SCHADENFREUDE: The Union of People Who Work for the NEA Teachers Union Are Striking ... Against the NEA

Through the Artemis Program, NASA will return astronauts to the lunar surface for the first time since Apollo 17 landed in 1972. Beyond this historic mission, scheduled for September 2026, NASA plans to establish the infrastructure that will enable annual missions to the Moon, eventually leading to a permanent human presence there. As we addressed in a previous article, this will lead to a huge demand for cargo delivery systems that meet the logistical, scientific, and technical requirements of crews engaged in exploration. Beyond this capacity for delivering crews and cargo, there is also the need for transportation systems that will address logistical needs and assist in exploration efforts. These requirements were outlined in a 2024 Moon to Mars Architecture white paper titled “Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs.” Picking up from the concurrently-released “Lunar Surface Cargo,” this whitepaper addresses the need for lunar infrastructure that will enable the movement of astronauts and payloads from landing sites to where they are needed the most. As usual, they identified a critical gap between the current capabilities and what is to be expected. Once again, the authors cite the need for mobility systems in keeping with NASA’s objectives, as detailed in the Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document (ADD). As they indicate, recent analyses of integrated surface operations have highlighted the importance of transportation systems that can move cargo from points of delivery to points of use across the lunar surface. This could range from “crew logistics and consumables to science and technology demonstrations, to large-scale infrastructure that requires precision relocation.” Artist’s illustration of the new spacesuit NASA is designing for Artemis astronauts. It’s called the xEMU,, or Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit. Credit: NASA In short, in addition to landers capable of delivering crews, supplies, experiments, and habitats, NASA’s Moon to Mars program also requires vehicles and support networks that can deliver them from point A to point B. As they state, the currently defined mobility elements are either primarily for crew use or are limited in mobility. This includes elements like the Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) and the Pressurized Rover (PR) – which are elements of the Artemis Base Camp – and robotic missions contracted through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. In addition, the needs and challenges that will emerge as the Artemis Program unfolds are broken down into three segments: Human Lunar Return (HLR), Foundational Exploration (FE), and Sustained Lunar Evolution (SLR). The HLR segment includes the Artemis III mission, currently scheduled for September 2026, where a crew of two will land on the lunar surface using a Starship HLS. The FE segment will coincide with Artemis IV and Artemis V (2028 and 2030), where crew sizes will expand from two to four, and the necessary infrastructure will expand. After that, during the SLR segment, NASA plans to mount a mission a year and establish a permanent lunar habitat. Throughout this period, the demands for payloads and transportation systems will exceed current capabilities, limited to 15,000 kg (33,070 lbs) of cargo. Similar to what NASA related in their Lunar Surface Cargo whitepaper, accomplishing key mission objectives will require cargo of sizes and masses beyond these capabilities, creating the need for additional solutions. Separation and Transportation As the authors state, a major issue on the lunar surface affecting mobility is the need for separation between landing sites and points of use. This separation is motivated by several factors, including science objectives, lighting conditions, and safety considerations. In short, crew vehicles, habitats, and key infrastructure will be positioned at a distance from landing sites so as not to be affected by darkness caused by the landers’ shadow, contamination by the landers, and regolith or blast ejecta created by engine plumes. Based on the level of concern, separation distances are broken down into three tiers: Separation from lander shadowing (tens of meters; tens of yards) Lander blast ejecta constraints due either to separation between the lander and existing infrastructure or lander ascent (>1,000 m; ~1090 yards) Support for aggregation of elements in ideal habitation zones from available regional landing areas(up to 5,000 m; ~5470 yards) In addition, NASA’s Moon to Mars mission architecture emphasizes the need for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), such as water ice, regolith, and minerals. NASA also recognizes the need to select habitation and hibernation sites that minimize the exposure to darkness from shadows caused by the local topography and the inclination of the Sun during lunar nights (which last two weeks at a time). This is easiest at higher elevations and on top of crater ridges. This necessitates two