War in the Middle East‚ surging inflation‚ the Republican Speaker of the House clinging to a one-vote majority‚ a presidential election campaign stumbling toward what is certain to be a photo-finish conclusion‚ with one candidate doddering in senility and the other being hounded in courtrooms by witch-hunt persecutors — these are but a few of the many crises facing the United States in the Year of Our Lord 2024. The list could be almost infinitely extended‚ but we ought to at least mention rampant crime‚ an unprecedented influx of illegal aliens‚ and fentanyl overdoses soaring to catastrophic levels. Amid all these woes and worries‚ however‚ it would be negligent to overlook the two most important issues in America‚ Sydney Sweeney. She may or may not be on our side‚ but at least she’s not publicly against us. In case you don’t recognize the name‚ Miss Sweeney is a 26-year-old actress who gained prominence for her part in the HBO series Euphoria‚ and speaking of prominent parts … OK‚ I apologize. These double-entendres just write themselves sometimes. (READ MORE from Robert Stacy McCain: America’s ‘Social Justice’ Nightmares Have Only Intensified) Over the past couple of years‚ Miss Sweeney’s ample cleavage has made her a popular object of male admiration — a digital pin-up girl‚ so to speak‚ with lusty fellows posting photos and video clips of the actress to such sites as Reddit. Yet no one seemed to find any political or cultural significance to the blonde bombshell’s popularity until a few weeks ago‚ when she appeared as guest hostess of the March 3 episode of NBC’s Saturday Night Live‚ and suddenly became a topic of punditry. Let’s not kid ourselves about why a horde of commentators have decided to treat Miss Sweeney as a subject of alleged “controversy.” It’s automatic clickbait‚ since any column about her can be illustrated with a cleavage-baring photo‚ and will attract Internet traffic which is‚ after all‚ what online media outlets are all about. Last week‚ after yet another Serious Intellectual had embarrassed themselves by attempting a pseudo-profound commentary about America’s Sydney Sweeney crisis‚ I did a quick search of our website and was shocked to discover that no one at The American Spectator had yet weighed in on this seething controversy. So I called up our publisher Melissa Mackenzie and she instantly agreed that no other living journalist was more qualified than I to address the subject. Melissa promised to intervene on my behalf with our young editors‚ many of whom are devout Christians averse to lighthearted discussion of … sins of the flesh‚ perhaps we might say. Far be it from me‚ of course‚ to endorse or advocate lust‚ any more than I would endorse greed‚ sloth‚ gluttony or any other of the Seven Deadly Sins. Yet even the faithful ought to be able to acknowledge the reality of human nature‚ however sinful it may be‚ and certainly there is nothing so natural as the widespread male admiration of those attributes with which Sydney Sweeney has been so generously endowed. Studying the commentary about Miss Sweeney‚ I’ve noticed that many reputable outlets have used vulgar slang terms in reference to her pectoral region. The American Spectator is and always has been a family-friendly publication‚ and so we will omit such terms‚ replacing them instead with appropriate synonyms‚ so as to avoid endless repetition of “[breasts].” Because why else would a journalist’s purchase of a thesaurus be considered a tax-deductible business expense&;#63; “Why Sydney Sweeney and her double-D breasts are being hailed as proof that woke culture is dead‚” was the headline on a Daily Mail article earlier this month in which Peter Sheridan declared: “The all-American blue-eyed blonde with corn-fed curves has become a cultural phenomenon‚ her unashamed sexuality embraced by America’s conservative Right as proof that woke culture is dying‚ if not already dead.” As a professional journalist‚ I must question the accuracy of this assertion‚ which falls into the same category as claims that right-wingers have some kind of problem with the Taylor Swift-Jason Kelce romance. Speaking as an authentic right-winger (being hate-listed by the SPLC‚ my credentials are impeccable)‚ I never had any part in opposing Swift’s relationship with the Kansas City Chiefs tight end‚ which I expect to end — as do all of Taylor’s relationships — with her writing an album’s worth of songs about her ex. Returning to the topic of Miss Sweeney‚ however‚ was the Daily Mail correct in describing her breasts as “double-D”&;#63; The first three rules of journalism‚ I was taught‚ are accuracy‚ accuracy and accuracy‚ and the topic of Sydney Sweeney’s bra size required me to engage in hours of careful research. Certainly she’s a generous D-cup‚ but double-D&;#63; Nope. While the actress herself has not disclosed this proprietary information‚ I’d say the Daily Mail owes its readership a correction. As for what we at The American Spectator owe our readership‚ it’s an answer to the question foremost in your mind: “Are they real&;#63;” Yes&;#33; Yes&;#33; Yes&;#33; Trust me on this because my conclusion is derived‚ as I say‚ from many hours of research. Miss Sweeney’s role in Euphoria has required her to perform topless on occasion in scenes that have been preserved as photos and video GIFs posted online by her admirers‚ and a careful examination reveals that her gelatinous orbs — getting my money’s worth out of that thesaurus — are entirely organic. No surgical enhancement‚ just a wondrous product of DNA. In fact‚ these natural gifts were a source of embarrassment to the teenage Sydney‚ who at one point wished to get breast-reduction surgery‚ and the world owes a debt of gratitude to Miss Sweeney’s mother for talking her out of this folly. The eruption of commentary about Miss Sweeney (and her spectacular rack) has included‚ among other things‚ these recent remarks by veteran producer Carol Baum‚ who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California: There’s an actress who everybody loves now: Sydney Sweeney. I don’t get Sydney Sweeney. I was watching on the plane Sydney Sweeney’s movie [Anyone but You] because I wanted to watch it. I wanted to know who she is and why everybody’s talking about her. I watched this unwatchable movie — sorry to people who love this … romantic comedy where they hate each other.