I don’t envy my younger brother’s Hollywood success. As a top-tier Second Unit Director, George has worked with Martin Scorsese, Jack Nicholson, Ron Howard, and Francis Ford Coppola. But I worked with the man that launched all of them (actor Howard as a director) — the legendary Roger Corman. Roger, who died last Saturday at the age of 98, distributed a science-fiction action film I wrote called Electra in 1996. Corman was more than ready for the late Sixties, and the countercultural male youth disdain for the Establishment. Electra was no Boxcar Bertha (1972), Scorsese’s breakout movie, yet both pictures adhered to the same inviolate Corman Rule of Filmmaking: “You can do whatever you want to — make any statement you like — only show female nudity in the first 10 minutes.” Of course, Marty went a lot further than I did after his Corman collaboration. But then, he had Barbara Hershey for the rest of the movie, I had “B” queen Shannon Tweed (no slight on the lovely, nice Ms. Tweed). Okay, and a lot less cinematic genius, which Roger bottled as no other producer ever did. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Men Begin the Masculine Pushback) Corman was a true maverick in a brutal business, finding money where there wasn’t. He mined gold out of the lowest budgets, starting with third-bill Westerns in the mid-50s, and giving them exploitative titles like Five Guns West, Apache Woman, and The Oklahoma Woman. He could make them cheap back then because they built so many Western sets for movies and TV shows. All Roger did was shoot his fast between big productions, using familiar yet non-star names like Lloyd Bridges and Dorothy Malone. But soon he found his lucrative forte — horror and science-fiction. Roger knew boys loved monsters and pretty girls, and he delivered both in spades. Between 1956 and 1959, he became a moneymaking creature-feature factory. That the movies seldom lived up to their sensational titles — Day the World Ended, It Conquered the World, The Undead, Attack of the Crab Monsters, Night of the Blood Beast, Teenage Caveman (starring a pre-The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Robert Vaughn), She Gods of Shark Reef — was part of their charm. “It” never threatened, let alone conquered, the world. And Roger no longer had to pay for Lloyd Bridges-level names. With a title like Night of the Blood Beast, the Blood Beast was the star. Yet there was something unique and visionary about his early movies that also intrigued more mature minds. Corman was no Hollywood hack. He’d studied English Literature at Oxford and understood the value of narrative theme. His underappreciated 1957 feature, The Undead, dealt with a troubled psychiatric patient haunted by her medieval incarnation. To uncover the secret of her phobia, her psychologist travels back in time to Dark Ages Britain and confronts the Devil himself. For the less cerebral audience members, Corman showcased sexy bombshell Allison Hayes (Attack of the 50-Foot Woman) as a seductive witch. He knew his business. His darkly humorous Little Shop of Horrors (1959) concerned a timid shop clerk housing a man-eating plant. It featured a memorable performance by then unknown actor Jack Nicholson, who would soon be well known and revered. The movie developed a cult following, becoming a hit Broadway musical then a hit 1986 film. Corman shot the original in two days. The more visceral, less censored early Sixties provided fertile ground for his art, first trod by England’s hugely successful Hammer Studios. Deftly, he increased the violence, horror, and unpleasantry of the offerings if not the budget. For his 1963 pre-slasher about a mysterious axe murderer, Dementia 13, Corman let his assistant direct for the first time. He was a young writer-editor named Francis Ford Coppola. Corman himself took the reins on a series of higher-budgeted — widescreen, technicolor — atmospheric period films inspired by the works of Edgar Allan Poe – The House of Usher, The Pit and the Pendulum, The Premature Burial, The Masque of the Red Death, The Raven. To top bill all but The Premature Burial (which starred former Hollywood A-lister Ray Milland), he wisely hired a great actor closely associated with the horror genre — Vincent Price. The combination of Price and Poe proved very profitable for American International Pictures. The Masque of the Red Death is today considered a semi-classic horror film. A 2021 reappraisal by The Guardian awarded it five stars. “Corman’s formal artistry and conviction on a limited budget looks more impressive than ever,” stated the Guardian critic. “And with his iconic Poe adaptations he did more than anyone in academe to establish the author’s position in the literary canon.” (READ MORE: World War True) Corman was more than ready for the late Sixties, and the countercultural male youth disdain for the Establishment and its moral pretenses while it sent them to a bloody war somewhere in Southeast Asia. Roger had the perfect stars to speak for them: John Cassavetes (Devil’s Angels), a pre-Easy Rider Peter Fonda (The Wild Angels, The Trip), and of course Nicholson (Ride in the Whirlwind). But in 1968, he took a chance on another unknown writer-wannabe-director and his disturbing script about a broken young Vietnam War veteran on a sniper rampage at a drive-in theater. To guarantee an audience, Corman cast horror legend Boris Karloff as the old star being honored at the drive-in. The result was the excellent suspense thriller Targets by the late, great Peter Bogdanovich. Roger continued to entertain us and innovate through the 80s, 90s, and early 21st century. I’m proud to be a tiny part of his legacy. And sorry I will never get his call to write a project we once discussed — Electra II: The Second Coming. The post Farewell to the Legend: Roger Corman appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Months ago, House Republicans began an impeachment investigation of President Biden which continues pointlessly. Now there’s a big foofaraw about impeaching Biden for his action in delaying or stopping arms shipments to Israel. Biden said he’s also reviewing other arms deals in an effort to forestall Israel’s action against the final refuges of the Hamas terrorists. Biden evidently wants Hamas to survive and to regain control of the Gaza Strip which it was “elected” to govern in 2006. The House Republicans managed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorkas for his conduct in keeping the borders open for all sorts of people — terrorists, Chinese military and such. But that impeachment was dismissed without the Constitutionally-required trial by Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schumer. Any impeachment of Biden will suffer the same ignominious fate. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden Wants Hamas ‘Refugees’) Moreover, Biden’s impeachment is very unlikely given House Republicans’ joy at shooting each other rather than getting anything done. Some remember Biden’s 2019 Tweet in which he condemned former president Trump for threatening to stop aid to Ukraine. In that Tweet Biden said, “President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they granted him a political favor … It’s the definition of quid pro quo. This is no joke — Trump continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached.” Biden, as usual, was entirely wrong then. We aren’t accustomed to getting our exercise by jumping to conclusions, so let’s see what we can make out of Biden’s delay. The first fact we need to consider is that a president needn’t spend the money congress appropriates immediately. This, despite congress’ long months of delay and Biden’s insistence that the aid to Ukraine should be provided quickly. Simply put, as I wrote at the time of the Trump impeachments, there are some things for which a president can and should be impeached. But, like Trump’s threat to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it investigated Biden’s evident corruption, a delay in spending money and providing aid isn’t one of “high crimes and misdemeanors” mentioned in the Constitution. Biden sent Ukraine munitions almost immediately after the aid bill passed. It’s only Israel that he wants to punish for its intent to conduct a final sweep of the city of Rafah. Israel needs to do this to send the remaining Hamas members and leaders to hell as it vowed to do after the October 7 Hamas attack that killed about 1,200 Israelis, 32 Americans and took about 240 hostages. About a dozen Americans were taken hostage on October 7. Five are believed to still be alive and Biden’s first priority in that war should be getting them back alive. It isn’t even among his priorities. The five American hostages should be at the front of what’s left of Biden’s mind, but they are not: Keith Siegel, 65, Sagui Dekel-Chen, 35, Omer Neutra, 22, Edan Alexander, 20, and Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23. Goldberg-Polin was the focus of a Hamas video aired last week. They have been held, so far, for 219 days but Biden doesn’t care. Biden remains scared of the Muslim voters in our country who listen to people like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and the others who condemn Israel for religious and ideological reasons. He’s scared of all the anti-Israel pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses because most of them can vote. Biden wants a cease-fire deal that might or might not result in the release of hostages, including the five Americans. Hamas, of courses, won’t release the hostages and insists on a final end to Israel’s counterattacks against them. Biden sides with Hamas over Israel, our only real ally in the Middle East, despite Hamas’s vows to repeat the October 7 attacks again and again until Israel is no more. Israel is in mortal danger, and Biden has abandoned them. The second fact we need to think about is that the delayed shipment comprises bombs of varying weights fitted to carry the Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance system. They are “precision-guided munitions” — PGMs — which have an accuracy of about 10 feet. A pilot is lucky to land a regular dumb bomb within 50 to 100 feet of his target. What that means is that Biden is depriving the Israelis of exactly the kind of munition they rely on to reduce civilian casualties. Israel doesn’t attack indiscriminately or target non-combatants intentionally. That’s Hamas’s modus operandi. (READ MORE: Congress Blows It on FISA) To add to the confusion is a new State Department report on Israel’s use of American munitions in its war on Hamas. In a report to Congress, the Staties wrote, “The nature of the conflict in Gaza makes it difficult to assess or reach conclusive findings on individual incidents … Nevertheless, given Israel’s significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles … have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its IHL [international humanitarian law] obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.” What that gobbledegook says is that while there is no direct evidence of Israel violating international humanitarian law, our State Department concludes that they did because it’s in Biden’s political interest for it to do so. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, reacting to Biden’s temporary halt of the PGM delivery said that Israel will fight alone if it has to and “fight with its fingernails” despite Biden’s action. His comment is reminiscent of Churchill’s 1940 “never surrender” speech in which he vowed that Britain would fight on alone and for years if it had to. Netanyahu is no Churchill but he has a very good point. Israel has to scour Rafah where Hamas’s leaders are known to be holed up surrounded by hostages in order to do what is necessary in its vital national security interests. Biden evidently wants Hamas to survive and to regain control of the Gaza Strip which it was “elected” to govern in 2006. It is Israel’s choice to allow Hamas to survive and suffer its future attacks or to kill the remnants of Hamas in Rafah and rescue the hostages who remain alive. House Republicans should waste no more time in their impeachment investigation of Biden or on this matter of Biden’s delay of arms shipments to Israel. They need to get their act together and find a way to compel Biden to give Israel what it needs to comprehensively defeat Hamas. The biggest reason to impeach Biden is his open border policy which, as noted above, is bringing all sorts of terrorists and saboteurs into the country. There has reportedly been an 8,000 percent increase in Chinese illegal aliens coming in since 2021. You can count on the fact that most or all are members of the People’s Republican Army or agents of China’s Ministry of State Security. But the House Republicans probably can’t — and shouldn’t — pull the trigger on a Biden impeachment. What they should be doing is devising a way to compel Biden to focus his pressure on Hamas where it belongs. They should demand that Biden use every weapon at his — and Israel’s — disposal to get the American hostages and all the others released. Biden won’t because he thinks it will be politically damaging for him to do so. The post Impeach Biden? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Recently, Democrats at both federal and state levels have passed or are considering regulations that will grant government health coverage to illegal residents. [C]itizenship entails benefits and responsibilities that do not accrue to non-citizens. Bad move for both illegals and legal residents. The Biden administration just announced a Final Rule that will allow eligible DACA recipients to enroll in Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage. Estimates suggest more than 100,000 persons would be given ACA-subsidized or Medicaid/CHIP insurance. (READ MORE from Deane Waldman: In Health Care, Job Growth Is Not Always Good) Five Democrat-dominated states are following Biden’s lead. California, New York, and Illinois are offering, or will shortly, government provided Medicaid coverage to undocumented residents who have already entered or are part of the ongoing deluge at our southern border. Colorado and Washington are allowing illegals to enroll in state-subsidized health plans. Medicaid, originally intended exclusively for the small number of medically vulnerable Americans, now covers 25.5 percent of the U.S. population. Covering millions of illegals will likely add another trillion or three to the national debt. Obamacare cost $1.76 trillion. While the financial impact of providing insurance is sure to be devastating, the medical consequences will be worse, by the seesaw effect. As the number of individuals with government insurance goes up, access to timely medical care goes down! As the number of people demanding care goes up and the number of providers goes down, wait times for care get longer and longer. “Even a four-week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality … for seven cancers.” In 2017, maximum average wait time to see a primary care physician had increased to more than 122 days. If a four-week delay reduces your chances for survival, imagine what a four-month wait will do. A recent (2024) survey shows wait times have lengthened another 8 percent to 132 days. Thus, by the seesaw effect, as government provides more people with insurance — ACA, Medicaid, Medicare, or Tricare for veterans and their families — the longer people wait for care, until they literally die waiting in line for care: death-by-queue. By providing government insurance to illegals, Democrats are lying to them for political gain. Providing coverage strongly implies that having health insurance means they will get timely medical care. Data from the seesaw effect shows precisely the opposite. Democrats’ actions are not only taking care from illegals, they are also reducing access to care for 85 million legal, tax-paying American citizens currently enrolled in Medicaid. The seesaw effect hits them just like illegals. Giving health insurance to illegals may make nice sound bites. It is in fact death-dealing health policy for all Americans. In his 2021 book, “The Dying Citizen,” Victor Davis Hanson details (his subtitle), “How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America.”  