things: Exploration, habitation, and power sites will need to be located far from landing and ISRU sites Traverses from landing to habitation zones could encounter slopes of up to 20 degrees As the authors state, these overlapping challenges can be met by ensuring systems are in place so mission elements can move away from landers once they are deployed on the surface: “This could be done using independent or integrated mobility systems. The frequency of traverses between downslope and upslope locations would be driven by the cadence with which landers deliver cargo to the lunar surface and the mass that a given mobility system can carry on each traversal. Integrated architecture operations will necessitate non-trivial relocation and aggregation ranges for cargo and assets.” Transport Capabilities During the FE segment of the Artemis Program, NASA plans to expand surface crews from two to four, which will need to operate on the surface for about 30 days. This will require a wide range of mobility needs that can accommodate payloads of varying size and mass and over a range of distances. These include: Smaller technology demonstrations: 500 to 2000 kg (~1100 to 4410 lbs) Logistic Elements per crewed surface mission: 2,000 to 6,000 kg (~4410 to 13,230 lbs) Habitation Systems: 12,000 to 15,000 kg (~26455 to 33,070 lbs) The authors acknowledge that current mobility elements could provide some cargo relocation capabilities – the LTV, for example, can accommodate 800 kg (~1764 lbs) of cargo when uncrewed. However, according to the NASA team’s analysis, the mobility capacity falls short of demand by 1,000 to 15,000 kg (2,200 to 33,070 lbs) per asset for ranges of 50 to 5,000 m (~55 to 5470 yards). Moreover, the “frequency of relocation needs” (i.e., how often payloads need to be moved) will vary considerably, ranging from single operations for large elements to multiple trips a year for containers and smaller cargo. Mobility demand forecast ranges compared to LTV and LRV transport capabilities. Credit: NASA Conditions The authors also address how lunar conditions are important when developing mobility systems. One of the greatest hazards on the Moon is regolith (aka. “moondust”), the fine silicate powder that covers much of the surface and sticks to everything it comes into contact with. There are lighting conditions where parts of the South Pole region will be shadowed due to the inclination of the Sun and permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) that experience perpetual darkness. Last is the matter of the terrain, which can be rocky or covered by 1 to 10 m (3.3 to 33 ft) of regolith and where slopes of more than 10 degrees are common. This combination of factors, they argue, “creates a significant technological gap between existing systems and mobility demands for future exploration.” For starters, energy systems must provide enough power so vehicles can maintain sufficient speeds and carrying capacity and can operate during lunar nights. The authors also recommend conducting more studies on regolith mitigation strategies to prevent wear and tear and the effects regolith could have on electro-mechanical systems. They also stress the need for sufficient autonomy and/or teleoperation, allowing greater flexibility and range. These autonomous systems must contend with the challenging lunar terrain, map the local topography, recognize obstacles and unpassable regions, and identify optimal pathways to reach their destinations. As the authors note, these systems could offer increased flexibility for mission planning and increase the speed of mobile assets, especially in areas where the terrain interferes with communications and makes remote operations impossible. In summary, the “Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs” whitepaper identifies some robust requirements for creating a permanent human presence on the Moon. This will entail moving cargo and assets across the lunar surface from landing sites to destinations 5 to 5,000 meters (~5.5 to 5470 yards) away. It must also be able to accommodate payloads of up to 12,000 kg or more, which is significantly higher than the current capabilities of the proposed LTV – 800 kg (~1765 lbs). Artist rendering of an Artemis astronaut exploring the Moon’s surface during a future mission. Credit: NASA In addition, the paper indicates that energy and environmental considerations are crucial to the design process. It is not simply a matter of scaling up small-scale mobility systems to create large-scale ones. Lastly, the computer systems and software running future mobility systems will need to be interoperable, exchanging information between vehicles and base sites, and have the ability to function autonomously or semi-autonomously. Like the “Lunar Surface Cargo,” these findings will be explored in more detail with the 2024 Architecture Concept Review (2024 ACR), which will be released later this year, along with white papers describing NASA’s cargo return needs and lunar surface strategy. Further Reading: NASA The post A Moon Base Will Need a Transport System appeared first on Universe Today.

