When the rejections began rolling in, there was a universal theme. All the editors of the big publishing houses had taken the time to read my new memoir, and they all emailed my veteran literary agent to say how great the story was, or how well-written it was, or how intelligent the format, interesting, clever, funny, heartfelt, profound, etc. Yet all these wonderfully complementary messages ended with, “But…” I have faced none of the disadvantages that are so advantageous in the publishing industry today. My agent kept apologizing to me and I was feeling sorry for her. As they always do, excuses ran the gamut. Several editors, however, were very honest about why they would not publish my book. One suggested that if I rewrite the book and omit the fact that I grew up in an area that was all white, she will consider it. After all, as she explained, that is offensive. Here is a direct quote from another. “If Neal was BIPOC or gay, I’d publish this in a heartbeat.” I get it. We all love stories of overcoming adversity. I believe most avid readers are sympathetic to those who face challenges concerning race, identity, and sexuality. I too support the LGBTQ+ community and equality for all. So, it could simply be basic economics—supply and demand. Having a mathematical mind, this makes perfect sense to me. There’s the historical context as well. For centuries, the literary industry, like every industry, was rigged against minorities and folks with perceived abnormal lifestyles. For too long it was a world of straight white men promoting other straight white men. But people in the publishing industry have led the charge to change that, and that’s a wonderful thing. Anytime you want to move the needle of status quo, you have to push hard in the opposite direction. They did that. They’re still doing it. Memoirs by authors who fit into this niche now dominate the landscape. When the reviews for these books come pouring in from all the major newspapers and review organizations, there is a central theme. The recurring word in all these reviews: “Brave.” The author was brave to go through what they did and very brave to tell their story. Hence, every “privilege” I was born with as far as most facets of life are concerned, is a handicap as an author. I grew up in a town that was all white and the dozen small towns nearby consisted of only white people as well. At a time when gay sex was still illegal in some states, I was never attracted to boys. Heck, even girls took a backseat to baseball. So I’ve never known courage of the kind where your very identity could put you in danger. If I could go back to the womb, perhaps I could plan better. Unfortunately, that is just the reality of my childhood. Hence, being that kind of brave can never be an option for me. But there are other kinds of brave. We lived in a shack in the woods with no electricity, no running water, no bathroom, no heat, and no insulation. Not even interior walls in the bedrooms. We shared the little shack with many pets—gray, furry, with big teeth and long pink tails. Wild animals crawled into our house and under my covers at times. My dad’s temper exploded into violent episodes dozens of times each day. I was seven years old the first time I stepped between him and Mom. It wasn’t to be a hero; I just thought it normal since Mom had done this for me many times. Anytime I could deflect Dad’s wrath from my mom or sisters, I would. (READ MORE: CRT and the Threat to the American Family) Growing up on a small farm in a small rural area meant I had no concept of the real world. Most things in life perplexed me. But I’ve never thought to question my identity or gender. Hence, what the publishing world sees as real bravery has eluded me. I had to raise hogs beginning at age eleven, and not the cute little family-friendly pigs that dominate Tik Tok today. Most of ours would kill you if given the chance. I had to learn how to castrate, ring noses, and for one huge 400-pound sow who was extremely dangerous, I had to reach inside her to retrieve her piglets when she was having trouble with delivery. But I’ve never done drugs. Before Nancy Reagan told me to, I always said, “No.” To this day, I’ve never done illegal drugs and rarely done legal ones. I just didn’t realize I was cheating myself out of the opportunity to overcome addiction and be a hero to others while aiding my future writing career. (READ MORE: Edmund Morris, Nancy Reagan, and Life) Either through fate or choice, I have faced none of the disadvantages that are so advantageous in the publishing industry today. None of the things I experienced are defined as heroics in the modern literary world. And that’s okay. I never wanted to be a hero. I never claimed to be a hero. But I also didn’t plan to be such a straight, white Okie from Muskogee that it made being the right kind of courageous impossible and deemed my words irrelevant. I guess we all look back over our lives and question many of our decisions. But when a new memoir comes out from one of these “brave” writers, and the numerous editorial reviews harp on that bravery, it is especially depressing to realize how wrong I did everything without even trying. It reminds me of the scene from Cheers where Dick Cavett, playing himself, explained to Sam Malone that his biography about overcoming alcoholism and being a womanizer wasn’t enough anymore. He added that publishers today were looking for drugs and homosexuality. (Note: this was 1983.) Sam’s response sums up my entire life. “Sorry I didn’t get out more.” Neal Wooten is a widely published author. His