… I said to my class‚ ‘Explain this girl to me. She’s not pretty‚ she can’t act. Why is she so hot&;#63;’ Nobody had an answer. But then the question was asked‚ ‘Well‚ if you could get your movie made because she was in it‚ would you do it&;#63;’ … That’s a very hard question to answer because we all want to get the movie made and who walks away from a green light&;#63; Nobody I know. Your job is to get the movie made.” This sparked angry reactions from some of my friends who are both (a) conservatives and‚ more to the point‚ (b) heterosexual men. It is not politics that explains the box-office appeal of Sydney Sweeney’s pendulous mammaries (remember‚ my thesaurus is tax-deductible)‚ but rather the normal attitude of normal men on this subject — ceteris paribus‚ the bigger the better. “She’s not pretty”&;#63; Are you kidding me‚ ma’am&;#63; Grant that Miss Sweeney does not match the immortal zenith of Hollywood beauty‚ the late Grace Kelly‚ but no one ever has or ever will. As to the explanation Professor Baum demanded from her class — “Why is she so hot&;#63;” — the answer is obvious enough‚ and regarding her claim that the romantic comedy Anyone But You is “unwatchable‚” the refutation is in the film’s worldwide box office revenue of over $200 million. Here‚ you see‚ the right-wing angle becomes apparent. Conservatives prefer capitalism to socialism; we are not offended by the simple proposition that business should be about making profit. This applies to the movie business‚ and if conservatives have often lamented the content of Hollywood’s output‚ we don’t object to the basic idea of making movies that sell tickets. (READ MORE: American Journalism Is Decadent and Depraved) The film industry’s problem in recent years is quite the opposite: Hollywood has become so hypnotized by “diversity” and other left-wing superstitions that they’ve been cranking out garbage that most people won’t pay to watch. Disney has been the worst offender at this‚ ruining their core business in pursuit of “progressive” messaging and quota-driven personnel decisions. The movie that Carol Baum called “unwatchable‚” with the actress that she says “can’t act‚” was a huge success in terms of profit‚ because it turns out that people will pay money to see a romantic comedy (with a plot loosely based on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing)‚ if it stars a buxom young blonde. You don’t need a film degree from USC to understand this. Hollywood used to make movies like that all the time‚ for the obvious reason that such products sell tickets. Sydney Sweeney is not at all ashamed of succeeding on the basis of her sex appeal. She jokes about it in interviews and on social media. Her good-natured sense of humor on the subject reminds me of Mae West‚ who made a career of not-so-subtle innuendo. For that matter‚ Miss Sweeney’s irresistible bombshell act recalls Jayne Mansfield in The Girl Can’t Help It. There is something old-fashioned about Miss Sweeney quite generally. She spent her childhood in rural Idaho before moving to Spokane‚ Washington‚ and then relocating to Los Angeles to pursue her show-business dreams. Insofar as conservatives favor old-fashioned things — we are all like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof‚ “Tradition&;#33;” — then we certainly must appreciate the kind of small-town values Miss Sweeney represents‚ even if those values aren’t always expressed in the parts she plays. Is she really part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to destroy “woke” culture&;#63; The best evidence in support of such a claim is Miss Sweeney’s general silence on political issues. We haven’t heard her mouthing off about “climate change‚” nor have we seen her engaging in anti-Israel protests. In an era when outspoken left-wing activism is pervasive among show-biz people‚ her silence speaks volumes. A few months ago‚ in an interview with Glamour magazine‚ Miss Sweeney said: “I definitely keep my social media focused towards the work that I’m doing and sprinkle in a little bit of myself in there.… I didn’t go to school to learn politics or social [issues]‚ so I don’t think speaking on things that I’m not fully educated on is the correct way to use my social media presence.” A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse‚ if you get my drift. A shrewd businesswoman who doesn’t want to offend half her potential audience‚ Miss Sweeney may be sincere in her self-deprecating remarks about being less than “fully educated” on issues. On the other hand‚ she might be a secret MAGA fanatic who’s got Steve Bannon’s number on her smartphone speed-dial. Either way‚ her stance of staying out of political controversies is one that conservatives should applaud. She may or may not be on our side‚ but at least she’s not publicly against us. (READ MORE: Staying Sane in the Era of Rainbow Flag Totalitarianism) Some pundits want Americans to be divided over the issue of Sydney Sweeney‚ but I contend we should instead be united — a pro-cleavage consensus‚ so to speak. Now‚ if you’ll excuse me‚ I’ve got to do some more research‚ because that’s what professional journalists do‚ even when we’re just writing clickbait to be illustrated with photos of abundant decolletage (a fancy French word I found in my tax-deductible thesaurus). Work‚ work‚ work … The post America’s Sydney Sweeney Crisis appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For a governor of a deep-red state — with two Republican senators‚ GOP control of all five statewide offices‚ bicameral Republican supermajorities‚ and an all-Republican congressional delegation — Utah’s