Note the 2nd half is just an affordable long term storable foods - up to you if you want to watch it or not... Josh Sigurdson talks with Clayton Llewellyn of Heaven's Harvest about the globalist depopulation agenda being forced unto the public by destroying the supply chain, energy grid and overall sustainability while blaming it on "climate change." John Podesta is replacing John Kerry as the new US climate envoy as the attack on farmers continues worldwide. With bans on nitrogen, fertilizer, feed and more it's quite obvious there is a concerted effort to starve out the world. There can be no other conclusion drawn. Thousands of farmers are standing up and protesting throughout Europe with little to no media coverage. A revolution is taking place. A battle between good and evil and it's not being televised, but it will indeed affect everyone watching. The propaganda leading to World War 3 is also massively effecting the supply chain. It's part of the same puzzle. To force us onto CBDCs with carbon credits in 15 Minute Cities. In fact, this is already being rolled out in many places worldwide. The collapse of an empire is upon us and people are dependent on grocery stores and government electricity. What do people honestly think is going to happen as a result? In this video, Clayton Llewellyn breaks down why it's so important to get prepared now and not later as the walls close in. Stay tuned for more from WAM! ORDER QUALITY MEAT TO YOUR DOOR HERE: https://wildpastures.com/promos/save-20-for-life/bonus15?oid=6&affid=321 Save 20% and get $15 off your FIRST order! Support your local farms and stay healthy! GET ORGANIC COFFEE, MANUKA HONEY AND MUSHROOM TINCTURES HERE: https://madtravnutrition.com/ Use Code "Josh" and save 10%! Support the work of Jaymie Icke & Ickonic! HELP THE WAM LEGAL DEFENSE FUND HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/wam-legal-defense/ GET YOUR APRICOT SEEDS at the life-saving Richardson Nutritional Center HERE: https://rncstore.com/r?id=bg8qc1 HELP SUPPORT US AS WE DOCUMENT HISTORY HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/help-wam-cover-history/ GET AN EXTENDED FREE TRIAL FOR ICKONIC WHEN YOU SIGN UP HERE: https://www.ickonic.com/affiliate/josh10 BUY YOUR PRIVATE CLEARPHONE HERE: https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/F9D3HK/ LION ENERGY: Never Run Out Of Power! PREPARE NOW! https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/D2N14D/ GET TIM'S FREE Portfolio Review HERE: https://bit.ly/redpilladvisor And become a client of Tim's at https://www.TheLibertyAdvisor.com STOCK UP ON STOREABLE FOODS HERE: http://wamsurvival.com/ OUR GOGETFUNDING CAMPAIGN: https://gogetfunding.com/help-keep-wam-alive/ OUR PODBEAN CHANNEL: https://worldaltmedia.podbean.com/ Find us on Vigilante TV HERE: https://vigilante.tv/c/world_alternative_media/videos?s=1 FIND US on Rokfin HERE: https://rokfin.com/worldalternativemedia FIND US on Gettr HERE: https://www.gettr.com/user/worldaltmedia See our EPICFUNDME HERE: https://epicfundme.com/251-world-alternative-media JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER HERE: https://www.iambanned.com/ JOIN our Telegram Group HERE: https://t.me/worldalternativemedia

"All the girls in New York seemed to change their name to Sheena after that." The post Joey Ramone on how the Ramones crafted the first “teenage rebellion” song first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Earth music is boring. The post Otherworldly music: Is there such a thing as the “space chord”? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

This week, the Republican National Committee has been meeting to hammer out all of the policy provisions of its platform to be unveiled at the GOP convention in Milwaukee beginning on July 15. Generally speaking, that isn’t a process that trails in a whole lot of public attention. Let’s face it, nobody really even reads the party platforms much anymore. (READ MORE: Six States Put Abortion on the Ballot, With More to Follow) But this year is a little different. Delegates to the Republican National Convention can be assured that they’re going to be under a special sort of microscope as they assemble the 2024 platform. Why? Because with the burgeoning implosion of Joe Biden’s presidency and re-election effort, and the increasing collapse of the media/political gaslighting regime aimed at deceiving the American people as to his cognitive fitness, the other side is desperate for something to grab onto. Democrats Having Nothing to Run on in 2024 With or without Biden, the Democrats have nothing at all to run on. When more than 70 percent of the public is telling pollsters the country is on the wrong track, and with giant issues like inflation, immigration, and multiple wars across the globe (two of which are directly related to stupid American policy that enabled bad guys to make trouble), crime and a host of other social ills getting worse at a rapid pace, they’ve put themselves in a worse position than at any time since 1980. (READ MORE: Abortion Isn’t Funny) At least at that point, Jimmy Carter was still somewhat