A key point is that having citizenship entails benefits and responsibilities that do not accrue to non-citizens, and certainly not to those who break the law by, for instance, entering this country illegally. (READ MORE: Medicaid Enrollees: The State Can Take Your House) By giving government health insurance to illegals, President Biden and Democrat henchmen are not only harming all Americans by reducing access to care, they are also wiping out the distinction between citizen and non-citizen lawbreaker. Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; former Director, New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of the multi-award winning book Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine. The post Government Health Coverage for Illegals is a Bad Idea appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

How many fields of pursuit in America come with a guarantee that the employee can never be fired? Owners typically cannot be fired, but corporate boards of directors often fire CEOs who come in with poor results. Sports managers and coaches get fired all the time. School teachers can be fired. First responders can be fired. In law firms, when an associate “makes partner,” he theoretically cannot be fired, but that is because a law firm partner actually becomes a part owner of the firm. So he does not get a set hourly wage anymore but a share of the firm’s annual profits. In many firms, the new term for a “law partner” is a “shareholder.” And even then, if the partner fails to continue bringing in new business or billing a reasonable number of hours, he will get pressured intensely to leave. I worked for ten years at three of America’s most prestigious firms — Jones Day, Akin Gump, and Baker and Hostetler — and I saw this first hand. So the campuses are full of tenured professors — approximately half their faculties — many of whom are legit and many others of whom barely work at all. People get fired. Deans get fired. The president of the University of Pennsylvania got fired recently, and that snake was followed out the door by the plagiarizing former president of Harvard. In time, the president at Columbia rightly will get the boot. Presidents and other elected government officials get fired by the voters, or they simply get termed-out.  Almost everyone, other than owners of private businesses, can be fired. (READ MORE from Dov Fischer: Sue the Members of the College Boards) Except for tenured university professors. And that is just wrong. And outrageous. It is corrupt. There is nothing like it. I was a non-tenured adjunct professor of law for sixteen years at a once-fine Southern California law school, and also for six years at an outstanding University of California law school. An “adjunct” is a part-timer. We are hired to teach, but are not expected to be on campus 9-5, holding office hours, attending committee meetings, sponsoring or guiding or mentoring individual students for graduate papers or law review submissions, and publishing scholarly articles in respectable law reviews. Rather, we are hired only to teach. Some of us adjuncts are not such good teachers and do not last very long. Many others of us are far better at teaching than are the tenured professors whose roles are described above. We love teaching, and we are fabulous at it. We love our students and give them far more personal time than the tenured professors do because teaching and students are our passion, not publishing weighty law review articles that no one ever reads. There are downsides as well as upsides to being an adjunct. We do not get the employee benefits that tenured professors do. No health coverage. No life insurance. Virtually no pension. We have to pay for parking every time we show up. We get no office to meet students, so we have to meet with them at coffee shops or outdoors on campus. And our contracts are for six months only, only one semester at a time. One wrong step, and sayonara. I taught for 16 years, so was hired and rehired 32 consecutive times. They could have dropped me any term they wanted, but the students loved me to pieces, and I was one of the most effective professors at the law school. How do I know? Because I received hundreds upon hundreds of emails from my students over those sixteen years saying so, even emails two and three years after they graduated saying that, looking back, the only class and professor they took in all their law school education that proved valuable in actual practice was mine. One wrote me that she was working for a partner who did not know a certain rule of civil procedure, so she quickly chimed in, without researching, and told him the law. He responded: “Pretty sharp! Where did you go to law school?” She told him. He replied: “Oh, that one. I’ll bet you had Fischer!” Her retort: “Who else?” I have hundreds of these, close to a thousand such affectionate letters. I kept them in case I ever got fired over political correctness and cancel culture. When my beloved wife and best friend of twenty years, dear Ellen of blessed memory, passed away in July 2020, I knew it was time for me to “call it a day” with law teaching. I already had achieved far more than I ever hoped to attain as an adjunct. I no longer needed the money. No longer wanted to grade final exams. But I had continued doing it because I absolutely loved my students of all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds and teaching them, and it was a 90-minute car drive each way — three hours total every Wednesday — during which Ellen of blessed memory always accompanied me. Those three hours with Ellen were worth everything in the world to me, especially as she became ill. As an added bonus, her presence allowed me to use the carpool lane, saving an hour on the drive. Once she passed and went to Paradise to be with the souls of the Righteous, and with COVID rampant on earth, and me diagnosed with terminal interstitial lung disease (saved later only by an emergency lung transplant), I realized I had to give up law school teaching, like Joe DiMaggio did with the Yankees, at the top of my game. And then I got a push. The great Rush Limbaugh, G-d rest his soul, for the third time in three years, read an entire article of mine on his radio show. Whenever he would do that, it would guarantee an extra 100,000 or more readers of that column. Once, he even got me one million readers. So Rush read it, and it made waves, and two wacko leftist professors at the law school demanded that I be “investigated.” I was not sure what would be investigated. I am an American citizen and have papers to prove it. I had a circumcision on my eighth day. I have copies of my college degree from Columbia, my graduate degree and rabbinical ordination (s’mikha) from Yeshiva University, and my law degree from UCLA. I even have a certificate that I was a good boy and drank my milk in first grade. But the wacko leftists demanded an “investigation.” The Dean of Adjuncts — yes, there is such a thing — phoned me apologetically to tell me he would have to “investigate” me. I used a procedural loophole to delay any “investigation” for two days. I called Jim, a dear friend, the best plaintiffs’ employment law attorney in California, thereafter two former federal chief