memoir With the Devil’s Help:With the Devil’s Help: A True Story of Poverty, Mental Illness, and Murder (Pegasus Crime/Simon and Schuster) is being made into a ten-part scripted miniseries. The post I Wish I Could Be Brave appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Over five years ago, I reported on the socialist agenda of the climate change alarmists and the essentially socialistic character of what was then called “the Green New Deal.” The GND presented an elaborate, ultra-expensive mega-agenda to radically transform society by retooling the national economy in accord with a central plan concocted by a self-anointed elite. It’s time to join the fight against the heavy, oppressive hand of Big Government, folks. While the phrase “green new deal” has receded into the background, the current administration if rushing full-speed ahead to implement its top-down central plan to transform our society, using the false scare of climate change as its pretext. Trillions of federal dollars are being channeled into replacing our existing system of generating and transmitting electricity. Federal regulations are being promulgated to force Americans to replace everything from stoves to refrigerators to water heaters to dishwashers to heating and cooling units, etc. Other regulatory decrees are designed to replace vehicles powered by internal combustion engines with battery-powered electric vehicles. (READ MORE from Mark Hendrickson: The US Is No Longer a Trustworthy Ally) The leftwing character of this socialistic agenda keeps resurfacing in multifarious anecdotes. One of the more extreme examples: It has recently come to light that some of the trillion-plus dollars appropriated for the climate agenda under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act has been given to a group called “Climate Justice Alliance.” In the name of “climate justice” (a dangerously open-ended buzzword phrase if there ever was one) this group believes that Palestine is a climate justice issue. It fulminates against  familiar leftwing bogeymen such as “colonialism” and “imperialism” as well as some newer buzzwords like “extractivism” (you know — the process of taking things out of the Earth that people can use, like food and energy). One of their slogans makes their ties with orthodox socialist ideology super clear: “Only Socialist Revolution Can Stop World War III.” Huh? What does that have to do with climate change? In doing some research, I came across an article from three years ago that typifies the socialist bias of the climate change movement. The author engaged in an ad hominem attack against Mark Mills. Mills is a physicist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of the practical problems of actually implementing the GND. He has tabulated the dauntingly vast quantities of various minerals that will have to be extracted (sorry, you anti-“extractivists”) in order to produce wind and solar energy on the scale dreamed of by their advocates. Mills’ work is based on numbers, not ideology, so what is his critic’s problem with him? He advises his readers not to pay heed to Mills’ writings because “Mills is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank.” Not only that, Mills once gave a talk sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Ah, guilt by association. Earlier this year, an organization named Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) expressed alarm about a growing number of videos on YouTube that counter climate alarmism. CCDH wants to censor such videos. They want Americans to stay alarmed and to support the radical transformation of society that climate change alarmists advocate. Of particular concern to CCDH and others in the alarmist camp are three categories of what they call “new denial.” As reported by Bloomberg, these three anti-alarmist categories are “(1) The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless. (2) Climate solutions won’t work. (3) Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.” Apart from the weirdness (and danger) of classifying opinions that don’t conform to climate alarmism as a form of “digital hate,” anyone who has been following the issue closely can see that the growing doubts and concerns about the alarmist agenda are all eminently reasonable. For the CCDH to suggest that the massive greening of the planet in recent decades due to CO2 enrichment is anything other than beneficial is ridiculous. To denounce the modest global warming of the last 150 years that has lengthened agricultural growing seasons and boosted food production sufficient to sustain eight billion human lives seems cruelly misanthropic. To point out the inefficiencies, relative unreliability, and enormous negative environmental impacts of mass producing intermittent energy sources (primarily solar and wind) is not only not hateful disinformation, but highly responsible. To assert that climate “science” and the political movement that it spawned — so heavily politicized that its cost/benefit analyses omit benefits — is unreliable is actually an understatement. (READ MORE: Without the Never-Trump Vote, Trump Can’t Win) The Bloomberg article cited above is representative of the mainstream press’s pro-alarmist bias. Such articles are more effective because the bias is more subtle — no trumpeting socialist revolution or implying that people who favor free markets are troglodytes. The Bloomberg headline states: “Attacks on Renewable Energy Are Proliferating on YouTube,” and the first paragraph warns against videos “attacking” alleged climate change solutions