sentient. Carter ran a pretty vigorous campaign that year. He even held off a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy without denying him Secret Service protection or essentially kicking him out of the Democrat Party. Interestingly enough, though, Carter’s entire campaign in 1980 was a litany of warnings and threats about how awful Ronald Reagan was. The public didn’t buy it, mostly because Reagan’s record as governor of California was a whole lot shinier than Carter’s record as president. This election looks like 1980 on steroids, at least from the perspective of the middle of July. Of course, the 2022 election looked like 1994 on steroids at this point. Why didn’t it come down that way? One of the most common answers you’ll get is abortion. Abortion Is the Difference If you’ll recall, it was in June 2022 that the Dobbs decision leaked. It was a great victory for the pro-life movement that because of that monumental Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade went into the trash. Pro-lifers got what we were looking for — namely, that there is no God-given right enshrined in the Constitution to kill an unborn child, and that abortion should be handled as a public policy debate to be had at the state level. That’s quite possibly the biggest win the conservative movement has had this century. To be fair, that doesn’t say much; conservatism hasn’t been on a particular hot streak since we stopped partying like it’s 1999. And in perfect Stupid Party form, no sooner did Dobbs pass but Lindsey Graham found a bank of microphones and announced he was bringing a bill to institute a federal 15-week ban on abortions in the U.S. Senate. That bill was never, ever going to become law. It was pure performance art for Graham to bring it. And when he brought it, every pro-abortion group in America saw their fundraising supercharged and their dreams of beating Republicans in House and Senate races across the country got a special topping-off of rhetorical jet fuel. You will never, ever convince me that Graham bringing that bill was not a bit of sabotage by his pal Mitch McConnell, the most treacherous caucus leader any party has ever had, to kill the hopes of multiple conservative candidates in Senate races who would oppose him for another term in his perch. McConnell has been finding creative ways to shank conservative Senate candidates since he got the job leading the Senate GOP caucus in 2007. In 2022 he painted his masterpiece. Democrats Are Trying to Hold On to the Single Women And the effect was breathtaking. You’ve heard me note that the four most dispositive numbers in American life are the party preferences of married and single men and women (married men are R+20, married women are R+14, single men are R+7 and single women are D+37), and nowhere near enough attention is paid to what that means for culture and economics, not just politics, but let’s understand that those numbers come from exit polling in the 2022 election cycle. The Democrats are doing everything they can to solidify their hold on single women. Single women are becoming the new black vote in terms of a monolithic bloc of Dem voters, especially given that black men are fleeing the Democrats’ plantation in droves right now. And that means that if Biden holds on as the Dems’ nominee, he’ll run on abortion. If Biden goes and it’s Kamala Harris, she’ll run on abortion. If it’s Gretchen Whitmer, she’ll run on abortion — especially since that was her main message point when she beat Tudor Dixon in 2022 to be re-elected as governor of Michigan. No matter who they end up with, they’ll run on abortion. And they’re going to run on abortion down-ballot, too. Pro-lifers shouldn’t be scared of that. The Democrats’ position on abortion is, essentially, that everything up to infanticide is not only fair game but a political sacrament never to be questioned. Polling indicates that only one in six voters is behind such a disgusting, radical, evil position. And yet you will struggle to find a Democrat who will ever admit that there are times when abortion ought to be banned. In one of the few clarifying points during Donald Trump’s debate with Biden, you could see that come out fairly clearly: Forget about the question of legal scholars and Roe v. Wade. Trump did a good job selling the fact that the states are now in charge of abortion policy. What was so idiotic about Graham’s 15-week ban bill in 2022 was that it directly broke the promise inherent in the pro-life community’s argument about getting rid of Roe. Namely, we’d bring the issue back to the states and let Louisiana and Florida make different policies than Massachusetts and Oregon, and ultimately we’d see who’s right. Republicans Say They Are the Pro-Life Party Trump’s position is the one the RNC’s head honchos are trying to cement in the party platform. This emerged on Monday: The 2016 RNC platform mentioned the word “abortion” 35 times and backed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion: “[W]e assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed,” the RNC’s 2016 platform said. