Moscow’s propaganda machine is trying to discredit Volodymyr Zelensky as illegitimate to intentionally sabotage the upcoming Peace Summit in Switzerland. More broadly, the Kremlin’s information operation aims to capitalize on a complex — and potentially explosive — political issue in Ukraine to corrode the embattled country’s social cohesion and undermine Western unity and support. [T]he only obstacle in the way of elections in the country is not Zelensky clinging to power, but Putin clinging to Ukraine. Questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine’s political leadership is not new to the Russian disinformation ecosystem. In 2014, Moscow labeled the newly elected pro-European president Petro Poroshenko “illegitimate.” Now it’s Volodymyr Zelensky’s turn. Since Zelensky’s five-year term as president of Ukraine expired on May 20, Russian officials have repeatedly drawn attention  to the fact that he still continues to serve as the head of state of the embattled country. During a recent visit to Belarus, Russian President Vladimir Putin openly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy as Ukraine’s president. While repeatedly stressing that Russia is ready to negotiate, Putin said, “We must be completely sure that we are dealing with legitimate authorities.” Did the Ukrainian comedian-turned-politician scrap the elections in a desperate bid to hold on to power? Is his rule illegitimate beyond May 20, rendering any negotiations with his dictatorial regime a futile exercise? Hardly. Putin’s and other Kremlin officials’ statements are just one facet of a broader disinformation campaign. (READ MORE: The US Is No Longer a Trustworthy Ally) To start with, the Kremlin’s twisted narrative is rooted in the belief that Ukraine has been under the control of a U.S.-funded puppet government since 1991, set up by Washington as a bulwark against Russia. Moscow insinuates that every major event leading to a pro-Western shift in the past 20 years in Ukraine were due to Western meddling. It was either a CIA operation or a Soros-funded coup. According to this narrative, the pivotal moment when Ukraine truly lost its status as an independent state was the Maidan Revolution or “Euromaidan” in 2013-2014, which culminated in the pro-Russian then-president Viktor Yanukovich fleeing to Russia. According to Russia, the revolution was a coup supported by the U.S. and the EU to install Petro Poroshenko as the leader of a “puppet junta.” Zelensky’s victory at the 2019 presidential elections, which was allegedly marred by significant irregularities and manipulations, was portrayed by Russia as reflecting the desires of the country’s American overlords rather than expressing the will of the people. Zelensky received 75 percent of the vote in 2019 to Poroshenko’s 25 percent during the second round, and within days was congratulated by virtually every Western leader independent of their party background from Polish President Andrzej Duda to U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. At the same time, Vladimir Konstantinov, head of the Russian-controlled Crimean Parliament, succinctly summed up the Kremlin’s position in March: “After the 2014 coup in Kyiv, everything is illegitimate, including all institutions and election results.” Are they? Today, legally speaking, it is the legal regime of martial law — instituted due to the country being at war — that explicitly forbids holding all Ukrainian and local referendums, as well as any presidential, parliamentary, or local elections, and enacting changes to the Constitution. This legislation was put into effect by former President Petro Poroshenko, with relevant passages remaining unchanged since 2000. Although the Ukrainian Constitution expressly prohibits holding parliamentary elections under martial law, the text is silent on presidential elections during war. A minimum of 10 percent of the Verkhovna Rada’s deputies could appeal to the Constitutional Court to hold elections, but members are reluctant to do so, mainly because of the fear that an appeal would only feed the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. In addition, the agreement reached in November 2023 during an EU parliament–facilitated dialogue also highlights a relatively unified political resolve regarding the issue of elections. Members of the Verkhovna Rada, including significant opposition parties, agreed to postpone national elections until after the war and the lifting of martial law. This decision was based on the widely held belief that conducting competitive and inclusive elections during a full-scale war would be unfeasible. The United Kingdom reached the same conclusion when it postponed parliamentary elections for more than 4 years while it was locked in a total war against Hitler during World War II. In Ukraine’s case, it would be extremely challenging for a large portion of the population, including hundreds of thousands serving in the army and millions more scattered across Europe as refugees, to participate in the vote. Furthermore, Ukrainians living in territories occupied by Russia would have to be excluded entirely. Ukrainian society would almost certainly question the results of an election held under total war and occupation as free and fair. A March survey conducted by the Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov highlighted the lack of domestic support for a wartime election, with only 12 percent of participants believing it would unite Ukrainian society, while 45 