circuit court judges, and finally an old buddy of decades, and they all unanimously counseled me to walk away. (READ MORE: The Blessing of the College Riots) I no longer needed it. I no longer needed the money. I had experienced the prestige of being called “Professor Fischer” for 16 years, along with “Rabbi Fischer” for forty. Ellen of blessed memory no longer would be spending three hours in the car with me every Wednesday. I no longer would have access to the carpool lane. I no longer would have to grade another final exam. And, with my corroding lungs, I dared not stand in an over-filled classroom (as my classes always were) amid the height of COVID. So I hung up my syllabus and just walked away. Let them investigate that. They once were the 37th best law school in the country. Now they are #61, tied with Seton Hall and the University of Kentucky. But they do have an impressive “Black Lives Matter” web page. Within 48 hours, I picked up a new income opportunity that paid more than they ever paid, at half the hours, and twice the fun. G-d is so good. I love G-d, my life, and my new wife. But I miss Ellen z”l of blessed memory terribly. So that is the life of an adjunct. A touch of job insecurity like everyone else. By contrast, a tenured professor cannot ever be fired except for “moral turpitude.” So the campuses are full of tenured professors — approximately half their faculties — many of whom are legit and many others of whom barely work at all or fail to keep up with their assigned subjects. They re-use the same reading lists and syllabi for so many years that students would think the sociology or political science class for which they signed up actually is one in history. They do not prepare. They assign less challenging term papers and administer easier final exams that can be graded by a Scantron machine, rather than by a human being. They are not available for their students because they are busy at committees or researching and writing scholarly papers about deconstructing constructions. They cannot be fired. They are useless, often narcissistic, haters because they are safe to spout any garbage that comes to their minds that day, and their decaying presence blocks opportunities for enterprising newcomers to advance. A beautiful example can be found in the great Russel Crowe film, “A Beautiful Mind.” The guy is a genius, a brilliant, remarkable mathematician. But he does not care a rat’s petootie about his students. He hates even going through the motions of teaching. He just wants to think and publish. (The story is far more gripping than that, but this pertains here.) That is what too many tenured professors are. How do I know? I studied under them. I worked alongside them. I know them. To be fair, no blanket description can fairly describe an entire class of people. But the shoe fits. Tenure goes back to the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and even earlier. The idea was to protect free expression and intellectual freedom to think, to explore, to take daring risks in pursuit of knowledge. But in today’s world, the impact is the opposite: it imposes ideological strictures of severe conformity. Professors seeking tenure in a liberal arts field where the faculty department is predominantly or even uniformly liberal and progressive/woke are forced to conceal and even to transform their views to accord with the department’s left orthodoxy, or they will be denied tenure or even initial employment. Therefore, anticipating their future careers, they must publish politically correct views in journals and be wary of what they post on social media. From the day they enter grad school, in fact, they must be careful to select a topic for their dissertation that will not get them “dinged” when they seek academic employment. Tenure is a century old, out of date, and must be stopped. Laws must be enacted, both by the federal and any state government that allocates money to colleges and universities, that any institution receiving such public funds — toward scholarships, fellowships, student loans, research, or even by means of tax exemptions — must document to the government that the school no longer maintains a policy of academic faculty tenure. (READ MORE: Colleges Must Stop Admitting Foreign Students for Two Years) That does not mean that professors should be fired every term. On the contrary, any experienced excellent professor always will be rehired over an inexperienced newcomer. However, the dross will be discarded and the chaff sifted out. Those who use their classrooms as platforms to indoctrinate and brainwash will be held to greater scrutiny. If they are teaching lies, their lectures and classrooms will be exposed by students with video clips on social media, and public outrage will place their employment in jeopardy. College and university directors and trustees, fearing — correctly — they themselves will be sued by the federal government and in parents’ class actions, will act to remove the garbage. Tenured professors will have no choice left but to teach and publish wisdom and useful knowledge, not Hate America poison or conspiracy theories that George W. Bush worked with Bin Laden to take down the World Trade Center’s twin towers. As part of a comprehensive program to fix the rot in our colleges and universities, the practice of academic faculty tenure must be abolished.  To receive Rav Fischer’s Weekly Extensive Torah Commentaries or to attend any or all of Rav Fischer’s weekly 60-minute live Zoom classes on the Weekly Torah Portion, the Biblical Prophets, the Mishnah, Rambam Mishneh Torah, or Advanced Judaic Texts, send an email to: shulstuff@yioc.org His 10-part exciting and fact-based series of one-hour classes on the Jewish Underground liberation movement (Irgun, Lechi, and Haganah) and the Rise of Modern Israel can be found here. In it, he uses historic video clips of Irgun, Lechi, and Haganah actions, decades of past Arab terrorist atrocities, as well as stirring musical selections from the Underground and video’d interviews of participants, to augment data, statistics, maps, and additional historical records to create a fascinating, often gripping, and scholarly enriching educational experience about issues that remain deeply relevant today as Israel engages in an existential war in Gaza against Hamas terrorism. His latest deeply moving weekly series of informational and inspirational programs on the Hamas Gaza war may be found here. His 40-part Bible Study series covering all of I Samuel (First Samuel) intensively with Talmudic and Midrashic commentaries, and now into II Samuel is now up here. The post To Stop the Campus Riots, Abolish Faculty Tenure appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The old joke has it that “if you can remember the 60s, you weren’t really there.” Maybe because I was never into drugs, I remember them all too well. And, despite the unquestionably cool music, I don’t remember them particularly fondly. Yes, a lot of good things happened in those years, but they were also a time of burning cities, of massive anti-Vietnam war protests, of one episode after another of passionate hate and discontent. Given the political and, even more, cultural upheaval of the time, one struggled mightily to find a positive path in life. These are not the ideologues … but rather those for whom action and a sense of belonging represent a reward worth seeking. Still, one of the abiding sins of my Boomer brethren has been taking ourselves too seriously, or, better, taking seriously the wrong things, the wrong way. The first half of the 60s, for many of us, was more an extension of the 50s, more “American Graffiti,” an Archie comic book existence rather than Fanon or Marcuse. During those years, as a high school student on a college campus for a summer workshop, I recall watching a panty raid, drunken