like wind and solar. Question: Are there no “attacks” against fossil fuels? Of course there are! “Attack” is an emotive word. The alarmists believe that they are advocating right policies, which entitles them to argue in the most forceful terms why we, the people, should stop using fossil fuels. In other words, they are “attacking” the use of fossil fuels, but they claim they are simply presenting facts. Then they turn around and whine when knowledgeable skeptics challenge their conclusions, labeling such arguments as “attacks,” as if they are somehow nefarious. The word “attack” implies that the person advancing that point of view is an aggressor, an evil actor. But on the issue of climate change, it is the alarmists who are the aggressors. They are attacking American’s lifestyles. They favor elitist central planning over the consumer sovereignty that free people benefit from. What we have playing out in the climate change arena is yet another would-be leftist revolution. The alarmists are pushing an elitist, centrally planned, top-down scheme for transforming our entire society. We skeptics are the counter-revolutionaries, striving to preserve our rights, our freedoms, and our prosperity. It makes me think of the Nicaraguan struggle in the 1980s between the Marxist revolutionaries and the contras (the counter-revolutionaries — the freedom fighters — that President Reagan supported). If the Gipper were here today, he would be leading the American contras in our resistance to the socialist tyranny that the left is striving to impose upon us. It’s time to join the fight against the heavy, oppressive hand of Big Government, folks. Join the fight for freedom. If you aren’t one already, become a climate contra. The post Climate Change Socialism on the Attack appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Former Liberal Australian Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull has taken to the pages of Foreign Affairs to warn America and the world about dealing with a possible second Trump presidency. Turnbull, who has made appearances on Trump-deranged MSNBC where he described Trump as a dictator-wannabee and an admirer of Vladimir Putin and other dictators, and who the BBC described as “cosmopolitan and progressive,” was Australia’s Prime Minister between 2015 and 2018. His essay is full of psychobabble about Trump being a “gaslighter,” a “bully” and “convinced of his own genius,” a leader who wants to be surrounded by “sycophants.” Trump, if he wins in November 2024, Turnbull writes, will “feel as invincible in his triumph as a Roman emperor, but he won’t have a slave by his side whispering, ‘Remember, you are mortal.’” Turnbull advises America’s allies to “stand up to the bullying” should Trump return to the White House. Turnbull was Australia’s Communications Minister … who critics described as “Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister.” Turnbull as Prime Minister called Communist China a “frenemy,” and in his memoir he calls China a “bully.” Back in 2011, Turnbull told an audience at the London School of Economics that China’s economic growth was nothing to worry about, and didn’t mean that it would also become a military threat. In the speech, he showed a fondness for quoting New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (who is nearly always wrong about China) and Barack Obama, both of whom welcomed China’s “peaceful” rise. “[I]t is important to note,” Turnbull said, “that China’s growth in power, both economic and military, has not been matched by any expansionist tendencies beyond reuniting Taiwan.” China’s approach toward trade, he remarked, “also argues for its rise to remain peaceful.” Nor was there any need to worry about China’s naval power. “Suggestions that China’s recent launch of one aircraft carrier and plans to build another are signs of a new belligerence are wide of the mark,” Turnbull said. “This is no time for another ‘long telegram’ or suggestions of containment,” Turnbull said. “China, unlike the Soviet Union, does not seek to export its ideology or system of government to other countries.” Perhaps Turnbull should consult the people of Tibet or Hong Kong or Taiwan about that. China experts like Matthew Pottinger and Elbridge Colby, both of whom served in the Trump administration, know that while China may be more patient than Soviet leaders were, they are every bit as expansionist as their communist predecessors were in Russia. The Belt and Road Initiative, for example, involves China using its economic power and leverage to expand its geopolitical reach across Eurasia, into Africa, and even as far as Latin America. Turnbull criticized Americans and Australians who recommended basing long-term strategic policy on a potential clash with China. He rejected the notion that Australia should base its defense planning and procurement on a possible naval war against China in the South China Sea. He welcomed China’s economic rise as being responsible for Australia’s prosperity. Even Turnbull had to admit in a 2017 speech in Singapore how wrong he had been to be so complacent about China. And he acknowledged in that speech that President Trump was right to expect Australia and other allies to pay more for their own defense. Before becoming Prime Minister, Turnbull was Australia’s Communications Minister, where he earned the moniker the “Duke of Double Bay” and who critics described as “Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister” who engaged in an “audacious bid to end Tony Abbott’s political career and seize the Prime Ministership