ended the Korean War and set the peace terms which have held to this day. Throughout his administration‚ he questioned military budgets and cut programs judiciously — as only an insider could. (He worked in Washington from 1932 to 1935 under Douglas MacArthur‚ who served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army at the time. Congressional budgets were Ike’s specialty.) (READ MORE: A Revisionist’s Korean War) Ike also had something to say about the technology-government complex that gave us the lockdown and  seven trillion dollars of runaway Covid 19 spending: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment‚ project allocation‚ and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect‚ as we should‚ we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific-technology elite.” Ike took a dim view of government spending in general. He liked deficit spending even less. During his administration‚ he ran three budget surpluses and reduced federal spending from 20.4 percent of GNP to 18.4. This‚ in the teeth of a Democratic majority in Congress for six out of his eight years in office. While Ike was cutting useless spending out of the budget‚ he also increased Social Security payments and created the department of Health‚ Education and Welfare. He worked with Canada to construct the St. Lawrence Seaway‚ a development that ensured an efficient all-water transport from the Midwest to Europe‚ which vastly improved the viability of American grain exports. Oh‚ he also built the federal highway system‚ to date the largest most successful transportation project in U.S. history. He did not accomplish these fiscal feats by printing money or passing federal debt onto our children. He did it by cutting spending and keeping taxes high‚ which he felt was necessary to pay down the federal debt incurred during World War II. In the face of ruinous public debt‚ Ike chose the responsible‚ if unpopular‚ path. He nevertheless maintained an average approval rating of 64 percent over the course of his presidency.  On matters of social justice‚ Ike said very little. Privately‚ he did not support Brown v the Board of Education‚ which de-segregated the public schools‚ thinking it an overreach of federal power. However‚ after the decision‚ he said this: “The Supreme Court has spoken and I am sworn to uphold the constitutional processes in this country; and I will obey.” Ike was as good as his word. In 1957‚ the governor of Arkansas set up a ring of soldiers to prevent nine black students from entering Little Rock high school. Ike stood tall. He didn’t send down his Attorney General to argue with the governor. He didn’t send in the National Guard. He sent 1‚000 armed paratroopers from the 101st Airborne. The kids got in. (READ MORE: American Despotism: The Great Upheaval Over Race Begins) At this point‚ your Democratic bar mate who thought Kennedy was the greatest president might appear confused. “Wait. Didn’t Kennedy do that? Wasn’t Eisenhower a Republican? That can’t be true!” But it is. Ike’s Restraint Then there are the things Ike didn’t do. In 1954‚ the French were being wiped out by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu. They pushed for an American rescue‚ which included the use of nuclear weapons. Fire-breathing Cold Warriors within his administration demanded the same. Ike assessed the situation on the ground with a military eye. He contributed some supplies but no soldiers‚ a decision that subsequent U.S. presidents might well have heeded.  After Egyptian president Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956‚ the British and French invaded to get it back. No colonialist‚ Ike took Nasser’s side against his former allies. The British and French were badly defeated in the field and eventually left with their tail between their legs — another lesson here for U.S. presidents who cannot resist flexing their muscles in the Middle East. Also in 1956‚ Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest. While sympathetic to the Hungarians‚ Ike did not make false promises to them. Surrounded by communist states‚ with no ports and a shared border with the Soviet Union‚ Ike‚ the logistics expert‚ knew the Hungarians never had a chance.  Ike did push back against communism‚ which remained a priority for his administration. He strongly supported the covert activities of Allen Dulles at CIA. But Ike also understood the Russians from his days as Supreme Allied Commander during World War II. He knew when and where to push. Because of his experience and his judgement‚ Ike became that rarity of all things — a commander-in-chief who is also a statesman. After a long career as an officer in the Army‚ president of Columbia University‚ Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Supreme NATO Commander‚ Ike had plenty of executive experience. It showed. He filled his administration with CEOs from the private sector‚ who‚ like him‚ understood how to manage large complex organizations.   