Spencer Cox has maintained a remarkable liberal streak. Cox’s allergic aversion to conservatism on key issues has won him accolades from progressive activist groups and left-wing media. (“The Red-State Governor Who’s Not Afraid to Be ‘Woke’‚” beams a 2022 Time headline.) But it has invited an understandable frustration from at least a segment of Utah’s Republican base. That came to a head this weekend‚ when Cox lost to his primary challenger by a two-to-one margin among delegates at the Utah GOP convention — and was booed by attendees when he took the stage to speak. READ MORE from Nate Hochman: Unprecedented Times Call for Unprecedented Actions Cox’s response to this icy reception was to float the possibility that his audience might just be bigots: “Maybe you hate that I don’t hate enough‚” he told the crowd. It was a fitting testament to the tone that has put the first-term governor in hot water with Utah’s conservative grassroots — a self-serving faux-moralism that transfers blame for his faults onto his critics. While it invariably pads Cox’s reputation with progressive elites who believe that every Republican voter keeps a copy of Mein Kampf on his or her bed stand‚ the practical effect of Cox’s jab undermines its pretense. To suggest that one’s critics are hateful while simultaneously flattering oneself for being too charitable and empathetic amounts to a kind of smug‚ self-congratulatory egotism masquerading as bleeding-heart selflessness. The truth is that there are any number of legitimate reasons for conservatives to resent Cox‚ none of which have much of anything to do with “hate.” As governor‚ Cox vetoed a ban on boys in girls’ sports‚ and — as lieutenant governor — he tearfully apologized to LGBT activists for his “past homophobia‚” as Vox reported at the time. (In 2019‚ Cox — in tears once again — also apologized to LGBT activists for failing to neuter a proposed ban on “conversion therapy.”) He has endorsed writing sexual orientation and “gender identity” into federal civil rights law and counter-signaled conservative anti-transgender efforts elsewhere‚ although he was eventually harangued into signing a bill banning sex-change drugs and surgeries for minors last year‚ after threatening to kill a similar measure in 2021. In a 2022 discussion on “equity and inclusion‚” Cox went so far as to introduce himself with his “preferred pronouns” — “he‚ him and his‚” for reference — and briefly displayed said pronouns on his official Instagram page‚ before they mysteriously disappeared after a backlash. Nor is Cox’s liberalism confined to LGBT issues. As I noted back in 2022: On January 4‚ 2021 — three days after he took office — Cox signed the “Utah Compact on Racial Equity‚ Diversity‚ and Inclusion‚” which argued that … “unraveling centuries of internalized and systemic racism requires bold anti-racist actions and policies right now.” It was the first document that he signed as governor. Around the same time‚ Cox released a 500-day policy blueprint‚ dubbed the “One Utah Roadmap‚” which promised a “statewide health equity plan charged to evaluate systemic changes that address health disparities.” The blueprint included a section on “equality and opportunity” that called for improving “life outcomes for people with historically and systemically less access to opportunity‚ including women‚ people of color‚ and LGBTQIA+ individuals.” In its own words‚ that “One Utah Roadmap” blueprint sought to address “the unique inequities and varied experiences found within Black‚ Indigenous‚ Latino/x‚ Asian‚ Middle Eastern‚ Pacific Islander‚ and multiracial communities” by acknowledging “the intersectional identities of our community members.” Cox went on to appoint Utah’s first “Senior Advisor on Equity and Opportunity‚” whose “mission is to promote an inclusive climate for Utah’s growing diverse community” by “facilitat[ing] dialogues … on complex topics of inclusion and racial justice‚ working to create equitable access in services and resources for historically disenfranchised communities.” Cox’s October 2021 progress report on his office’s “equity” efforts boasted of its implementation of the Utah state government’s very own DEI-style training program‚ taking staffers “through twenty-one days of core concepts on equity‚ equality‚ race‚ inclusion‚ [and] the intersectional Utah story.” (Cox eventually signed an anti-DEI bill in January of this year — accompanied by a long‚ meandering Substack post that all but apologized for doing so.) Cox has even defended explicit anti-white racial discrimination — a particularly brazen move in a state that is roughly 90 percent white. “I don’t think it’s racist‚” Cox remarked of a Utah Jazz scholarship program that excluded white children. “In fact‚ I think it’s in response to‚ unfortunately‚ some very difficult and racist injustices that have happened in our community for a very long time.… [I]t’s an awesome program and it’s something that we should be celebrating.” A number of red-state governors and legislatures have let their voters down‚ at various junctures‚ over the past few years. But it’s difficult to think of someone who has embraced the radical edge of the progressive revolution with the same enthusiasm as has Spencer Cox. In spite of the hostilities at this weekend’s convention‚ the governor may very well win reelection; he still enjoys the support of just over 80 percent of Utah Republican voters. But his comments this weekend‚ and his substantive record‚ should make Beehive State voters think twice before they head to the polls. The post Utah’s Republican Governor Goes to War With His Own Base appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Some of our regular readers — perhaps many of you‚ in fact — will likely remember a column that appeared in this space almost two years ago commenting on a segment Tucker Carlson did on his then–Fox News broadcast about the efforts of the citizens of Buckhead‚ a well-to-do section of Atlanta beset by crime and other