frat guys clad in madras shirts and chinos, chanting “panties, panties” and cheering lustily as lacy white things fluttered down from the upper floors of a girls dorm. (READ MORE from James H. McGee: Biden is Deaf to His ‘Better Angels’) I also remember, just a few years later, stoned hippie-types, clad in tie dye and bell bottoms, chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho chi Minh” as they staggered across campus in the wake of a small vanguard of hardcore radicals. I couldn’t help thinking it looked like nothing more than a politically pretentious panty raid. Not for nothing was Woodstock acclaimed as a heroic politico-social event, rather than what it most evidently was — a massive drug and alcohol fueled party, accompanied by a first rate soundtrack. Activism in those years came surrounded by an awful lot of conformist fun-seeking, “conformist” because, for all the claims about “fighting the system,” there was a great deal of trying to be like everyone else. And “fun seeking” — getting high on the vibe from the crowd was a huge incentive for joining a protest march, particularly when it came with an outsized frisson of sexual excitement. Famously, iconic folk singer Joan Baez and her two sisters posed for a widely-distributed poster with the caption “Girls say yes to boys who say no.” Lest anyone mistake the intent, the sub-caption noted that proceeds from the poster’s sales would go to “The Draft Resistance.” Some feminists professed outrage, but for young men in 1968, the message was revolutionary. Having largely been raised with 1950s sexual values, and particularly subjected to various macho imperatives — be a football star, be a soldier — the idea that girls might offer themselves to a draft resister was profoundly subversive. Unsurprisingly, the 60s protests flagged as the Vietnam war began to wind down, and many of those who’d been simply along for the ride, for the thrills, moved on with their lives. But the most dedicated radicals refused to give up, moving from orchestrating mass protests to more violent terrorist action, notably a series of bombings aimed at the government and the military. The murderous bombing at the University of Wisconsin math center was one such, the 1971 bombing at the Pentagon yet another. Sadly, one legacy of the 60s protests was a willingness to see the United States itself as unworthy. While most former protesters were themselves opposed to violence, far too many quietly sympathized. A parallel dynamic played itself out in western Europe, particularly in France and Germany. Massive protests in May 1968 came momentarily close to toppling the French government. Similar protests roiled West Germany. While in both countries national issues played a huge role, anti-Americanism and anti-Vietnam war sentiments figured prominently. Both left a huge negative legacy in the form of hostility to their respective countries — not just a current government, but the country itself. And the terrorism that emerged in the 70s, particularly in Germany, flourished not least because of a host of supporters willing to offer aid and comfort. Even as the Baader-Meinhof gang reached its peak of violence with a series of assassinations in 1977, its members could still count on help from these sympathisanten. Looking at the widespread pro-Hamas demonstrations, I fear a similar dynamic at work. At the center stands a group of hard-core radicals. Some of these are immigrants, some legal, some otherwise, the products of the same witches brew of hatred that produced the October 7th massacres in Gaza. Others, while American born, have been steeped in the radicalism of some unassimilated Islamist communities. Still others, with no direct connection to Hamas, to Iran, or to radical Islam, come from the ranks of Antifa and the like; that is, the hate America crowd so much in evidence during 2020’s “mostly peaceful” riots. It’s increasingly clear that this radical vanguard both stimulates and coordinates the “death to America” message across the U.S. Furthermore, there are multiple reports of financial support from wealthy progressives, both individuals and foundations, as well as indications that foreign actors, particularly some associated with Iran, have actively promoted these protests. If it feels as if we’re under attack, well, it’s because we are. It’s no accident that the international “hate America” crowd has taken an interest. The Baader-Meinhof gang, to illustrate the point, benefited from the support of the East German secret police, the Stasi, and the KGB, bad actors who knew well how to seize a moment. But, for me, the scariest aspect of the current crisis lies in the increasingly widespread participation of the “panty raid” element. These are the students, both college and high school, who’ve looked around and decided that the pro-Hamas protests are, to use a 60s phrase, “what’s happening.” They’ve absorbed the “anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist” rhetoric of what passed for history instruction these days. They throw around terms like “apartheid state” without any understanding of what that might actually mean. Appallingly, and idiotically, they accuse Israel of “genocide.” (READ MORE: We Face a Long Hot Summer) And their numbers appear to be growing, even as authorities finally, belatedly, too often feebly, appear to be cracking down on the most egregious of these protests. The famous longshoreman/philosopher, Eric Hoffer, put his finger on the dynamic currently at work in his 1951 masterpiece, The True Believer. Hoffer contended that fanaticism grew a mass base when large numbers of unhappy people, believing their own individual lives to be meaningless in the face of larger forces, seek escape by submerging themselves, passionately and angrily, in a mass movement. These are not the ideologues, nor are they the guiding spirits, but rather those for whom action and a sense of belonging represent a reward worth seeking. As Hoffer observes, their cause is less important to them than the escape from loneliness. This is the logic of the “cool girls” table in an 8th grade lunchroom, the logic of “kill the refs,” the logic of the “panty raid,” but elevated by a veneer of political seriousness. At a time when large numbers of American youth seem overwhelmed by the anomie of modern life, a hopeless indifference easily manipulated by the hucksters of the left, the threat should be obvious. Hatred after all, is a powerful motivator, and easily stirred among the mindless and ignorant. Despite the feckless response of university administrators, the campus occupations would fade quickly if met with contempt or even indifference. But when the crowds grow large, when radical faculty offer encouragement at every turn, when passions run high, above all, when the demonstrations are suffused with a sense of high purpose, the result quickly becomes ugly. These overgrown children, after all, are ripe for exploitation. The hard core activists feed the passion of the mass of followers, and that mass, in turn, feeds the conviction of the hard core — we must be right, they can tell themselves, because everyone is on our side. They hear the chants, they “feel the vibe,” they want the moment to last and last, which it will, because, in many instances, no one is serious about stopping it, not university administrators, not Soros-funded DAs, certainly not the Biden administration, already agonizing over the implications for the 2024 elections, In the summer of 2020, we saw chaos spread across our cities, fomented by some of the same actors whose fingerprints are all over the current protests. We know that a bitter election season is upon us, and we can see little end in sight to the wave of pro-Hamas, anti-American protests. There are too many elements, both foreign and domestic, who stand to benefit from continued turmoil in the U.S, and there is little hope for an effective response. Vacuous frat boys have become aggressively political morons. “Throw down your panties” has become “kill the Jews” and “death to America.” The coming long hot summer just keeps looking longer and hotter. James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His 2022 novel, Letter of Reprisal, tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region, and a forthcoming sequel sends the Reprisal team into action against subversive forces operating throughout the U.S. and Europe. You can find it on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions, and on Kindle Unlimited. The post Pro-Hamas Panty Raids: A Destructive Dynamic appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