And then there is the character of the man himself. He once said: “Take the job seriously. Don’t take yourself seriously.” Coming from the man who green-lit D-day in bad weather‚ Ike knew whereof he spoke. Ike was born in 1890 in Texas. He liked golf‚ cards‚ and a few drinks with the boys. Not one for over-sharing‚ Ike kept a tight leash on his sometimes volatile emotions. In 1952‚ Ike attended the 82nd Airborne convention to honor the same paratroopers he ordered behind German lines at Utah Beach. The night before D-day‚ he met them face-to-face just before their planes took off. At the convention‚ former Sergeant Leonard Funk‚ the only living Medal of Honor holder of the 82nd Airborne‚ rose and said: “It was a terrible decision for a man to make. Ike not only made it‚ but had the courage to come personally to face the men he was sending to almost certain death.” Ike’s eyes welled and tears poured down his cheeks. He covered his face with a handkerchief for many minutes. After he recovered himself‚ he rose and spoke to the group about the meaning of their sacrifice: duty‚ honor‚ and country. When he finished‚ the paratroopers remained stone silent in their seats for 30 seconds— and then stood for an ovation. At this point‚ check in with your bar mate. Ask him if he still wants to talk about Kennedy‚ the junior Senator from Massachusetts and the youngest president ever elected. Kennedy was built for television. Ike was built on character‚ experience‚ and deep humanity — substance over form. But what about Washington and Lincoln? During their time‚ both men led a country that was a concept‚ but not a world power. Their decisions did not reverberate instantly across the globe. Ike’s did. Roosevelt shared the stage with Churchill‚ Stalin‚ Hitler‚ and Tojo. The war had not yet been won. The atomic bomb had not been dropped. Roosevelt was not granted the same degree of raw power given to Ike.  Ike served in a time of clear American supremacy with almost unlimited global dominance on a scale never experienced before in human history. And how did he handle all that power? With modesty. With restraint‚ circumscribed at all times by the U.S. Constitution. We shall not see his like again.  This much I know. Joe Biden is no Dwight Eisenhower. And for that matter‚ Kamala Harris is no Richard Nixon. The post Dwight D. Eisenhower Is My Favorite President appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In the wake of Hamas’ depraved attack on Israel‚ and Israel’s war to vanquish Hamas‚ the Biden administration and the EU remain obsessed with peddling the snake oil known as Palestinian statehood. According to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken‚ there needs to be a “pathway to a Palestinian state‚” without which Israel will not obtain either “genuine security” or Arab assistance in rebuilding Gaza. Meanwhile‚ EU’s foreign policy head Josep Borrell suggested that the international community could impose a Palestinian state without Israel’s consent. Israel should remain strong and continue to rebuff demands for a Palestinian state‚ which Palestinian leadership has rejected multiple times anyway. But analyzing statements from the Palestinian Authority (PA)‚ the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Fatah (collectively‚ the “PA”) since November alone reveal that such a Palestinian state would likely support Hamas‚ support terrorism‚ and continue to spread libels and genocidal incitement against Israel and the Jews.  A Palestinian State Would Support Hamas Given recent statements from the PA‚ a Palestinian state would likely support Hamas. PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh‚ long trumpeted by many as a “moderate‚” stated that “Hamas is a central component in the Palestinian political arena” and not a terrorist movement. PLO Executive Committee Secretary Hussein Al-Sheikh‚ citing PA President Mahmoud Abbas‚ also asserted that Hamas is not a terrorist movement‚ instead asserting that “[t]he real terror is the occupation [i.e.‚ Israel]. The real terror is the settlement enterprise.” Fatah Secretary Walid Zaher‚ who is Abbas’ representative in Denmark‚ remarked that Fatah did not condemn Hamas for the October 7 massacre‚ and that it “fought against the UN not to add Hamas to the terror list.” (READ MORE from Steve Postal: Muslim Women Visit Israel to Show Solidarity Against Hamas) Indeed‚ the PA has indicated that it is willing to work with Hamas and other terrorist groups in forming a unity government. Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub stated that Fatah would not rule over Gaza “without national agreement that will include political Islam‚ whether it is our brothers in Hamas or our brothers in [Islamic] Jihad.” Rajoub repeated this call to unity three days later‚ stating that “on behalf of the Palestinian [PA] leadership … We say to our brothers in Hamas and the Islamic Jihad Movement — the ball is in your court.” A Palestinian State Would Support Terrorism Recent statements from the PA also indicate that a Palestinian state would support terrorism. Fatah Central Committee Secretary Rajoub remarked that Hamas’ October 7 massacre was a “battle of heroism and a war of defense.” PA Prime Minister Shtayyeh called “the struggle‚” i.e.‚ terrorism‚ against Israel “a right and a duty.” The PA has specifically endorsed future terrorism in Judea and Samaria‚ commonly known as the “West Bank.” Fatah Ramallah Branch Representative Na’im Morrar endorsed “armed struggle” against Israel. Fatah Central Committee Secretary Rajoub has promised that “the next and more violent explosion will be in the West Bank.” In particular‚ a future Palestinian state would have an obsession with martyrdom‚ given the continued glorifications of martyrdom by the PA-run press. Both the mother and aunt of terrorist Nimr Abu Mustafa‚ who was killed by the IDF after trying to plant explosives‚ praised his martyrdom on Official PA TV. The father and grandmother of child terrorist Yazan Akkoub‚ 14‚ praised their son/grandson dying as a “martyr” after he was killed trying to stab IDF soldiers‚ on Official PA TV. A father of Palestinian terrorist As’ad Abu Zahra‚ 33‚ praised his son’s death‚ after he attacked IDF soldiers‚ stating that if the IDF kills one Palestinian‚ “10 grow [in his place]‚” on Official PA TV. The father of terrorist Rami Al-Shoumali‚ 36‚ praised his son by saying that “[h]e asked for Martyrdom and achieved Martyrdom‚” also on Official PA TV. Another indication that a future Palestinian state would support terrorism is the PA’s reaction to the assassination of Hamas arch-terrorist Saleh al-Arouri. Following his assassination‚ Fatah’s Rajoub mourned him as “extraordinary national leader‚ who was always extraordinary in the way of his struggle [i.e.‚ terrorism].” Rajoub also stated‚ “I am among the believers in his ideology‚ his way‚ and his activity‚” and that “His passing [is] a loss for Fatah just as it is a loss for Hamas.” The official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida posted a cartoon of al-Arouri‚ “with the word ‘Martyr’ written on his shoulder boards signifying his ‘rank‚’ and text reading “[o]ur blood and souls are not dearer or more honorable than of any Martyr.” Fatah Revolutionary Council member Jamal Hweil mourned al-Arouri as a “beloved friend” and “extraordinary heroic leader‚” and stated that “[t]here is no solution or path to freedom other than the path of Saleh Al-Arouri.” A Palestinian State Would Fuel Libels Against Israel and Jews A future Palestinian state would fuel vicious blood libels against Israel and the Jews‚ as the PA continues to do. According to the Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida‚ the “racist” Talmud permits Jews to “cut … open the stomachs of pregnant women to kill the fetuses‚ and also [to] annihilate[e] the members of the Palestinian people to the last of them” The same official PA daily also claimed that Israel is deliberately spreading disease and epidemics to kill as many civilians in Gaza as possible. Official PA TV also claimed that Israel harvested organs from dead Gazans. (READ MORE: NGO Brings American Imams to Israel for Interfaith Dialogue) Other libels from the PA against Israel center around Hamas’ October 7 attack. The PA alternatively asserts that Israel lied about the October 7 attack (as claimed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash)‚ that Israel used the October 7 attack to execute a pre-planned war to expel Palestinians from their homes (also argued by Al-Habbash)‚ and that Israel killed its own civilians on October 7‚ burned the bodies‚ and then blamed Hamas (as stated by Director of PLO Commission of Prisoners’ Affairs with the rank of minister Qadura Fares). A Palestinian State Would Support the Genocide of the Jews  And last but certainly not least‚ a Palestinian state would support the genocide of the Jewish People‚ as the PA continues to do. Secretary of Fatah and the PLO Factions in Beirut Samir Abu Afash advocated for a Palestinian “right of return‚” while Jews will “return to the lands from which they came and whose citizenship they carry.” Fatah Secretary in Austria Mundhir Mar’i called on Palestinians living in Europe to “fight to uproot you [i.e.‚ the Jews] from our [i.e.‚ the Palestinians’] land‚ expel you‚ and remove you‚ Allah willing.” While calling for a Palestinian state‚ the Biden administration and the EU are advocating for no less than endless war and the destruction of Israel. Israel should remain strong and continue to rebuff demands for a Palestinian state‚ which Palestinian leadership has rejected multiple times anyway. Only by destroying Hamas and significantly reforming the PA can Israel truly achieve peace. The post Israel Should Reject the Palestinian State Snake Oil appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