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.” The Republican Party did not release a platform in 2020. And the 2024 platform only mentions the word once. “We proudly stand for families and life,” the 2024 platform says. “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process,” but it goes on to say, “the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights.” The platform has been initially approved by the RNC committee, but is expected to go to a full vote Tuesday and be officially approved the first day of the Republican National Convention next week. It also goes on to express opposition to late-term abortion and support for “policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF (fertility treatments).” This actually looks like a rare smart play by the Republican Party. What have they done here? Well, they’ve affirmed that the GOP is the pro-life party. They’ve also affirmed that it’s a party for decentralized power, rather than having everything dictated by Washington. Essentially, this platform plank says that California and New York shouldn’t dictate the terms of life in Mississippi and Kansas. But what it doesn’t do is offer much of anything the Democrats can latch onto. There is no Lindsey Graham poison-pill abortion bill. At least, not until Graham shows back up at a bank of microphones to reprise his role as an own-goal spoiler on McConnell’s behalf. Hopefully, with McConnell having said he’s giving up his role as caucus leader there won’t be any such sabotage. Don’t give them anything to run on where abortion is concerned. At least not in federal races. And I wouldn’t add this to the party platform, because it’s unwise to make any more news on the abortion issue than is necessary, but the GOP and the pro-life movement ought to be thinking about two action items on this subject going forward after the election. First, it needs to be an area of renewed and hardened focus that no organization sponsoring or facilitating abortions gets one red cent of federal funding. Take Planned Parenthood, for example, which receives some $60 million per year in Title IX funding and turned around almost $25 million during the 2022 cycle just through one of its PACs, Planned Parenthood Votes, almost every dime of which went to Democrats. Don’t make a big deal out of it during this election cycle, but if you’re able to hold the House and gain the Senate and the White House, zero out all funding for the Planned Parenthoods of the world and move that money to care pregnancy centers. It doesn’t even have anything to do with abortion – it has to do with basic political competence. You give your constituents’ tax dollars to your people. You don’t give it to the enemy. Period. Especially when the enemy is leading the league in giving puberty blockers to kids. And second, it’s time to begin moving past the status quo on this issue. The basic problem is you have an anti-life culture being spread through all of these institutions the Left controls. Describing all of the facets of that would turn this column into a book, or at least a book chapter (one which you might very well see if you pick up a copy of The Revivalist Agenda when it hits Amazon and other outlets this fall), but the upshot is that allowing the Democrats to proselytize abortion as a birth-control option given the current status quo is a recipe for weaponized dysfunction. I’ve never seen a poll on this, but I’ll bet none of our readers would disagree with me when I say that at least 75 percent of the women who’ve had an abortion, or at least who’ve had an abortion in the past decade, vote Democrat. That’s why we’ve gone from “safe, legal, and rare” to “shout your abortion.” And you aren’t going to get these women to change their minds by attacking them as baby killers. Not without changing the game. Here’s How We Change the Abortion Game Here’s how you do that, though it might take some time. Currently, medical science has advanced to the point where at 22 weeks or so, it’s within the competence of our health-care system to incubate a fetus to term and deliver it to the world a happy, healthy baby. If that 22 weeks can be ratcheted down to 15 weeks, you can then effectively eliminate abortion in practically every case. I’m leaving aside the question of mifepristone, and I’m doing so purposefully because that is a longer and more complicated issue. I’m talking about surgical abortions here, and the prospect of driving research dollars into successfully incubating fetuses at 15 weeks and taking them to term outside the womb. (READ MORE: Chemical Abortion Enables Democrat Anti-Life Agenda) Because taking the pharmaceutical abortion issue off the table, if you’re a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and medical science can, for essentially the same “user experience” (they knock you out and when you wake up, the baby is gone), save the baby for one of the oodles and scads of families begging to adopt a child and send you on your way, how can you turn that down? Who would choose an abortion over that? You really are a baby killer if that remains your position. Does it