manifestations of weaponized governmental failure‚ to incorporate a municipality of their own in an effort to restore sanity to the out-of-control life in Georgia’s capital. I said this: Carlson’s report talks with a rather matter-of-fact tone about efforts to pass legislation at the Georgia capitol enabling the birth of Buckhead. Why wouldn’t Buckhead’s residents attempt to form their own city&;#63; After all‚ upscale‚ law-abiding homeowners in nice areas like Buckhead are more or less members of an oppressed minority in Atlanta these days‚ particularly when a city like that one is governed by an “incompetent demagogue” (Carlson’s words) like Keisha Bottoms. All of this is completely true. What Carlson’s report leaves out is the why. Let’s introduce you to a term you should be familiar with if you want to fully understand urban Democrat governance and its effects on the population of a city. That term is Weaponized Governmental Failure. Because Keisha Bottoms might well be an abject fool‚ and she is unquestionably terrible at running a major city. This is not in question. But Keisha Bottoms‚ like any urban Democrat mayor‚ is not an island unto herself. She’s more of an iceberg. She’s what you see‚ but beneath the surface is a vast political machine‚ an army of political fixers and operatives and assorted grifters‚ bureaucrats‚ lawyers‚ and street hustlers. Most of them are educated‚ at least to a degree‚ almost all of them have lots of experience in politics and government‚ and even if Bottoms is a fool they are not. So how does Atlanta collapse from a world-class city to one that has its nicest area trying to escape&;#63; Not by accident. Look‚ what makes a place livable is not the presence of lots of rich people. Rich people put themselves behind high walls‚ and rich people do what they can to keep the riffraff out. Having lots of rich people makes an area exclusive‚ not livable. What makes a place livable is the presence of lots of middle-class people. Middle-class people are the ones most plugged into a community. They’re the volunteers‚ they’re the tax base‚ they’re the shopkeepers‚ the professionals‚ the volunteer coaches‚ and the churchgoers. A thriving community has lots of middle-class folks mowing their lawns on Saturday mornings‚ participating in bowling leagues‚ opening businesses and buying clothes‚ TVs‚ and furniture. But the problem with middle-class people is that‚ while they bring a good deal of money in taxes‚ they also want lots of things for that money. They want schools that teach the basics well‚ and they aren’t happy when the schools start indoctrinating kids into exotic sexualities and foreign theories on race relations‚ for example. They want streets not full of potholes. They want public safety. They want trash picked up in a timely manner and litter cleared from roadsides. They want flood protection‚ sound drainage‚ potable drinking water. In short‚ they want what they’re paying for with property and sales taxes. To keep them happy means giving them value for those tax dollars. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for the pigs to feed at the trough. When the potholes in the streets have to be filled‚ it’s harder to steal the pothole budget. And a city full of middle-class people will quite often turn out incompetent demagogue politicians like Keisha Bottoms‚ even in favor of a Republican. That‚ simply‚ will not do. The whole thing is well worth a read‚ even for those of you — and there were many&;#33; — who already read it back in 2021. It talks about how urban Democrats have done the political calculus and realized that pandering to the scum of society while refusing to provide the basics in public governance is profitable‚ as counterintuitive as that seems. Why&;#63; Because doing those things chases away the voters who would turn them out of office‚ and when those people alight for the suburbs‚ there is no longer the possibility of defeat for the ever-more-communist Democrat machines that run those cities. That’s how you get a Fani Willis or an Alvin Bragg. Or a Brandon Johnson. But how do you stop that process&;#63; Well‚ the people in Buckhead are on to something. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Five Quick Things: Maybe They’re Just Stupid The folks in St. George‚ Louisiana‚ a nice-sized burg of 86‚000 people that just came into being thanks to a ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court‚ are several years ahead of the Buckheaders‚ or Buckheadians‚ in what’s undoubtedly a difficult but worthwhile quest to defeat weaponized governmental failure by simply taking the power away. It took about a decade to make St. George happen‚ but the reason for incorporating the new city‚ made up of a well-to-do area just outside the city limits of Baton Rouge but inside East Baton Rouge Parish‚ goes back a little longer. A group of citizens in the far southeastern part of the parish decided they were tired of the local school system busing their kids to lousy schools halfway across town and began advocating for the creation of an independent school district. They were told — principally by a state senator‚ Sharon Weston Broome‚ from the heavily Democrat side of town — that forming an ISD without incorporating a city was a non-starter. So the movement to create the city of St. George begun. And every single lever the Powers That Be in Baton Rouge — whether politicians representing the black Democrats mostly residing in the northern part of the city or the wealthy white liberals living in the old neighborhoods near downtown — could use against the St. George organizers was utilized. They challenged the initial petition to put the new city on the ballot‚ and thanks to a receptive (read: corrupt as hell) registrar of voters‚ they managed to disqualify it in an Obama-style coup. And when the St. George organizers came back a couple of years later with a tighter city map that didn’t include several of the neighborhoods in which very few signed the