If you are a novelist‚ you may abandon inconvenient reality for richly imagined fiction. Consider Evelyn Waugh‚ who converted to Roman Catholicism in 1930. Rather than embrace the low-born majority of his new fellow congregants‚ he wove the richly tragic Flyte family and their Brideshead Castle out of the thin threads of the surviving Catholic aristocracy in England. It must have been a great comfort to Waugh to spend his spiritual life among his creations rather than what Anthony Burgess called  “Maynooth priests with brogues.” The neocons are simply the first DC denizens to suffer delamination from their political base. But they won’t be the last. Unfortunately‚ political hacks cannot conjure up their preferred adherents with the ease of a great writer. When Donald Trump won the 2016 election and delivered to the Republicans the working class in the industrial heartlands‚ the response of the Republican brain trust in DC was abject panic. Rather than celebrate the fact that the GOP had seized the traditional core constituency of the Democratic Party‚ self-anointed party intellectuals like Bill Kristol and Max Boot‚ along with the entire staff of National Review recoiled in horror at the boorishness of the new champion of rust belt voters. (READ MORE: The Madness of the Never-Trumpers) These pundits were the lineal descendants of Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz‚ who’d devoted their careers to “rescuing” conservatism from the know-nothing businessmen who dominated the traditional Republican party.  Like Greeks tutoring the Romans‚ these highly educated refugees from the New Left inculcated a conservatism traditionally suspicious of foreign entanglements with a new taste for global engagement‚ military intervention‚ and a belief that American hegemony was worth paying a dear price for.  They swooned over American military adventures in the 1980’s and 90’s‚ which appeared to eclipse the tragedy of Vietnam and placed the U.S. on the side of the angels fighting such monsters as Bernard Coard‚ Saddam Hussein‚ and Slobodan Milosovic. Unfortunately‚ as good anti-Marxists would‚ they also ignored the economic underpinnings of this new hyper-global American power. Rather than consider the dire economic impact of cheap Chinese labor on the American industrial workforce‚ they cited comparative advantage theory and a historical linkage between economic development and political liberalization. Opening U.S. markets would engender democracy and stability because wealthier citizens demand political rights‚ as had happened in 19th century Britain. This argument may have appeared plausible in 1983‚ but by the election of 2016 it was obvious that free trade with the U.S. had not spurred political reform in China. What it had done is wreck the career trajectories of the working class in the American industrial heartland‚ which then voted decisively for Trump. The decades of intellectual labor devoted to the transformation of the Republican Party into something one could claim open allegiance to at the Sidwell Friends PTA turned to dust in the hands of the neoconservatives. Their fondest dream‚ that the tax-paying Babbits of middle America would be led by conservative elites as brilliant and charming as any Democrat simply collapsed‚ trampled by an electoral stampede of Walmart shoppers. Rather than continue the hard polemical graft of their predecessors‚ and attempt to tutor these recent arrivals on GOP shores in the ways of Washington and the importance of American leadership‚ the likes of Kristol and Boot indulged in an epic hissy fit that rendered their criticisms of the Trump Administration indistinguishable from a Rachel Maddow opening monologue. They were now stuck in a party with the American equivalent of the Irish laborers and Maynooth priests disdained by Evelyn Waugh but unlike him‚ they couldn’t simply invent an alternative. More distressing was the fact that these new Republicans considered them functionally indistinguishable from the Democrats. Viewed from say a union hall in Dubuque Iowa‚ the neocons were part of the Beltway cabal that protected bankers who blew holes in the national economy‚ shipped our industrial base overseas‚ wasted the lives of American soldiers‚ and couldn’t balance the federal budget even