cost a lot more to do it this way? Yes. Will all of those adoptive families be willing and able to foot that bill? No. Can charitable and religious organizations take care of that cost? Probably not. Is there something of a Pandora’s Box that normalizing incubation over pregnancy would threaten? Absolutely — though we are going to soon come to that bridge regardless. On the other hand, we’re well below replacement when it comes to our national birth rate. Converting abortions into live births is probably the only way, barring a massive societal shift, to make a dent in that problem. And no, President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, reeling in tens of millions of illegals from the Third World is not the answer. Holding your population while losing your culture is the opposite of winning as a civilization. But for now, the key is to give Democrats zero oxygen on abortion. Accomplishing that is tantamount to giving them zero oxygen at all. And maybe, just maybe, we might be seeing a GOP with enough smarts to be worthy of that wave election we didn’t get in 2022. The post Deny Them Abortion And It Doesn’t Matter Who The Dems Nominate appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s like the old meme: (S)He loves me; (S)He loves me not. (S)He loves me; (S)He loves me not. All news media — written, digital, news articles, commentary, TV and radio interviews — obsess over one thing: Should Biden quit? Should he not quit? Should he quit? Should he not quit? He says he won’t quit. They say he will quit. He says he won’t quit. They say he will quit. (READ MORE: The Democrats’ Faustian Bargain With Biden) An amazing way to run the final four months of a presidential race. And, oh wow, his party, his acolytes, and he all deserve it! In spades they do. The Original Democrat Plan Was Biden That was their plan, wasn’t it? We can’t discuss the economy because it went down the toilet. We can’t discuss the border because we have more than ten million recently arrived illegals here, seemingly every day, with a border so porous that terrorists now come in droves (seeking a better life?). We can’t discuss immigration, what with “undocumented” South Americans abducting, raping, and murdering females, whether 12-year-old girls or mothers of five children on a morning run. We can’t discuss the “American Dream,” what with interest rates so high that young and even middle-aged couples cannot get into the housing market while those who do own homes dare not relocate by selling them and then having to trade in a 2.75 percent mortgage for a 7.5 percent. We can’t discuss fuel, now that gasoline prices have doubled, while heating and air conditioning have gone through the roof. We can’t discuss mandates to buy electric vehicles since consumers are not switching over. We can’t discuss gas stoves, or voters will throw them at us. We can’t tell blacks that, if they don’t vote for the Big Guy, then they ain’t black. We can’t pull the Scranton Joe baloney on Pennsylvanians and Ohioans who have lost their jobs amid his war on energy. We can’t speak proudly about the Big Guy’s foreign policy experience because, on his watch, we ran out of Afghanistan with our tails between our legs, sacrificing 13 American heroes and leaving behind for the Taliban butchers innocent Afghanis who translated for us and worked with us. We can’t brag that we kept peace on the Russia-Ukraine border as Trump had done, nor that we helped Ukraine fight back powerfully. Not only did we withhold consequential weapons, but we would not allow Poland to do so either. Even so, we managed to bleed our economy by allocating over $100 billion to Zekensky. (READ MORE: The Curtains Are Drawn on Biden and Europe’s Rulers) But that’s OK because we can implement Plan B: Tie Trump up with so many prosecutions and lawsuits that he won’t have a moment to campaign and will be getting found guilty from now through November. The news reporting barely will cover any issues during the last four months of the campaign. All they will focus on will be the Trump prosecutions, the Trump convictions. Interesting how things work out. He Shouldn’t Have Opened His Mouth We law professors always teach our students that “Bad facts make bad law.” That is, elegant fact conflicts lend themselves to simple, clear judicial holdings. By contrast, complex and mixed-up lawsuits often result in courts needing to hand down judgments that cover the crazy stuff in front of them. And then, because the law needed to resolve a mess, that became a precedent for more simple cases in the future. Biden and the Democrats undertook a comprehensive strategy of warfare against Trump fought with law weapons instead of guns — hence, “lawfare.” They went after him all over the place — New York, D.C., Florida, and Georgia — and even had judicial surrogates in places like Colorado and Maine in on the scheme. So they banned Trump from ballots, accused him of an insurrection that even his haters in the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) would not touch or allege, went after him for taking documents to his home (just