petition the first time‚ they were called “racists” for leaving out black neighborhoods. Every kind of dirty politics imaginable was brought to bear to stop St. George‚ and yet the voters in the area that was to be the new city gave it a thumbs-up by a 54–46 margin. This despite a massive‚ massive disadvantage in funds spent at the hands of the Baton Rouge in-crowd‚ headed by Broome‚ who by that point was in her first term as mayor-president of East Baton Rouge Parish. She didn’t admit defeat when she was beaten at the ballot box. Broome‚ Mayor Pro Tem LaMont Cole — whose district included none of the St. George area — and a couple of “concerned citizens” (read: white leftists with city contracts) filed a lawsuit alleging that to incorporate St. George would unduly damage the public fisc of the city-parish government — or‚ alternatively‚ that St. George‚ a city full of well-to-do subdivisions‚ office buildings‚ and retail establishments‚ was not economically viable. Those arguments were stupid in the extreme‚ and yet the trial judge ruled in favor of the old guard. It took more than four years of appeals before the state Supreme Court finally cleared away the roadblocks and created the city the voters chose to incorporate. And now the people of St. George awake to find that Broome has spent some $125 million of their sales tax dollars since that suit was filed‚ rather than escrowing the money. Every year the city-parish of East Baton Rouge has taxed them and spent their money outside of the St. George area‚ mostly on heavily Democrat areas like the northern part of the city or downtown‚ and that lawsuit prolonged this injustice for half a decade. It’s messy. But St. George is born‚ and its organizers are promising it’ll be run on a tight budget and with a maximum of contracting out of city services rather than building a large public-sector bureaucracy‚ together with the most business-friendly urban government in the state and a maximum amount of choice in education. If they hold to those preferences‚ they’ll have the best-run city in Louisiana — and almost assuredly the fastest-growing. The Baton Rouge political mob has been screaming at the sky since Friday. They’re still calling the St. Georgians a bunch of mouth-breathing racists. Nobody cares what they think right now. It’s too bad‚ because the creation of the new city came just a few days after the Christian religious festival honoring its namesake. The annual Feast of St. George generally occurs on April 23. The city of St. George‚ Louisiana‚ was created by that Louisiana Supreme Court ruling on April 26. But next year the city and the festival should line up nicely. In Louisiana‚ we celebrate good things with a party‚ and particularly a parade. So don’t be surprised if you hear about a parade for the ages around this time next year in a brand-new city you haven’t heard of until now. Perhaps that’s something else the folks in Buckhead‚ who are just starting their long fight to gain some measure of independence from the weaponized governmental failure gang‚ can emulate down the road. The post St. George Finally Slew the Dragon appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The legendary British Prime Minister Winston Churchill titled the first volume of his World War II memoirs The Gathering Storm. In it he recounted the buildup of events that finally exploded into the war. For those around in the year that was 1968‚ the thought is inevitable: “Here we go again.” Hop in the time travel capsule and journey back to the political Gathering Storm of 1968. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Columbia University Turmoil Recalls the Hitler Youth A personal memory. In July of 1968‚ I was a young page at the Republican National Convention on Miami Beach. It was my first time at one of these quadrennial political circuses‚ and it was fascinating to watch one of these closeup and see how the machinery of formally nominating someone for president worked. In that case‚ the GOP nominee‚ not unlike today‚ was inevitable going into the convention. The winner of the primaries was clear — former Vice President Richard Nixon. The convention had drawn a decidedly small but decidedly peaceful protest‚ but since Republicans didn’t hold the White House‚ the protest was small and barely drew any attention. The GOP was unified‚ and the nation watched on TV as the convention went peacefully about its task of nominating Nixon and his chosen running mate‚ Maryland Gov. Spiro Agnew. Then it was the Democrats’ turn. Gathering a month later in mid-August‚ the Democrats had selected Chicago as their convention city. There were the usual political reasons for selecting Chicago: The Democrat nominee needed to carry Illinois in the fall election‚ and one of the central players needed to accomplish this was the boss of the Chicago Democrat machine — Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. But there was an unrecognized fly in the political convention ointment. By 1968‚ incumbent Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s conduct of the Vietnam War had become a major issue inside the Democrat Party. LBJ was so controversial that he had been challenged for renomination by Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy‚ who was eventually joined by New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (father of today’s RFK Jr.) By March 30‚ LBJ was so besieged by McCarthy‚ Kennedy‚ and their youthful anti-war legions that he shocked the political world by withdrawing from the race. He was replaced as the party Establishment favorite by his vice president‚ longtime party lion Hubert Humphrey. Then‚ the night of the California Democratic primary‚ primary winner Kennedy was shockingly assassinated moments after accepting his victory. Suffice to say‚ by the time Democrats gathered in Chicago to nominate Humphrey‚ the Gathering Storm of 1968 had arrived. The city erupted into a riot‚ with far-leftist anti-war demonstrators on one side and