George Friedrich Hegel once remarked, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” A paradox no doubt, but the modern liberal illustrates this truth. Don’t let the opening line of this piece fool you. It is not about some 19th century Prussian philosopher who’s been dead for 193 years, and who’s views antedated and unfortunately anticipated Karl Marx’s materialistic theory of history. But he can help us with one thing, and it’s important. Our philosopher can help us understand how modern liberals have for decades been using freedom and dependency in ways that just don’t mix.  Moreover, this dependency relationship is fostered today by modern liberals for a more invidious reason — political power through the ballot. Since the 1960s counterculture era of social reforms and civil rights, modern liberals have fostered a false sense of need in various population groups in America. This work documents how the above has led to some semblance of a “master-slave” relationship — a dependency by these groups upon modern liberals and consequently, the state. (READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: The First Amendment: An Inconvenience to the Government) So what does a 19th century philosopher and a modern liberal have in common? They agree that the state is best at fulfilling your needs and desires while, ostensibly, making you “free.”  Hegel, was adamant in his view that an individual’s freedom is subordinate to and dependent upon the state — that freedom and rights come from the latter: “The state is the absolute reality and the individual himself has objective existence, truth and morality, only in his capacity as a member of the state.”  In his Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel introduces the idea that one’s true identity is a product of society and culture, and that it cannot be achieved through individual existence — relationship with an “other” is needed to ascertain one’s identity. This he called his “master-slave” dialectic or relationship.  The Modern Liberal  Hegel’s views can tell us a lot about the thought of modern liberals — how they see freedom and dependency, themselves, and others in the world. They both agree that only by seeing ourselves in relation to other humans in society can we gain a sense of dignity and establish our place in the world. In other words we cannot do it by ourselves — modern liberals foster this image of the “self-in-need of the other.” They need others to fulfill who they understand themselves to be. The problem is that these liberals often view others as people in need of something from them. Through this continuous pattern of perception of need by the other, modern liberals fulfill their own need. They give while the other becomes dependent by accepting that which is given. A relationship is established.  For decades, minority populations have played a role of “dependency” in America, while modern liberals play that of “maintaining that dependency.” As you will see, the relationship is, psychologically and sociologically self-destructive for both. Kevin Martin, a member of the African American leadership network Project 21, writing for The National Center for Public Policy Research (2006) comments:  Liberalism is not just a problem for black America. Its failure can be seen by visiting any Martin Luther King Street, Avenue, or Boulevard. White America has the financial wherewithal and ambition to choose to escape it. Black Americans, due to long-term abuse by liberal policies, don’t always have that option. That’s why black America as a whole needs to wake up and shake off the liberal chains that bind us.  Modern liberals of the majority race have since the 1960s tended to view minority politics through the “lens” of a dependency relationship. They have viewed Americans of African descent as well as the Hispanic community as being needy, requiring continuing social, economic, and political assistance from them.  Political Power Through the Ballot  This orientation has persisted in America for 60 years. And for much of that time, let’s be clear, government assistance was not only helpful but sometimes necessary to redress decades of inequality. Today, however, increasing numbers of the minority population itself are advocating for modern liberalism to foster its role in the minds of that population — that they still need liberals to sustain themselves. Such “reasoning” is not only counterproductive to minorities in America, it is disrespectful.  Moreover, this dependency relationship is fostered today by modern liberals for a more invidious reason — political power through the ballot. It has become about the numbers, not the needs of the minorities. The latter’s embrace of dependency needs to be maintained, so as to foster continued political power for liberals.  In a January 2024 article in TIME, Congressional Democrats announced that “they will invest at least $35 million to reach voters of color in the 2024 election cycle … a historic investment, superseding the $30 million spent on attracting minority voters from Latino, Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian communities in the 2022 midterm elections.” The article goes on to say that “voters of color have long been pivotal to Democratic election prospects. About 73 percent of Asian, Black, and Latino voters combined backed President Joe Biden in 2020.”  Condescension-Dependency  For some modern liberals, however, the issue of dependency has less to do with minorities and more to do with their own need to atone for and redress perceived past transgressions (real or otherwise). Guilt, driven by socioeconomic disparity and history, can be a powerful motivator, indeed. It becomes their raison d’etre. (READ MORE: Is ‘Man the Measure’? From Where Does Our Freedom Come?) The psychology of this relationship does a disservice to the intellectual integrity of minority populations in America. Both ends of the political spectrum agree, providing assistance when necessary, in and of itself, is not the problem; rather, it’s the condescending attitude of modern liberals toward these populations as being incapable of caring for themselves without liberal handouts, as well as the need for the group to continue its relationship of dependency.  According to a 2018 study by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale School of Management, “white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges.” The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  This reciprocal relationship of condescension-dependency perpetuates a mutual dependency mentality which is, I submit, toxic to American society.  To free oneself of one’s voluntary servitude to another, one must recognize, as classical liberalism asserts, that one’s freedom and natural rights are inherent in one’s human being. Such natural freedom cannot be granted to you by a state, it is fundamental. But liberty can be taken from you through positive rights or laws from the state. The decision is ours to make:  Either master of our own consciousness or a slave to another’s.  