percent anticipated it would cause further division. Overall, a mere 22 percent of participants favored holding any form of national election during the war. Although there is a wide consensus on not holding war-time elections, domestic dynamics are more nuanced. Mounting setbacks on the front, delayed Western weapons shipments, a passage of a divisive new mobilization law as well as continued corruption scandals have been chipping away at Zelensky’s public support. His favorability rating stood at 60 percent in February (down from 77 percent in December), according to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. At the same time Zelensky’s political opposition is getting louder. Although they do not question Zelensky’s legitimacy beyond May 20, they do increasingly call out the president for his allegedly autocratic leadership style and centralization of power, in hope of reaching some kind of power-sharing arrangement with the government. (READ MORE: What the Red Ball Express Teaches Us About Ukraine) By loudly questioning Zelensky’s legitimacy, the Kremlin wants to sow chaos leading to political instability and societal unrest. Ukrainian intelligence services already warned about the operation dubbed Maidan-3 in November 2023. Moreover, the same narrative could come in handy to explain Moscow’s unwillingness to participate in any sort of peace negotiations. According to Putin’s interpretation of the Ukrainian Constitution, Zelensky should resign and the speaker of the Parliament should step up as acting president. Only 10 percent of the Ukrainian population would support such a scenario, according to a February poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. Ukrainian attitudes toward the parliament is steadily declining, and according to a recent poll its trust rating is trending at around 19 percent. Moreover, on May 28, Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk rebuked Putin’s interference declaring that “Volodymyr Zelensky remains and will remain Ukraine’s president until the end of martial law.” The Kremlin’s portrayal of Zelensky’s allegedly illegitimate rule as the only obstacle to negotiations and peace is just a part of the Kremlin’s disinformation strategy. The Russian president’s real goal is underlined by the fact that the ousted pro-Russian ex-president Yanukovych joined him in Minsk. Putin’s goal is the same as before the full-scale invasion: regime change in Kyiv. As tensions are running high in Ukraine, policymakers in the U.S. should remember: the only obstacle in the way of elections in the country is not Zelensky clinging to power, but Putin clinging to Ukraine. The post Is President Zelensky Still Legitimate? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) recently released a new plan to increase defense spending and replenish America’s military arsenal. As the highest-ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wicker is on the frontlines in Congress, warning his colleagues of the global threat America faces and the danger of being defeated by another superpower in a war. “Regaining American strength will be expensive. But fighting a war — and worse, losing one — is far more costly.” In the New York Times, Senator Wicker details senior military officials telling him in private that we face challenges not seen since World War II and that our military is unprepared to meet the call. “We struggle to build and maintain ships, our fighter jet fleet is dangerously small, and our military infrastructure is outdated.” Wicker went on to say that “America’s adversaries are growing and getting more aggressive.” (READ MORE from Alex Adkins: Larry Hogan Will Help Republicans Take Back the Senate) Wicker’s policy prescription is a “generational investment in the U.S. military,” which he calls “21st Century Peace Through Strength.” This overarching plan combats the ’emerging Axis of Aggressors’ and increases the defense budget by raising spending from 2.5 percent to 5 percent of the country’s GDP by 2030. Much to the disappointment of the isolationist wing of the GOP, the plan also calls for an additional $55 billion in the defense budget regarding China, Russia, and Iran’s ascension.  Under this proposal, the Pentagon would enlarge its joint force capabilities by expanding the number of naval warships to 357 and increasing the number of Air Force fighter jets to a minimum of 340 within five years and more spending allocated to our submersible fleet and sub-pen stations. A key concern is the Indo-Pacific region, which faces an $11 billion deficit for maritime defense readiness and an accumulation of $180 billion in military maintenance and readiness. In the past year, the world saw 183 live conflicts, the most in the past 30 years. The U.S., as the sole unipolar power in the world, faces turmoil on all fronts. Russia is engaged in a 27-month war with Ukraine. Iran attacks Israel with the help of terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. North Korea is conducting its missile tests and launching satellites, while China is threatening Taiwan and the Philippines with an invasion.  These fights across the globe are coordinated efforts to oust America as the leader of the free world. Wicker’s Pentagon plan is out at the right time, as Chairman Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin of Russia have embraced their alliance within the past month. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping and Putin have met with each other over 40 times, recently in Beijing. Just before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin signed a “‘no limits” agreement with Xi’s China and congratulated each other on the “great changes in the world not seen in a century,” according to Chairman Xi.  The current status quo is failing the U.S. on the world stage. The Biden Administration’s preference for deterrence and passivity is not stopping autocratic regimes and their rogue actors from eroding America’s influence and attacking our allies. Some troubling developments preceded Biden, but his actions have only accelerated these problems.   President Biden’s requested defense budgets in his first term are not large enough to cover the military’s basic needs for our national security. His prioritizing welfare spending and letting entitlements get out of hand has led to inflation in the way of fully funding defense. Leaving American military forces vulnerable will only cost more down the road and cost lives with the inevitable prospect of war. (READ MORE: Freedom Conservatives: A Stand Against Progressivism and Populism)  Senator Wicker’s plan is expensive. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, he recognized that this deal exceeds the 1 percent cap on expanding the defense budget that congressional Republicans and the White House agreed upon in the debt ceiling negotiations for 2023. The price tag on this defense bill is unlikely to keep up with inflation, and it will take some political maneuvering to convince Congress to increase spending caps.  It is indisputable that Congress is facing limitations, as domestic spending programs and interest on debt leave little room for other expenditures. However, a military defeat would stifle America’s economy and national standing worldwide. Senator Wicker said it best: “Regaining American strength will be expensive. But fighting a war — and worse, losing one — is far more costly.” It is encouraging that Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is endorsing Wicker’s plan as support is growing among Senate Republicans and hopefully some Democrats. Speaker Johnson’s passage of military aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan in the spring was an excellent bi-partisan moment for American leadership and freedom abroad. The Wicker plan is a continued step in that direction to ensure the U.S. continues to lead with peace through strength. The post In Defense of Our Defense: Senator Wicker’s Plan appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Citing threats to public safety and national security “so elevated all at once,” FBI director Christopher Wray seeks a budget of $11.3 billion, a 6.1 percent increase over fiscal year 2023. While members of Congress think it over, they might run a few questions by the director. Threats to national security may indeed be escalating in 2024. So are threats to the rights and freedoms of the people. Last August in Utah, an FBI SWAT team killed Craig Robertson, a 75-year-old woodworker, for threats against Joe Biden he had allegedly posted on line. Utah Sen. Mike Lee wonders if the shooting of Robertson was justified, but Wray has kept rather quiet about the killing. The agency tasked to protect the president is the Secret Service, so why did the FBI mount this deadly operation? Has the bureau conducted an investigation of this shooting? Will the FBI release the autopsy report? Who gave the order to use deadly force? Did the FBI shooter or shooters receive any kind of commendation? (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: The New South-North Economic Dialogue) “The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” If so, why is the FBI arresting pro-life activists such as Mark Houck for simply exercising their right of free speech? Last year Houck was acquitted on federal charges stemming from a 2021 incident in Pennsylvania. Has that challenged the FBI over the wisdom of this policy? Are parents who protest peacefully at school board meetings really domestic terrorists and violent extremists? “Ahead of the threat through leadership, agility, and integration — outlines the FBI’s desired strategic position,” reads the FBI’s vision statement. “The FBI will achieve this by continuously evolving to mitigate existing threats and recognizing and anticipating threats it has not yet seen.” The people have a right to wonder how this vision plays out in reality. In 2016, actual terrorist Omar Mateen gunned down 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Why did the FBI fail to prevent this act of terrorism? Why did the FBI play no role in the takedown of Mateen? In 2015 in San Bernardino, California, terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people and wounded more than 20 others. Why did the FBI fail to prevent this mass murder? Why did the FBI play no role in the takedown of the terrorists? As in Orlando, that was accomplished by local police, with no civilian casualties. Russian intelligence warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Why did the FBI fail to prevent Tamerlan and brother Dzhokhar from bombing the Boston Marathon in 2013? The attack claimed three lives and wounded more than 250 others. In 2009, the FBI was aware that U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a self-proclaimed “soldier of Allah,” was communicating with al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about killing Americans. The Washington office of the FBI judged that Hasan was “not involved in terrorist activities” and dropped the surveillance. On November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas, Hasan murdered 13 American soldiers, including Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was pregnant. The more than 30 wounded included Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who took seven bullets from Hasan. Who gave the order to drop the surveillance on Hasan? Was any FBI official disciplined, demoted, or dismissed over that failure?  