the Chicago police on the other. All of this was captured live and in color on television. In the aftermath‚ an investigation of what had quickly emerged as a massive disaster for Democrats was held‚ headed by former Illinois Gov. Dan Walker‚ a Democrat. The Walker Report‚ as it quickly came to known‚ reported this in its summary: During the week of the Democratic National Convention‚ the Chicago police were the targets of mounting provocation by both word and act. It took the form of obscene epithets‚ and of rocks‚ sticks‚ bathroom titles‚ and even human feces hurled at police by demonstrators. Some of these acts had been planned; others were spontaneous or were themselves provoked by police action. The police fought back. What was called a “police riot” was the response. There was more — so much more. The report‚ as described by Chicago68.com‚ had “over 20‚000 pages of statements from 3‚437 eyewitnesses and participants‚ 180 hours of film‚ and over 12‚000 still photographs.” Taken together‚ between the rioting of the leftist anti-war protesters and the iron-fisted response of the police‚ the Democrats — and nominee Humphrey — simply could not recover from this televised chaos that was brought about‚ without doubt‚ by the thousands of youthful anti-war protesters — and the response that came from the Chicago police. Moving ahead to today&;#63; The 2024 Democrats will gather from Aug. 19 through Aug. 22 in Chicago’s United Center — by pure coincidence in the same city as 1968’s convention. There they will renominate President Joe Biden‚ who is not at all unlike 1968’s Humphrey: the party Establishment’s favorite. And‚ just as in 1968‚ there is‚ to say the least‚ internal turmoil in the 2024 Democratic Party as it prepares to gather for its nominating convention in Chicago. Watching the repeated chaos swarming America’s elite universities as far-leftist anti-Israel protesters turn law and order inside out and upside down is to see a vivid reminder of what happened at the 1968 Chicago DNC‚ a long 56 years ago. The “cause” was Vietnam in 1968. In 2024‚ the cause is hatred of Israel and Jews‚ a decidedly divisive issue in a political party whose history includes Democrat President Harry Truman’s being the first to recognize the creation of the state of Israel when it took place in his administration in 1948. With all that is unfolding on these elite university campuses‚ it takes no imagination to envision these protesters swarming Chicago in August as the convention delegates gather. Indeed‚ it takes no imagination to see that inside the convention hall‚ there could easily be delegates who have been involved in these protests and are all too willing to raise un-shirted double-L on the convention floor itself as the howl goes up about “Genocide Joe.” All of which is to say that the nation is engulfed in far-leftist protests right this minute on the campuses of America’s seriously left-leaning universities. It takes no imagination to see more of the same turning the 2024 Democratic National Convention into exactly the same kind of riotous chaos that faced the 1968 Democratic National Convention. And — irony of ironies — all of it is taking place in the very same location: Chicago. Note to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson — today’s successor to 1968’s Chicago Mayor Richard Daley: There is a Gathering Storm headed Chicago’s way. Buckle in. The post The DNC’s Gathering Storm in Chicago appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

This is not a review of Guy Ritchie’s new movie The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. It’s been reviewed widely already‚ almost always favorably‚ with reviewers generally characterizing it as a thoroughly entertaining romp based on an obscure but fascinating actual World War II adventure. I have nothing to add to these reviews‚ not least because‚ living in a movie theater desert‚ I’ve not yet had a chance to see it. But when it comes to my favorite TV streaming service‚ I will tune in eagerly‚ simply because it punches every one of my entertainment buttons. READ MORE on the film: World War True When I first saw the publicity‚ I dismissed it as another lame‚ warmed-over Hollywood action-adventure akin to the profoundly irritating Inglourious Basterds. I suspected it conjured up World War II for no better reason than our unwillingness to tell stories involving confrontations with present day villainy‚ something our own Lou Aguilar has called out frequently. Confounding Nazi villainy remains the easy option; one waits‚ without holding one’s breath‚ for a big-budget Hollywood action-adventure that involves‚ say‚ taking on Hamas or features Ukrainian special operators sinking Russian warships — or an international band of special operators thwarting a Chinese-sponsored bioterrorism plot (for the latter‚ I have the story dialed up and waiting). Then I saw the names of the characters. Gus March-Phillips. Geoffrey Appleyard. Anders Lassen. Real men‚ not made-up characters. All boyhood heroes of mine‚ men cast in a special mold‚ exemplars of the world of special operations. The very first “grown-up” book I ever read was Gordon Landsborough’s unjustly forgotten Tobruk Commando‚ the story of an ill-conceived but heroically executed attempt to destroy Rommel’s main logistics base on the eve of the battle of El Alamein.  