as Biden, who was not prosecuted, had done), and sicced two crazy local prosecutors after him. To do that, they recruited a “special counsel” who was only a private citizen, not employed by the DOJ, and they did not seek the advice and consent of the Senate. They sent a DOJ guy from D.C. to help the befuddled New York Soros DA, who lets criminals loose through revolving doors every day. They lined up a hooker and convicted embezzler as their star witnesses in one case. They got a circus clown, steeped in an adulterous affair with a married guy whom she hired at mega-bucks to prosecute in Georgia. (READ MORE: Biden’s Conspicuous Decline is a Joke — On Us) The fix was in. The news was going to be focused on Trump’s trials and convictions from July 5 through Nov. 5. Biden and the Democrats could glide to an easy victory, with Biden choosing whatever basement he likes for campaigning. And then Biden made the biggest of mistakes: he opened his mouth in public. The End of Plan B Biden had been opening his mouth and spilling out exciting fiction and phony stories for decades, virtually a Mark Twain on the stage. The fiction spewed to workers in Ohio’s and Pennsylvania’s coal industry that his dad and forebears worked in coal mines (actually, dad sold used cars). The uncle who got eaten by cannibals. How he drove 18-wheelers, saw a Pittsburgh bridge collapse, got arrested en route to Nelson Mandela, and graduated law school toward the top of his class (actually, 76th of 85). Lots of good yarns. But he never spun his yarns in front of a live audience of the millions who vote. It was always in front of a small group of Lions or Raccoons or a Ladies Auxiliary. They would lap it up. He would talk of how he is ready to take Trump out to the woodshed, how Mitt Romney would put all blacks back in chains, and how, if any black does not vote for him, then “you ain’t black.” He got so comfortable with the idea that he could safely say anything and get away with it that he did not contemplate that this time it would be live, on a stage in front of an entire country with rules assuring fairness. Yes, he often told about being a lifesaver who had encouraged children to play with his blond leg hairs, but the moderators here would not jump in to save him. Thus the end of Plan B. On one hand, the daily media are replete with the questions of the day: “Should he quit? Should he not quit? Well, really, should he quit? Or, maybe, should he not quit?” He says he won’t quit. But others say he will quit. Or they will make him quit. Still, he says he won’t quit. But they say maybe he will quit without knowing it. So he comes back and says G-d will keep him from quitting. Dr. Jill Ed.D. says he won’t quit. Kamala doesn’t care because, even if he does not quit, she becomes president if he wins. In the meantime, deeply problematic lawfare questions now are coming before the Supreme Court. Biden’s lawfare apparatus pushed the envelopes too hard, overplaying their hands. Consequently, many of their charges are moot, and others need to be relitigated and then appealed up the ladders before the trials even can begin. One by one, each trial moves toward November — and beyond. Even the one that got completed in New York is in jeopardy. Bragg and Marchan were sure they could nail at least that one before Nov. 5. Let’s see. And the days go by. The media attend more than ever before to “the signs.” They can’t avoid it anymore after covering up for decades, even during three years of a presidency. Forgotten names. Misstated facts. Historical anachronisms. At a time when they need a Democrat with stamina, they are left with a withered figure with stammer-na. The post The Biden Obsession: Should Quit, Won’t Quit, Should Quit, Won’t Quit appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Over the years, my tastes have become increasingly more narrow and singular so that what was once a host of “favorites” has dwindled to a core two or maybe three. My all-time favorite television show is the first season of True Detective — it’s the only thing that I can watch over and over again from start to finish. I find it to be a beautiful celebration of a fading America, particularly the nation’s southern heritage, and a well of insights into the human psyche and soul, the triumph of good over evil, and the necessity of absolute morality in a progressively relativistic and nihilistic world. While the show (and again, I am referring only to the first season) is layered with strong and intelligent dialogue, one of the more meaningful moments comes when detective Marty Hart (portrayed brilliantly by Woody Harrelson) asks his partner Rustin Cohle (played to perfection by Matthew McConaughey), “Do you think we’re bad men?” Cohle replies rather tersely, “The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door.” While Cohle’s initial moral worldview differs starkly from my own, the line is still, in spirit, true. Men Are Meant to be Dangerous Men are meant to be dangerous, it is part of our purpose, breathed into our hearts by God Himself. This is why men join the army, it’s why men cook