Why did the FBI fail to stop the massive terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? That year the FBI was involved in the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in which military tanks were deployed. Seventy-five people perished, including 25 children. The year before in rural Idaho, the FBI deployed military force against the family of Randy Weaver. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot dead Randy’s wife Vicki as she held her infant child. The mother was unarmed, not under arrest, and not wanted for any crime. Snipers are trained carefully to “acquire” the target, so slim chance the shooting was accidental, as the FBI maintains. Director Wray, who was never an FBI agent, is doubtless aware of this incident. What are his views on government deployment of military force against civilians? The people have a right to know, especially in an election year. Members of Congress might also ask Christopher Wray if the FBI has covert operations such as  “Crossfire Hurricane” or “Midyear Exam” in the works against any candidate, member of Congress, or private citizen. The people have a right to know. (READ MORE: Biden FCC Threatens Free Speech by Restoring Internet Regulations) Threats to national security may indeed be escalating in 2024. So are threats to the rights and freedoms of the people. Congress should hold off on the $11.3 billion until Christopher Wray answers some hard questions about the FBI’s actual record upholding the Constitution. To guard against mounting security threats, the incoming Congress might look for better ways to spend $11.3 billion. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Does the FBI Deserve $11.3 Billion? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Lina Khan, President Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chairwoman, says that she isn’t a fan of anti-consumer monopolies. That’s great; both sides of the aisle should agree that action against problematic behemoths is warranted. However, cherry-picking which companies do and don’t receive government scrutiny, seemingly for political reasons, is not so great. Unfortunately, this “winners and losers” approach to Khan’s regulatory work has become commonplace, and it’s greatly affecting American consumers’ welfare. Comer must identify any revolving doors that exist between this agency and its favored industry actors. Case in point: Recently, the Biden FTC again went after groups known as pharmacy benefit companies, which health plans hire to negotiate their prices down. Khan and others have accused these companies of skimming too much of the cost-savings they accrue for themselves. While it’s fine that Khan keeps looking into PBMs — it’s her job, after all, and I supported strong oversight and reviews of PBMs while in Congress — it’s quite odd that, over the last three years, she hasn’t seemed willing to even initiate a cursory investigation of any of the other corporate entities within the supply chain that may be ballooning consumers’ healthcare bills. Thus far, the Big Pharma companies that shower political leaders with campaign contributions have evaded her scrutiny, as have the problem hospitals that data shows are price gouging. When it comes to healthcare, it seems that the special healthcare interests that treat the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress well have evaded scrutiny. In contrast, the interest groups they disfavor regularly receive the administrator’s regulatory gulag. This isn’t how the FTC — one of the leading pro-consumer agencies in the country — is supposed to function. To her credit, Khan has remained reasonably transparent about being unfair throughout her FTC tenure. In 2021, her commission even rescinded the consumer welfare standard. This policy guidepost ensured the FTC interceded in the economy when consumers faced harm from predatory business interests — and only in such cases. (READ MORE: Beware Congress’ Latest Big Pharma Enrichment Scheme) Rescinding this standard benefited the Biden administration, giving it more political power. It has significantly increased the White House’s ability to weaponize the state against its political enemies in various industries while keeping other potentially harmful conglomerates that it sees as allies protected. But this increased power came at an incalculable cost to the health of the American republic. It transformed yet another once invaluable governmental institution into dust, turning one of consumers’ most reliable public sector allies into an enemy. Republicans need to stop this mockery of our age-old institutions. Although the GOP doesn’t control the White House or the Senate, it does control the House of Representatives. It’s here that they can shine in rooting out any potential corruption at the FTC and recovering its consumer-oriented mission. The best man for this job is Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who has chaired the powerful House Oversight and Accountability Committee since 2020 and served it well. His committee, the