At age 8‚ reading this wonderfully accessible tale‚ I began a life-long appreciation of “behind the lines” special operations heroes. David Lloyd Owen‚ a stalwart of the Long Range Desert Group‚ features prominently in the book. David Stirling‚ the founder of the Special Air Service‚ makes a cameo appearance. Above all‚ there was John Haselden‚ the pivotal figure in the Tobruk raid itself‚ whose inspirational leadership and ultimate self-sacrifice resonated deeply. My dad‚ a veteran of more prosaic but nonetheless bitter infantry combat‚ had already begun to inculcate in me a deep appreciation both of heroism and of sacrifice. Haselden’s example made me see it in the starkly dramatic context of special operations. (READ MORE from James H. McGee: Learn of Heroes at a Young Age) Our tiny southern town had a tiny public library‚ maybe 1‚500 volumes. Still‚ in the ’50s‚ a nobler time when virtually every dad was a veteran of World War — and many granddads of World War I — the library contained an outsized collection of military histories. (Would that this remained the case in our woke-addled contemporary library systems.) Even more exciting‚ the World War II section contained a treasure chest of special operations histories. Our library had — and I eagerly devoured — C.E. Lucas Phillips’ The Greatest Raid of All‚ the story of the legendary undertaking to deny the German battleship Tirpitz the repair facilities of the harbor of Saint-Nazaire. It also had his Cockleshell heroes‚ about a team of British raiders infiltrating a Nazi-held French harbor using‚ of all things‚ kayaks. Commando veteran Peter Young’s Storm from the Sea introduced me‚ in successive chapters‚ to the Lofoten‚ Vaagso‚ and Dieppe raids‚ culminating in the role of the commandos on D-Day. The British seemed to have a knack for this kind of warfare‚ going back to Lawrence of Arabia‚ famously the prototype of “gentleman‚ scholar‚ thug.” There was also well-crafted fiction‚ notably Alistair MacLean’s The Guns of Navarone‚ a thinly fictionalized treatment of numerous special operations missions in the Aegean. Our eighth-grade English teacher promoted reading by acquiring and reselling paperback books. While most of these were “kid lit‚” they included such notable adventures as Robb White’s famous frogman tale‚ Up Periscope‚ and‚ best of all‚ and special ops anthology entitled Behind Enemy Lines. The latter marked my introduction to perhaps the most fascinating of the World War II raiding specialists‚ the legendary “Popski‚” Vladimir Peniakoff‚ and his band of special operations brigands‚ the wonderfully named “Popski’s Private Army.”  It was about this time that I first encountered the real-life heroes of The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. The action depicted in the movie‚ a raid on shipping in the harbor of Fernando Po (now Bioko)‚ a Spanish island off the coast of Africa‚ figured only fleetingly in the books available in our little library; it tended to be represented as little more than a side show. But the heroes themselves appeared again and again until each met the predictable sad demise. Number 62 Commando‚ aka the Small Scale Raiding Force (SSRF)‚ went on from the Fernando Po expedition to conduct a series of raids along the French coast‚ part of Churchill’s famous remit to “set Europe ablaze.”  In and of themselves‚ none of these raids were strategically significant‚ and the conventional military mind tended to dismiss them‚ in the language of the time‚ as mere “pinpricks.” But at a time when Nazi Germany was riding high on all fronts‚ each raid reminded the Germans that their hold on France couldn’t be taken for granted. These “pinpricks” soon got under the skin of Adolf Hitler himself‚ whose infamous “commando order” directed that raiders‚ when captured‚ were to be summarily executed. The first of the “ungentlemanly warfare” heroes to die was Gus March-Phillips‚ who was killed on one of these little raids‚ a reconnaissance operation targeting a stretch of French coast that‚ two years later‚ would become famous as Omaha Beach. Geoffrey Appleyard then assumed command of the SSRF‚ which would be relocated to the Middle Eastern theater and ultimately absorbed into the SAS. When he was overseeing an SAS parachute drop during the invasion of Sicily‚ Appleyard’s aircraft disappeared without a trace‚ quite possibly a victim of friendly fire. Perhaps the most remarkable member of the trio was Anders Lassen‚ scion of a prominent Danish family‚ whose taste for adventure had led him first‚ as a teenager‚ to the life of a merchant seaman and then‚ when his homeland was attacked and occupied in 1940 by the Nazis‚ into the world of British special operations. After the dissolution of the SSRF‚ Lassen became an officer in the Special Boat Section of the SAS‚ the predecessor to today’s vaunted Royal Marine Special Boat Service‚ the British equivalent of our Navy SEALs. For the balance of the war he repeatedly led daring raids across the Mediterranean‚ Aegean‚ and Adriatic Seas. On April 8‚ 1945‚ only a month before the end of the war in Europe‚ Lassen’s breathtaking indifference to danger finally exacted its price. Tasked with what he surely knew might be his final raid of the war‚ his force ran into heavy resistance. Leading‚ as always‚ from the front‚ Lassen destroyed multiple German positions singlehandedly and‚ even after being mortally wounded‚ refused evacuation until his men could be taken care of. For this action‚ he was posthumously awarded Britain’s highest military honor‚ the Victoria Cross‚ the only non–British Commonwealth citizen so recognized in World War II. We Americans would do well to remember our own such heroes — not just those of World War II but also those of wars since. It’s been my good fortune to know several among a later generation of special warfare heroes‚ starting with the Vietnam era and continuing right down to the present day. Men like these‚ every bit as much as the heroes of The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare‚ deserve to be celebrated. Villainy didn’t die with Adolf Hitler‚ and woke pieties shouldn’t prevent us from appreciating our modern-day heroes. For too long we’ve dodged the inconvenient truth that there are people out there who hate us and want to do us down.  We can’t prepare new generations for the threats they will face by conjuring up comic book villains and superpowered superheroes. Heroes such as March-Phillips‚ Appleyard‚ and Lassen aren’t men of steel — they bleed and die. We once understood that heroes begat heroes‚ and we celebrated them accordingly‚ nurturing their example as a means of nurturing the next generation of heroes. We may wish‚ with Bertolt Brecht‚ to live in a land that needs no heroes‚ but look around you — that day is yet to come. James H. McGee’s 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.  