which he had desperately coveted for many years.” According to Turnbull in his Foreign Affairs piece, he stood up to Trump the “bully” several times, and persuaded Trump to see things his (Turnbull’s) way and, therefore, won Trump’s respect. Why, one wonders, would Turnbull seek the respect of Trump “the bully” or Trump “the dictator?” And while Turnbull calls Trump “erratic,” some of Turnbull’s domestic critics called Turnbull “incoherent and inconsistent,” said his China policy was “absolutely all over the place,” and accused Turnbull of being “soft” on China. Is Malcom Turnbull really someone who other world leaders should take advice from about Donald Trump or anything else? The Trump administration, as Josh Rogin explained in Chaos Under Heaven, shifted U.S. foreign policy in a confrontational direction toward China, adopting a whole of government approach to dealing with the global threat posed by Communist China. Instead of being “erratic” and “all over the place” like Turnbull, the Trump administration actually pivoted to the Indo-Pacific, much to the benefit of our friends down under. Perhaps a little gratitude is in order from Australia’s former leader. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Neocons Slander the American Right A Short History of Democratic Party Lawfare The Virginia Battles That Decided the Civil War The post Spare Us the Advice From Down Under appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Once again the estimable Joseph Epstein hits it out of the park on how addictive and dispiriting watching and reading the news has become these days. I feel his pain. It’s sort of like road kill, isn’t it? You know you shouldn’t look, but you find yourself doing so against better judgment. We need to keep up with the continuing catastrophe our culture and politics have become. But it can be soul-crushing. I never saw anything remotely like what went on in Juan Merchan’s courtroom. For my Exhibit A, I would guess most savvy TAS readers had as much difficulty as I did keeping our eyes off the recent show trial in Manhattan, a kind of judicial road kill conducted on the same rules of engagement that applied in the Queen of Hearts’ court. The charges, of course, were complete balloon juice. But I said all along that all Fat Alvin had to establish to secure a conviction with a Manhattan jury was that the defendant’s name is Donald Trump. I don’t think even Horace Rumpole could have gotten the Donald off on a charge of spying on the Eskimos before this lot. My sources tell me the International Association of Kangaroos is suing Big Al and Juan Merchan for plagiarism and cultural appropriation. For a couple of years in my newspaper reporting days, when the world and I were young, I covered the courts in a large judicial district in Central Florida. During that time I was present in court, wire to wire, for about three dozen criminal trials, where I saw and heard everything the jury saw and heard, and observed how the judge conducted the proceedings. I never saw anything remotely like what went on in Juan Merchan’s courtroom. Manhattan “sophisticates” might consider Bartow or Lakeland Florida to be Dog Patch (they aren’t). But any case brought by a prosecutor there that depended on the testimony of a an opportunistic porn star, a publisher of tabloid newspapers whose last name would have gotten one arrested for repeating over the air 30 years ago, and a convicted and disbarred perjurer, would have been thrown out of court on first reading. Any judge who attempted to abuse court time with such would have become a figure of fun, and, on the occasion of the next election, a former judge. With any luck Mr. Epstein’s new TV will also throw a rod, and he’ll enjoy a few more days of peace. May I suggest a cable package that includes movies and sports channels only for those weary of the carnage and totally at sea on what to do about it. And if the kind of political knee-capping that took place in Judge Merchan’s courtroom becomes standard practice, it’s America that will become road kill, just another squalid, one-party dictatorship in a world full of them. READ MORE from Larry Thornberry: Manhattan Is on Trial Yakima Canutt: The Little-Known but Great American Stuntman Too Much of a Good Thing — Head Butting in August? The post The News Is Necessary, but Soul-Crushing appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

If it feels like you’ve seen a lot of advertisements lately soliciting victims of Camp Lejeune’s tainted water, it’s because you have. One of the people who proved to be most helpful in getting the Pact Act passed was then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In 2022, a provision was added to the “Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act” (PACT Act). It created a $6 billion fund to compensate up to 500,000 former Marines and family members who may have been exposed to contaminated water while stationed at Camp Lejeune from the 1950s through the 1980s. The new law held the promise of justice for Lajeune victims — and also the promise of a boon for the lawyers who signed them up. What has since been referred to as a “Wild West” of legal advertisement was unleashed: $145 million has been spent by law firms and their touts — known in the profession as “lead generators” — since 2022. That’s more than double what was spent on any mass tort advertising campaign before. This new gold rush didn’t happen by accident. A new report from the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) reveals the people behind the coordinated plan