during economic booms. It was always going to be a tough sell explaining to middle Americans the complexities of free trade when they spent their days among abandoned factories that had within living memory generated middle class prosperity. (READ MORE: Neither Trump Nor Never Trumpers) Compounding this alienation from the new GOP base was the emergence of a Washington uniparty on a range of divisive social issues. The neocons largely if often quietly side with their Democratic Party colleagues inside the Beltway on abortion rights‚ transsexualism‚ and a generally dubious view of evangelical Christianity. It always comes as a shock to Washington boffins like Thomas Frank that the working class in Kansas can be just as devoted to social issues as any wealthy yoga mom. From their point of view‚ Washington doesn’t share their values on important social policies‚ and so why should they defer to these elites and their economic proposals? But rather than try to argue their corner‚ the heartbroken neocon project decided to rain insults down on Trump and his supporters. There was a clear element of class anxiety at work here. Late comers to social success are always the most insecure about retaining it‚ and the neoconservatives were the latest to scale the DC socio-political hierarchy. Not with complete success: the neocons were always more likely to be found at a Reston cocktail party huddled with a retired two-star general than at a Georgetown soiree hosted by Evangeline Bruce. The election of Trump exposed the neocons as what Texans call “all hat and no cattle‚” with no genuine political constituency remaining behind their clever policy prescriptions. This is social death in DC‚ which runs on finely graded calculations of power. The neocons were now political orphans of no consequence‚ and they hated the party that declined to further their careers and influence. There is nothing more toxic among ambitious Americans than thwarted social aspiration. The demise of the Brideshead Republicans should serve as a warning to Washington in general. The strength of a populist moment is a function of how badly governing elites have screwed up. In this case‚ the neocons lost their party after embroiling the country in ill-fated wars‚ neglecting the sources of national prosperity other than fat government consulting contracts‚ and generally conveying a sense that Americans in flyover country don’t matter on questions of high policy. It’s probably safe to say that a blue blood like Franklin Roosevelt would not have welcomed his average supporter through the front door of Hyde Park. Yet he knew that his policies were only as good as his ability to persuade those average Americans of their value‚ and that required him to display a performative affinity for these people. Which he did. Washington has lost this skill and indeed much of its respect for those average Americans. While this disdain for the deplorables may be popular social currency in Washington‚ it is not a sturdy basis for any political program. The neocons are simply the first DC denizens to suffer delamination from their political base. But they won’t be the last. The Left’s flirtation with unchecked migration‚ outré sexual identity politics‚ and admiration for the atrocities committed by Hamas threatens a similar delamination from the Democratic base‚ specifically black and Hispanic voters‚ who tend conservative on a range of social issues. Future left populism could pose as serious a challenge to the authority of DC elites as Trump’s right populism did. (READ MORE: Never Trumpers: The Real Putin Republicans) Populism is what you get when “ideology-forward” elites in Washington prefer a fictional Brideshead to their actual countrymen out there far beyond Montgomery County‚ with all their deplorable opinions‚ lack of polish and appalling consumer preferences. Yet it is exactly those actual countrymen who suffer the actual consequences of bad policies conceived far away in Brideshead Castle‚ for the benefit of gracious‚ grateful Americans who don’t actually exist. Karl Pfefferkorn served as Director‚ European Security Negotiations‚ Office of the Secretary of Defense (1990-93) as well as on US delegations to the CFE negotiations‚ the OSCE‚ and Incidents at Sea.  After a second career in business‚ he now teaches a course on the European Union in the Politics Department at the University of Virginia. He lives near Free Union‚ Virginia. The post The Heartbreak of the Brideshead Republicans appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Cooking in batches can help prepare future meals quickly but if your menu calls for spicy foods you need to take care to clean your pan between dishes.

from Arcadia Economics:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/