main investigative committee of the House, has earned a hard-won reputation for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. So far, on healthcare specifically, Rep. Comer has (like Khan) held extensive hearings on PBMs, but he hasn’t yet started investigating the drug companies or hospitals. He needs to add them to his healthcare investigatory pile to ensure that Khan and Biden don’t get away with picking winners and losers — and fair pricing and level playing fields in the healthcare industry can finally emerge. (READ MORE: FTC: Let Europe Run America) Beyond this one issue, Rep. Comer should also go broader and investigate Lina Khan and the Biden FTC more broadly. He needs to determine if there have been meetings or other questionable interactions between the commission and Big Pharma and the other special interests helped by the commission’s selective regulatory agenda. Comer must identify any revolving doors that exist between this agency and its favored industry actors. We’re all keeping our popcorn on standby. Renee Ellmers is a Registered Nurse and former member of Congress from North Carolina. The post Biden’s FTC Must Not Pick Winners and Losers appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hollywood needs to make more movies like Richard Linklater’s Hit Man which is currently streaming on Netflix along with a limited theater release. The movie tells the story of a college professor Gary Johnson (Glen Powell) who assists the police department by posing as a contract killer to entrap would-be murderers. Gary’s life spirals out of control when he falls in love with Madison (Adria Arjona) who has requested that he take out her abusive husband. A mélange of genres from suspense to film noir to romantic comedy to morality tale, Hit Man is an intelligent and engaging film that makes you want to watch it a second time. Hit Man is also appealing because like other recently released films … it is not woke. Co-written by Linklater and Powell, Hit Man is loosely based on the life of the real Gary Johnson  profiled in a 2001 Texas Monthly article by Skip Hollandsworth. When we meet Gary in the film, he is a professor of psychology at the University of New Orleans who has a side job assisting the police department with technical surveillance.  When the police department’s current “fake hit man” Jasper (Austin Amelio) gets suspended for a physical altercation with teenagers, Gary gets called up to take his place. His colleagues at the police department soon discover that this mild-mannered professor has a natural ability for role-playing along with an affinity for believable disguises. And before you know it, he has significantly improved the department’s undercover arrest statistics. One of the film’s most humorous  scenes takes place when Gary meets with Craig, a potential client (Mike Markoff) and describes in vivid detail his method for killing people and disposing of their bodies. The scene is funny because Gary is making the whole story up as he goes along yet Craig takes this graphic account as evidence that he is a hard core killer. Gary’s double life gets complicated when he meets Madison. First he tells her to take the money that she would have paid him to “kill” her husband to create a new life for herself. Then he later runs into her after she has supposedly divorced her husband and they become romantically involved. Of course, nothing is completely as it seems and Linklater keeps us guessing as to the character’s true intentions. The film is smart in that it poses moral questions without preaching a particular orthodoxy, an approach which is refreshing in today’s social justice driven culture. Powell who has been acting for the last twenty years is now suddenly Hollywood’s latest “it guy’. He is a wonderfully expressive and contemplative actor who at times appears to be channeling a mix of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. And the beautiful Arjona recalls a young Salma Hayek or Eva Mendes. Together, they have amazing chemistry both in and out of the love scenes. These are two physically attractive people who are made even more enticing by their emotional intensity. It is as if they share a secret about which we the audience may only speculate. The supporting cast including Austin Amelio, Sanjay Rao, Retta and Gralen Bryant Banks are also first-rate. Hit Man is also appealing because like other recently released films  The Fall Guy  and Ghostbusters: The Frozen Empire , which I also reviewed for these pages, it is not woke. Furthermore, Hit Man despite its subject matter also reaffirms traditional family values and the supremacy of good over evil. This recent crop of traditional values films from  a cancel-culture soil presents a hopeful harbinger that society has not gone completely off the ideological cliff. There are still people out there like Richard Linklater who want to tell stories about heroes who are still fighting the good fight against those who seek to tear our civilization apart. The distribution of Hit Man represents a curious departure from past models in that Netflix purchased the film for $20 million at the Venice Film Festival but only released the film in a limited number of theaters on May 31 before making it also available for streaming on June 7. Industry analysts have questioned this approach given the movie’s positive reviews and have expressed concern that by limiting the scope and duration of the film’s exclusive in theater availability, Netflix risks burying it with its other offerings. The results of this strategy remain to be seen but the film’s positive buzz with a Rotten Tomatoes 97 percent Tomatometer and a 95 percent Audience Score bode well for its finding a wide audience. I highly recommend Hit Man as an entertaining genre-blending cinema experience with sharp writing and excellent performances that also celebrates traditional values. And watch out for Glen Powell. He is about to become a big star. READ MORE reviews by Leonora Cravotta: Anthony Esolen Exposes Modern Liberal Fallacies in The Lies of Our Time The Fall Guy Honors Stunt People, Traditional Values Netflix Takes Liberties With Tom Wolfe’s A Man in Full The post <i>Hit Man</i> Is Destined To Become a Hit appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