The post Gentlemen‚ Scholars‚ Thugs: The Real Heroes Behind &;lt;i&;gt;The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare&;lt;/i&;gt; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Historical analogies are never perfect‚ but the 2024 presidential campaign and election clearly has echoes of 1968. The 1968 presidential election was one of the closest in history. It pitted incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey against former Vice President Richard Nixon‚ who eight years before had lost a very close election to John F. Kennedy under a cloud of suspicion about election irregularities in Illinois and Texas (it even had a dispute over a dual slate of electors in Hawaii). There was also strong third-party candidate Alabama Gov. George Wallace‚ who ran principally on a law-and-order platform and received about 13 percent of the vote. And the campaign and election were fought against the background of an unpopular foreign policy‚ massive protests on college campuses and in the streets of major cities‚ out-of-control government spending on both butter and guns‚ and a widespread perception that “law and order” was breaking down. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Coddling Iran Brings War to the Middle East In 2024‚ an incumbent president is taking on a former president who four years earlier lost a very close and disputed election (complete with voting irregularities in several battleground states and dual slates of electors). This year‚ as in 1968‚ a third-party candidate‚ Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‚ is running on a platform that includes “law and order” as it relates to the increasingly violent anti-Jewish‚ anti-Israeli‚ anti-American‚ pro-Hamas‚ pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses and in the streets of major cities. In one of those historical coincidences‚ he happens to be the son of a presidential candidate in 1968 who was murdered for his pro-Israel views by a Palestinian‚ Sirhan Sirhan. It is unclear as yet how strong Kennedy’s vote total will be and which major candidate — Joe Biden or Donald Trump — will suffer most as a result of Kennedy’s candidacy. In 1968‚ although Wallace was a southern Democrat‚ it is likely that he siphoned more votes from Nixon than Humphrey. Some in the Trump campaign worry that Kennedy will take more votes from Trump than from Biden this year. In 1968‚ most major media organs were for Humphrey‚ though back then they were much more discreet about their liberal bias. Their hatred for Nixon (which reached back to the Hiss case in the late 1940s) only blatantly manifested itself after he won a landslide election in 1972‚ when‚ in the words of historian Paul Johnson‚ they launched a “media putsch” against Nixon to drive him from office. Geoff Shepard in these pages and in several books has presented significant evidence that the major media organs‚ with their accomplices in Congress‚ the special prosecutor’s office‚ and a federal judge or two‚ conducted what others have called a “silent coup” to remove Nixon from office. In 2024‚ the major media organs no longer hide their liberal bias‚ and they wear their hatred for Trump on their sleeves. And Trump‚ unlike Nixon in 1968‚ is distracted from campaigning by unprecedented criminal prosecutions that his supporters and others characterize as “election interference.” Yet‚ Trump continues to lead in most polls; this may have something to do with the incumbent’s unpopular foreign policies‚ the breakdown of “law and order” in our major cities‚ the violent anti-American protests on college campuses‚ and the out-of-control spending that has created what some economists characterize as “stagflation.” The prices of eggs and gasoline and electricity have more impact on voters than do Biden cheerleaders who talk about the strength of the economy. In yet another historical coincidence‚ the 2024 Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago‚ the scene of riots and protests that marred the Democrats’ 1968 convention there. In 1968‚ Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s police force cracked down on the protests. In 2024‚ it is likely that Chicago officials will be sympathetic to such protests — and we can expect pro-Palestinian/Hamas‚ anti-Israeli‚ anti-American‚ Black Lives Matter‚ and Antifa demonstrations both inside and outside the convention venue. Democratic mayors‚ police chiefs‚ and district attorneys in our major cities were mostly in support of “law and order” in 1968. That is no longer the case in 2024. In 1968‚ Richard Nixon won the popular vote by less than 1 million out of more than 70 million votes cast (Nixon’s 31‚710‚470 to Humphrey’s 30‚898‚055 to Wallace’s 9‚906‚473). The electoral college vote was Nixon 301‚ Humphrey 191‚ and Wallace 46. The closeness of the 2024 election will likely also echo 1968. Image: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. The post The 2024 Election Echoes That of 1968 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Victor Hugo Maverick Artist:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Revolver News: If you’ve spent any time online‚ you’ve probably stumbled upon those fervent pro-Ukraine accounts that go by the name “NAFO” and sport cute little animated animal photos as their avatars. As a matter of fact‚ disgraced former Congressman Adam “Cry Baby” Kinzinger is a proud “fella” of this NAFO online movement. Mr. […]

Congressional Candidate @JenChangeFL: &;quot;@AIPAC owns all three branches of government‚ and the Fourth Estate. We are being ruled by the Zionist State. You can always tell who is in charge by what you are not allowed to speak out against.&;quot; pic.twitter.com/C2R4wIdclE — James Li (@5149jamesli) April 28‚ 2024