As is evident from the above, granting positive rights to one group without due consideration for the rights of others can get rather messy and remains controversial. What we see in modern liberalism is the state granting rights which often do damage to society. After realizing, but not always acknowledging, the damage done, it tries to rectify its transgressions by imposing a new set of rights to counter the old. It becomes a circular process that seemingly never ends. At least it hasn’t yet.  Force Man to Be Free  Positive rights, of course, can be a form of freedom when careful consideration is accorded the consequences of such acts. Problems develop when the state is used to further an agenda to impose upon one the right (meaning the necessity) to receive something or act in some particular way. When additional rights are granted to some (e.g. affirmative action), others lose aspects of their freedom (reverse discrimination). It isn’t that the former is necessarily wrong; it’s just that the latter is absolutely wrong.  As is often the case with modern liberalism, what starts out as something which seems to be a good idea for America results in adverse effects through ill-considered consequences and diminished rights for others. Between modern liberalism’s propensity for dependency-driven relationships and granting positive rights to foster political power, should we not be concerned about the status of freedom (and dependency) in America?  Eighteenth century French philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau once claimed in The Social Contract, that we must “force man to be free,” such that he might “place all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” of the state. Sound familiar? It is a scary thought — it also resonates with modern liberals. When will they learn:  Like oil and water, freedom and dependency are immiscible — they don’t mix. The post Master of Our Own Consciousness or Slave to the State? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The specter of the beheaded teacher Samuel Paty continues to haunt France’s public education system, which the prime minister deems under threat from Islamist infiltration. Each provocation by Muslim students reminds teachers in France of the fate of Samuel Paty, killed in October 2020 for having shown caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. Last month, the director of a High School in Paris resigned after a spat with a pupil refusing to take off her headscarf. She immediately mounted a campaign against him on social media which led to death threats and his “early retirement.” “Of course this reminds us of what happened to Samuel Paty after a similar smear campaign,” according to a teacher at the school. Pointing this out can lead to well-worn accusations of “exploiting personal tragedies for political ends” and “criminalizing immigrants.”  Just as had been the case with Paty, this chain of events had started with a lie. The girl in question had accused the school principal of hitting her and tearing at her clothing, which, according to witnesses, was completely untrue. The director had merely reminded the veiled 18-year-old of the law, passed in 2004, which forbids the wearing on school grounds of “ostentatious clothing of a religious nature.” At the time, legislators stressed that this also applies to the kippa and the “catholic” cross, but nobody was fooled. In fact, the law is to prevent French public schools from resembling those in Saudi-Arabia and Iran. (READ MORE from René ter Steege: Jordan Bardella, Marine Le Pen’s Crown Prince) These days, the director of an elementary school  in the small town of Neuilly-sur-Marne went on sick leave after being called “Islamophobic” by parents and others upset by the possible introduction of strictly secular school uniforms. The director, Nicolas Bourez, who has held the job for fifteen years, told Le Figaro newspaper that he no longer feels safe. “We know where accusations of Islamophobia can lead to. Now more than ever, I think about Samuel Paty,” he said, his voice on the verge of breaking. Samuel Paty’s death has been extensively documented in the book Les derniers jours de Samuel Paty — The Last Days of Samuel Paty. In it, the writer and journalist Stéphane Simon retraces Mr. Paty’s fate, starting with a lesson on the freedom of expression. In it, he showed the 13- and 14-year-old pupils some of the Muhammad cartoons published by the satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo. In January 2015, Islamist terrorists had massacred almost its entire staff out of revenge for lampooning the prophet of Islam. Mr. Paty, in his school in the town of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, 25 miles north-west of Paris, offered his pupils a choice. Those wo feared the cartoons would shock them could leave the classroom for a while. Some of them did, most stayed. The lesson ended without incident, but the next day the school was rife with rumors. Monsieur Paty, one of his pupils alleged, had expelled all Muslims to show the others what the girl said was a “disgusting picture of our beloved prophet.” This was a lie, and the girl in question, Zora, wasn’t even in Mr. Paty’s class that day. She had  been suspended for two days for unruly behavior. To hide this from her Muslim parents, she invented the story that she had scolded Monsieur Paty for ridiculing Muhammad. And got expelled for it. The parents believed her, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and started petitions online demanding that this “scoundrel” be sacked. Before he knew it, the teacher had become a hate figure for many Muslims in France. The death threats become more and more credible, but the authorities, the author of the book alleges, failed to take them seriously. Mr. Paty, 47 years old, separated from his wife, also a teacher, father of a young son, cut an ever lonelier figure. Some of his fellow teachers chided him for putting all of them in danger of a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, an immigrant’s son from Chechnya, Abdoullakh Anzorov,  had contacted Zora’s father whose online rants against Paty, aided by a self-styled “imam,” became more hysterical by the day. This 18-year- old would-be jihadist and small-time criminal travelled to Mr. Paty’s school and asked pupils waiting outside to point him out in exchange for 300 euros. They gladly agreed. Anzorov then started to follow the teacher who made his way home on foot, covering nearly all of his face with a hood and a face mask, as was his habit since the shitstorm had started a few days earlier. Anzorov killed him with a knife on a quiet street and used another knife to cut off the teacher’s head. He was shot dead by police officers a few minutes later. He had managed to post a picture of Paty’s severed head to his jihadist contact in Syria, who he had hoped to soon join. It is difficult to grasp the shock waves caused by Paty’s death in a country still reeling from the Islamic terror attacks in 2015, first at Charlie Hebdo, then on the music hall Bataclan and the surrounding restaurants and cafés. That chilly autumn evening in 2020, it took a while for France to realize that in Mr. Paty, the terrorist had attacked a symbol of the French Republic, where public education and religion are strictly separated. Originally aimed at reducing the Catholic grip on education, this principle of laïcité now counters efforts by Muslims to impose their views. France honored Mr. Paty with a state funeral, president Emmanuel Macron spoke movingly and in government circles firm words were spoken in favor of the defense of the laïcité. This did not stop certain Muslims from continuing to subvert its principles, by edging on girls to defy the ban on the abaya and other banned forms of “Islamic” clothing. (READ MORE: Dutch Citizens Reject Anti-Racist Saint