in pits of an open fire, it’s why men get such a kick out of setting off fireworks, and it’s why men love racing cars. More than just testing ourselves against dangerous situations, men are supposed to be dangerous. It’s why little boys turn every stick into a sword or a gun, it’s why men go to the firing range, it’s why men go into boxing or wrestling or fencing contests against each other, it’s why men enjoy films like The Godfather, Goodfellas, or Braveheart. Those movies are about dangerous men, and even though their moral codes may be flawed in some cases, they still do dangerous things to stick to those codes. That fact has become nearly taboo under the secular standards of today. Dangerous men are labeled “toxic” and ordered — often by feminists of the pantsuit variety, whiny newscasters of both sexes, butch lesbian types, or blue-haired, nose-ringed gender theory professors — to become more docile, more feminine. This phenomenon has been occurring since at least the 1980s (as my friend Dr. Carrie Gress carefully documents in her book The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us) and has now reached something of a crisis point. (READ MORE by Carrie Gress: Think the First Wave Is a Model for Women? Think Again.) What is often derided as “toxic masculinity” is, in fact, not masculinity at all, but an absence of masculinity. Certainly, rapists, kidnappers, sex-slavers, murderers, and the like are dangerous, but the threat they pose lies not in their masculinity but in their perversion, their sickliness. Such would be examples not of dangerous men but of men too weak to tame danger, allowing the thing to roam wild like a starving wolf. Of course, the inverse of this principle is equally true. Many men are blithely called “good” because they are harmless. But the harmlessness of this latter is just as unmanly as — and is indeed simply a variation of — the weakness of the former. While one type does not develop the strength to tame its dangerousness, the other does not develop the strength to be dangerous in the first place. The French moralist François de La Rochefoucauld wrote in 1665, “Nobody deserves to be praised for goodness unless he is strong enough to be bad, for any other goodness is usually merely inertia or lack of will-power.” The realities and consequences of these dual principles can be seen in our world today. Crime runs rampant with no one to put a halt to it while courageous men like Daniel Penny are arrested and declared too dangerous. Women are gaslit, coerced, bullied, and abused into pornography because the men with the gall to say “No” to porn are labeled fringe extremists. A frail, senile octogenarian is allowed to run the greatest nation in the world into the dirt and allow wars to break out across the globe because his political opponent is “mean.” (READ MORE: Senility, the Press, and a Tale of Two Presidents) Weak Men Cause Wars. Dangerous Men Prevent Them. In fact, Joe Biden and Donald Trump are prime examples of how this “dangerous men” principle operates. Last week, Biden mumbled and bumbled his way through a painful-to-watch ABC interview. He admitted that he pushed to expand to NATO, which predictably resulted in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago. During his clown show of a debate performance less than two weeks ago, Biden boasted of his calamitous Afghanistan withdrawal, which killed 13 Americans, left many more Americans stranded behind enemy lines, and dumped millions of dollars of military equipment right into the Taliban’s lap. This is a man who is only dangerous because he is weak. In contrast, Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) shared a story recently about Trump negotiating, while president, with Taliban leadership to ensure a successful U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — the very event which Biden so horrendously botched less than eight months into his presidency. According to Hunt, Trump wanted a “conditional withdrawal,” and his chief condition was the safety of Americans. “If you harm a hair on a single American, I’m going to kill you,” Trump told the leader of the Taliban. He then stood up, took a photo from his pocket, and slapped it down on the table: It was a satellite photo of the Taliban leader’s own home. Nobody wants to mess with Michael Corleone, because he’s a dangerous man. Henry Hill is terrified of Jimmy Conway because he’s a dangerous man. Nobody crosses Tony Soprano, because he’s a dangerous man. Though only one example, Trump’s conversation with the Taliban leader is like a scene from a gangster film. Nobody wants to mess with Trump, because he’s a dangerous man. A weak man like Biden has overseen the rampant degeneration of the nation. Due to his weakness, wars have erupted in Europe and the Middle East, and China and North Korea are poised for aggressive expansion. Cohle’s maxim holds: Trump is the dangerous man we need to keep the other dangerous men from the door. The post ‘The World Needs Bad Men:’ The Good Thing about Dangerous Men like Donald Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.