to use Camp Lejeune victims to build what amounts to a new business model for personal injury attorneys. The “Wild West” is really the beginning of an entirely new taxpayer-funded liability landscape, the report shows. (READ MORE: Federal Spending: Where Are D.C.’s Fiscal Watchdogs?) While news coverage of the PACT Act rightfully focused on compensating victims of U.S. government negligence, GAI’s new report details how trial lawyers lobbied lawmakers to add — or rather, forget to add — the usual caps on legal fees. The law allows them to receive uncapped fees on settlements from the government directly. This lets them bypass the court system, and the associated costs for the attorneys. Situated amid the injured veterans and their families at the August 11, 2022 bill signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House was a South Carolina personal injury attorney named J. Edward Bell, III. Ed Bell’s involvement in Camp Lejeune litigation began back in 2008, and he has had an enormous influence on subsequent legal challenges concerning Camp Lejeune’s water contamination issues.  Bell’s aggressive awareness campaigns, culminating in alliances with key political figures, showcased his dedication to bringing the Camp Lejeune issue to the front of public consciousness. Bell’s presence at the bill signing, the report details, underscored his singular involvement. “We were told by the Department of Navy and others, in order to prevail and in order to have at least a chance of going to court, we have to change the laws,” said Bell at the bill signing ceremony. “So, we wrote the bill.” Mr. Bell seems poised to collect handsome royalties for his work as an author. One of the key lobbying battles, in which Mr. Bell and his plaintiffs bar colleagues ultimately prevailed, was over the fight to remove caps on the fees attorneys involved in the litigation might collect. An earlier version of the legislation featured a 25 percent fee cap, and subsequent efforts since the bill’s passing have called for caps to be implemented at anywhere from 17 to 33 percent of what is awarded to a successful claimant. But the law, as it stands, features no caps on the fees lawyers like Mr. Bell can collect. That’s how he wanted it. And, as he admitted, others helped him do it. One of the people who proved to be most helpful in getting the Pact Act passed was then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). “The secret sauce in the House was Nancy Pelosi,” Ed Bell said at the signing of the bill. “She took this up individually and walked this through the House.” (READ MORE: Nancy Pelosi’s Other Legacy: A Mountain of Debt for Our Children) Pelosi’s bill walking efforts coincided with Bell’s hiring of her former chief of staff, Danny Weiss, to lobby on the PACT Act’s passage. Weiss registered as a lobbyist for Cormac Group (a lobbying firm representing Bell Legal Group) on October 13, 2021, just before North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Senate version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act on November 4. Unlike the House’s version of the bill, Senator Tillis’s bill omitted attorney fee caps, benefiting Weiss’s clients. Lobbying records show Weiss lobbying on behalf of Bell’s clients for veterans’ affairs and mass tort litigation issues involving the Camp Lejeune Justice Act during the next three months. In all, Weiss was paid more than $700,000 by the Bell Group for his efforts. Apparently, he was worth it. On March 2, 2022, Pelosi issued a public statement championing the inclusion of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act in the PACT Act, which would ultimately go on to pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Joe Biden five months later. It was a victory for all parties. After decades of coverup and rejection, Camp Lejeune victims could finally get compensation for their health issues. But the biggest winners may prove to be lawyers like Ed Bell, who now get to exploit this lawsuit settlement “express lane” they lobbied to create. Don’t expect to see fewer advertisements on TV seeking Camp Lejeune victims anytime soon. Some experts, according to Bloomberg, say the $145 million spent on advertising so far may double again. Hedge funds and litigation finance companies are treating the ad buys as investments, “with hopes of significant returns based on how well the lawsuits perform.” The Wild West is now financed by Wall Street, with lawyers driving the wagon trains, and taxpayers picking up the tab. The post The Camp Lejeune Justice Act’s Uncapped Fees appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Many Americans are understandably fixated on the global crises dominating the headlines. But as we continue to focus on conflicts like Israel’s war against Hamas, we must not neglect a critical region in the quest for global stability and prosperity: North Africa. Most importantly, policymakers in the U.S. must accept that the contest for influence in North Africa is part of a wider strategic competition. The Maghreb — encompassing Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya — sits at a strategic crossroads between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Its vast energy resources, including Libya’s oil reserves and Algeria’s immense natural gas deposits, make it a vital supplier to global markets. The region’s proximity to key shipping lanes in the Mediterranean and its growing economic potential underscore its importance to American interests. (READ MORE from Paul Packer: Silence That Can Kill: Where Are the Black Friends