Nicholas Celebrations) In 2023, nearly three years to the day of Paty’s assassination, a teacher at a lycée in the northern town of Arras was stabbed to death by a former pupil of the same school, the son of Muslim immigrants from Ingushetia, a country bordering Chechnya. The suspect, quickly overpowered, said he had been looking for a teacher of history and geography, as Samuel Paty had been. He settled for Dominique Bernard, a beloved teacher of French language and literature. The French political establishment is loath to establish a link between Islamic terrorism and the country’s “completely mad immigration policy over the last four decades,” in the words of Jordan Bardella, the main leader of the nationalist right. However, one has to be willfully blind to ignore the connection. The parents of Paty’s killer said they had fled Chechnya fearing for their lives, but had returned there after a stay in Poland before moving on to France. So much for the danger in their homeland. Journalist Stéphane Simon notes that French immigration authorities had serious doubts about the Anzorov’s asylum claims, but accepted them nonetheless. France belatedly expelled the whole clan after it emerged that Paty’s murderer had received a hero’s burial in his parents’ home town in Chechnya. After being expelled from France, the father of Dominique Bernard’s alleged assassin continued to pour scorn on France for “despising Islam,” forbidding Islamic dress in schools and allowing the publication of cartoons of Muhammed. Which begs the question: why seek asylum in such a horrible place? If France had rejected the unconvincing asylum claims of these Chechnyan and Ingushetian faux refugees, Samuel Paty and Dominique Bernard may have escaped their horrible fate. Pointing this out can lead to well-worn accusations of “exploiting personal tragedies for political ends” and “criminalizing immigrants.”  Well, some of them are indeed accused of, or condemned for, horrible crimes. As in April, when the son of Afghan immigrants allegedly stabbed to death a 15-year-old French schoolboy in the town of Châteauroux. In Bordeaux, shortly before, another Afghan had knifed to death an Arab, and seriously injured another, for drinking beer in a park. Policemen shot and killed him. Both Afghan suspects are in France legally, French authorities were quick to point out, no doubt keen to avoid criticism of being soft on illegal immigration. Calling Islam a potential threat to French society was until very recently beyond the pale for politicians from both left and right. Prime minister Gabriel Attal, a member of the Socialist Party before joining Emmanuel Macron’s camp,  broke this taboo the other day. Commenting on the latest threats against teachers, he vowed to fight “Islamist infiltration” and efforts “to import sharia law into our schools.” Nearly four years after the murder of Samuel Paty, the battle goes on. The post France and Murderous Islamist Education appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Sunday I awakened this morning to hear on the radio that our Secretary of State, Mr. Blinken, is defending his State Department’s “finding” that Israel is likely to have committed war crimes in its retaliation and defense actions following the atrocities of October 7, 2024 by Hamas against Israeli civilians INSIDE Israel. Israel is doing self-defense acts that have been standard in war since the 1930s. Only Israel gets smeared for this. These atrocities included the mass rape, throat slitting, burial of women and girls alive, the murder of female Israelis by applying flames from blow torches to the vaginas of the women and girls, the murder of elderly and infirm Israelis taken captive by Hamas. Israel, to defend itself, is seeking to demolish Hamas as a functioning killing machine a few feet from Israel’s borders. It’s an incredibly difficult job. Hamas has had the use of billions of dollars from Iran, given to Iran largely by Joe Biden and his gang. That money had been withheld by the U.S. under President Trump. (READ MORE from Ben Stein: Horror Show) But Joe Biden has given back that money in a pitiful, nauseating effort to win the love and sympathy of the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, Iran. That’s the same Iran that begins every day’s session of government by praying en masse to their god to send “death to Israel” and “death to America.” Defeating Hamas and scattering them has turned out to be a true struggle because of the massive tunnels, built with reinforced concrete. The Iranians are clients of Russia and North Korea. Those states are experts in tunnel building. They learned it long ago when Stalin’s Russia built them to repel Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Let’s fast forward to right now: Israel is trying to disassemble Hamas. But Hamas is scattered throughout Gaza. Hamas has long made a practice of putting its killers and rapists and their weapons of terror and death in “schools,” “mosques,” “hospitals,” and kindergartens. Naturally, when Israel tries to hit the terrorists and their weapons, it has to hit the hiding places of weapons of terror where they are. This is war. This is the way war has always been: civilians have gotten killed and wounded. Especially when war started to be waged largely from the air, it was a fact of life that civilians died in large numbers. The sad truth is that it’s hard for aircraft to hit targets with any precision from high altitudes. The Germans learned this during the Blitz. The British and the Americans learned it in spades when they were bombing Germany. The Nazis were super effective in knocking down allied bombers at low and medium altitudes. So were the Japanese. Plus, the wind currents over Tokyo and other Japanese cities were extremely difficult for bombardiers. “Bomber” Harris, the British official responsible for defending Britain, had a simple idea: “If we can’t knock off Mr. Schickelgruber at his factory bench, we can kill Mrs. Schickelgruber at her house.” The Brits thus came to “area bombing.” It worked. The allies used it as much as they could and they never apologized for it. Even in February 1945, with the Germans on their knees, America and Britain bombed civilian targets in the Reich as much as possible. The British and the U.S. used mass incendiary “area” bombing against civilian targets, especially Dresden, 24 hours a day, for three days straight. Dresden had almost no military targets, but over 100,000 Germans were killed or wounded in Dresden in that one raid. (READ MORE: This Is Happening in America) Obviously, America used the atom bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities with almost zero military importance by the end of summer 1945 when the Japanese were already frantically seeking to surrender. Almost 200,000 Japanese died. The Japanese at no time bombed American cities or towns. The Germans bombed the UK heavily but never bombed New York or Washington, D.C. No one in the U.S. government criticized FDR or Truman for “war crimes.” The UN never criticized Churchill or Attlee. Only Israel, the victim of the worst atrocities ever recorded in human history, going on until RIGHT NOW, gets criticized for defending itself. Only the Democrat party goes on record calling the Jewish state war criminals for the most basic acts of self-defense. Hamas has kept the Holocaust going on until RIGHT NOW. The Biden regime calls that a war crime. Israel is doing self-defense acts that have been standard in war since the 1930s. Only Israel gets smeared for this. ONLY ISRAEL. God help us. And why are we doing it? To kiss the ass of people who pray for us to die painfully. What the hell is wrong with us? The post Only Israel Is Not Allowed to Defend Itself appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

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