List of Characters Man: a 30-something year-old man attending a gay pride parade. Volunteer: a 30-something year-old male assigned by parade organizers to hand out fliers and paraphernalia along the parade route. The scene: A man watches a pride parade roll by when a volunteer handing out free SWAG approaches him. Volunteer: Hi, welcome to the gay pride parade! Please have a free pride T-shirt! Man: Wow, thank you! Nice design! What a vibrant rainbow. The unicorn wearing leather chaps is a nice flourish. Volunteer: Yeah, go ahead and put it on. Man: Oh, no thanks. I’ll put it on later. Volunteer. No. Put it on. Man (nervously): Uh, no thanks? Volunteer (after 10 seconds of unnerving silence): Put. The shirt on. Now! Man (terrified): I, uh, don’t want to. Volunteer (fuming): You don’t like gay people! Man: I’m at a gay pride parade! Volunteer: Are you gay? Man: No. But I largely support gay causes. Volunteer: You’re all talk — you probably don’t support gay marriage! Man: I was best man at my brother’s wedding to his husband in the Hamptons! Volunteer: Ah, I know — you don’t support trans women! Man: I do, too! Volunteer: Really? If you support trans women, then you won’t mind having sex with one. Man: Well, that’s just fine and—wait a minute! (Looking skyward as if reflecting on advanced calculus.) Does that mean … Y chromosome … Big Adam’s apple … Look, I don’t want to put the T-shirt on. Volunteer: Do you support Queers for Radical Islamic Terror? Man: Wait. Do you mean Queers for Palestine? Volunteer: Same thing. Man: Of course not. It’s impossible to support people whose extreme religious dictates, by and large, seek to kill homosexuals merely because they exist! Let me ask you: is gay marriage legal in Gaza? Volunteer: Not at the moment. Man: Why? Volunteer: Because they tend to throw the wedding parties off hotel roofs. Man: That’s right! They’re fanatics! The chalk outlines of Bert and Ernie can be seen on Sesame Street Gaza! And they’re not even gay! Supporting Queers for Palestine is like supporting Embryos for Abortion. Volunteer: Do you support drag queen story hours for children at public libraries or family-friendly drag shows? Man: I, well, no. I don’t support any man or woman presenting anything remotely sexual — gay or straight — to children beyond its procreative meaning. Heck, I remember that from the fourth grade. But children are impressionable and easily confused, and there’s no need for kindergartners to learn about gratuitous sex. Kids should never view images of oral sex or a sex act of any kind in books available in school libraries. And I would wager a vast majority of gay people who want to live their lives agree with me. Volunteer: Did Hitler dedicate Mein Kampf to you? You are a Neanderthal fit to be pilloried. What do you have against gay people? Man: Nothing! It’s just that — Volunteer: Ah! I knew it! Just that what? Man: I don’t think you should call it Pride Month. Volunteer: Why not? Man: Because Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. It’s considered the deadliest sin that leads to all other sins. It’s the excessive love of one’s own excellence. Remember, Proverbs 16:18 says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Volunteer: Haughty spirit? What does John Kerry have to do with any of this? Man: Can you name one other month when we celebrate sin? I mean, it’s not like we label July Gluttony Month. Volunteer: You idiot. This is the United States of America. Have you been to a Waffle House? We celebrate Gluttony every day of the year! Man: I appreciate the T-shirt. I don’t want to wear it now. Volunteer: You are selfishness with man boobs. Man: Listen to me! I want to know one thing. Why do you want me to put on this shirt so badly? Volunteer: Because people like you need to learn tolerance! READ MORE satire from Matt Manochio: Book Chapter: Noem vs. The Cartel It’s Good That Some Truth Is Suppressed The NBC News Job Ad For a Republican Political Analyst The post The Pride Play appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Jim Crenshaw:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project: (Covert Action Magazine) A confluence of horrific policies is converging that threatens the freedom of homeless people in the United States. Governors and big city mayors across the western United States are demanding the “right” to drive the homeless from view and have pushed for the Supreme Court to […]

Results in France look as bad as had been forecast, per exit polls. Macon’s party barely gets 2nd place – and less than half the 31.5% of the National Rally of Marine Le Pen. Will have consequences in France, but also Europe. pic.twitter.com/MaFBAWHz6H — Stanley Pignal (@spignal) June 9, 2024