Jews Need?) But with Washington’s eyes elsewhere, our adversaries have been steadily establishing influence in the region. Russia’s military involvement in North Africa ranges from being deeply embedded in Libya to supplying the majority of Algeria’s arms imports. China has dramatically expanded its economic engagement, emerging as the top trade partner for countries such as Algeria and a major investor in sectors from infrastructure to automobiles across the Maghreb. The United States cannot afford to cede this ground. We need a more active, supportive role in North Africa — one that bolsters our geopolitical standing, supports economic development, and safeguards the region from the predations of rival powers. Morocco provides a prime example. The Kingdom, which has been led by the same family for nearly four centuries, has a storied history of friendship with the U.S., dating back to 1777, when Morocco became the first nation to recognize American independence. America and Morocco also have a close security partnership. In recent years, Morocco has sought to leverage its position bridging Europe and Africa to attract diverse international investment and emerge as an economic gateway to the continent. But Morocco’s significance extends beyond just economics or security. The nation’s decision to normalize relations with Israel in late 2020 was a diplomatic breakthrough, one that promises to reshape regional dynamics. By recognizing Israel and opening the door to greater economic and people-to-people ties, Morocco has helped to further isolate extremist voices and create new space for moderation and pragmatism to take root. However, the durability of this breakthrough is not guaranteed. The United States must continue to nurture and strengthen the Morocco-Israel relationship, both to capitalize on the strategic benefits for American interests and to bolster the forces of stability and cooperation in a volatile region. Morocco also demonstrates the competitive playing field. China has rapidly expanded its economic footprint in the country, with major investments in sectors like infrastructure, agriculture, and technology. Russia has also sought, with less success, to make diplomatic inroads and exploit divisions over the Western Sahara dispute, a conflict between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front over the sovereignty of the resource-rich territory. The United States can’t take its relationship with Morocco, or any of our North African partners, for granted. We need a positive agenda that plays to American strengths and shared interests with the region. For starters, that means helping North African states guard against predatory investment that leaves them beholden to foreign powers. Through vehicles like the new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, America can mobilize private capital for high-quality infrastructure and offer an alternative to China’s often-onerous deals. The U.S. should work with North African governments to promote economic reforms, competitiveness, and diversification to create jobs and opportunities, particularly for the region’s youth. We should incentivize American companies to seek opportunities in the region while holding firm to values like transparency and local employment. On security, the U.S. should expand programs to build local capacity to address challenges like terrorism, smuggling, and uncontrolled migration that reverberate well beyond the region, while steering clear of military entanglements. We should also use our diplomatic heft to push for political stability and dialogue within and between Maghreb countries. (READ MORE: I Was There on October 7) Crucially, American engagement should capitalize on our edge in soft power, from English-language training to entrepreneurship coaching to university ties. Such links are an unparalleled asset in the competition for moral allegiance. Most importantly, policymakers in the U.S. must accept that the contest for influence in North Africa is part of a wider strategic competition. As Moscow and Beijing flood the zone with economic enticements and geopolitical chess moves, Washington cannot simply hope for the best. We need to match their overtures with an affirmative vision that places partnership with the region at the center. With focused, consistent engagement, the United States can help the Maghreb choose a path of openness, stability and mutual prosperity, and cement the region’s westward orientation for generations to come. The region may not always dominate the headlines, but America’s commitment today can secure our position in this important corner of the world — and send a message about our standing globally. The post Why the US Must Renew Its Commitment to North Africa appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from BANNED.VIDEO:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: A Canadian detective was suspended and vilified after it came out that she was personally investigating cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in relation to childhood vaccination. Helen Grus took it upon herself to look into the matter after nine babies died in Ottawa following their mothers getting “vaccinated” for the […]

After Pedro Sanchez, the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain, chose to recognize a “State of Palestine,” the leader of the right-wing opposition “VOX” party, Santiago Abascal, paid a visit to Israel, in sign of solidarity with the Jewish state. And from Jerusalem, he declared that when he is in charge of Spain, there well be […]