I’ll admit this up front: I’m not a huge fan of Tulsi Gabbard‚ the former congresswoman from Hawaii‚ former presidential candidate‚ and current media personality. And no‚ I’m not going to be one of these pundits playing around with making Gabbard into Donald Trump’s running mate. Enough with that already. It’s irritating. Oh‚ don’t get me wrong. If it’s my fate to be governed by one of the people who populated those stages during the 2020 Democrat presidential primaries‚ I’ll take Gabbard. That doesn’t say a lot‚ of course: that might have been the single worst aggregation of wannabe tyrants ever assembled in a free nation. Gabbard isn’t an aggressive defiler of America as founded‚ and that alone put her atop the Democrat slag-heap. Or beneath it‚ because when she began promoting things slightly different from the Obama cabal’s orthodoxy‚ they ran her right out of their party. Gabbard is a perfect example of why conservatives should start paying attention to the difference between liberals and out-and-out leftists. She’s the former‚ and it’s a distinction that matters. Liberals actually care about civil liberties like free speech. Leftists‚ which the Democrat Party is dominated and run by‚ do not. It turns out that the cultural and political elite are also dominated by leftists‚ not liberals. And certainly not conservatives. The effect is noticeable. For example‚ Prince Harry — who isn’t even American‚ but‚ if there’s a better example of the typical leftist ruling-class twit than Meghan Markle’s husband‚ it’s hard to find one — thinks free speech is “bonkers.” He said so after he moved to America‚ the world’s oldest democracy and a country built on the freedom to speak one’s mind about anything‚ anytime‚ anywhere. America has always believed in the thing Harry finds so weird — in fact‚ we shot a whole lot of redcoats with accents pretty similar to his in order to win this nation for ourselves‚ and the very first thing we did after we wrote our Constitution was to enshrine this freedom in writing. The right to freedom of speech is so vital to America’s way of life that the founders embedded it in the First Amendment. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of faith and freedom of the press‚ as individual rights and as means of keeping the government in check. The Democrat Party once claimed it lived by the ethos — “I may disapprove of what you say‚ but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s standard liberal cant. You don’t hear it from people like Adam Schiff‚ Dan Goldman‚ Pramila Jayapal‚ or Mazie Hirono because they’re not liberals; they’re leftists and they couldn’t give a red hot damn about your freedom of speech. But Gabbard is a lot better than they are and she deserves credit for it. She also deserves credit for having the sand to write her new book‚ For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind. Gabbard writes in For Love of Country that this public bedrock belief in the right to free speech is what first attracted her to the Democrats. At 21‚ she writes‚ she saw a party that passionately defended free speech and represented a big tent that included a variety of beliefs‚ not all of which agreed with one another. And that was fine. Freedom of speech is for all‚ and good ideas should win out over bad ones as long as debate is unfettered. Does this describe the Democrat Party today&;#63; Is the Democrat Party‚ especially under Joe Biden‚ still dedicated to defending free speech&;#63; Are today’s Democrats with America’s founders‚ or with the prince who just doesn’t get it&;#63; I’d argue that it was mostly a scam all along‚ but whether that’s true or not‚ there is zero question Gabbard has her former party’s current number. Today’s Democrats‚ by and large‚ believe “hate speech‚” which is often defined as anything with which they disagree‚ is “violence” or “disinformation” and must be banned. The New York Times‚ dominated by woke left-wing Democrats in the newsroom and its boardroom‚ faces rebellions any time it strays from the hard Left’s orthodoxy even to publish an op-ed by a sitting senator. Left-wing network MSNBC has become a partisan cult. NPR‚ according to 25-year veteran of the taxpayer-funded network Uri Berliner‚ who was just forced out of his job for having a slightly dissenting opinion‚ pushes only and always left-wing talking points and viewpoints despite the fact that the majority of Americans disagree. The American Civil Liberties Union‚ once a staunch defender of Nazis’ right to hold parades‚ now fights against free speech in the transgender debate. Biden’s Democrats colluded with Big Tech throughout the Trump presidency‚ and‚ up to the point when Elon Musk bought Twitter for billions‚ used federal law enforcement agencies to curb and crush free speech about COVID and other serious issues — to the party’s benefit. And while our speech is violence‚ their violence is speech. They taught us that when they burned down half of our cities in the summer of 2020 while Kamala Harris was raising bail money for rioters and murderers. This is today’s Left and the Democrat Party‚ Gabbard writes. Free speech has never faced more grave or open threats than it faces right now — from the very party that once made freedom of speech its most prominent and foundational principle. So she left the Democrats for good and is now an independent. Gabbard has faced smears for this‚ and she writes that she’s far from alone. She details what happened when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was invited to testify before a House hearing on the weaponization of government under Biden. Before he could even speak‚ Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz smeared him as “anti-Asian” and “antisemitic.” Schulz had no evidence to present‚ and when Kennedy attempted to reply and defend himself‚ she cut him off. Schulz weaponized her mic‚ her office‚ and the House itself against an American citizen she falsely accused of one of today’s deadliest sins — because he was set to detail how the Democrats have gone to war against the freedom of speech. Remember that&;#63; If not‚ here’s a video refresher: Think Debbie Wasserman Schultz would defend to the death your right to say something that hurts her feelings&;#63; Or nah&;#63; Gabbard’s exposition of the Left’s militant disdain and campaign against free speech couldn’t be more timely. Or necessary‚ for that matter. Here we are facing rising threats from communist China‚ Putin’s Russia‚ the jihadist cancer across the Middle East‚ and even apparently from Niger (please&;#33;)‚ and Americans are having to fight a cold cultural war at home against the people Gabbard is sounding the warning bells about. Free speech is the only way good ideas win. Freedom of thought‚ conscience‚ writing‚ even art‚ is the most important weapon in the battle for truth. The monsters who run the Democrat Party today are fighting so hard to destroy this bedrock right for that very reason. Cut off debate and nobody notices that their arguments are garbage. It’s a cute plan and it works — in all the worst places on earth. There’s an election coming up‚ you know‚ and the Democrats are literally trying to jail and bankrupt their chief opponent. America needs real champions of freedom. Tulsi Gabbard is‚ for whatever other ideas she might have that aren’t so good‚ one of those champions. With this book‚ she has stepped up and accepted the challenge of fighting to save America from her former party‚ and we’re better off for it. READ MORE: Five Quick Things: The Impending Death (By Suicide) of Reacher The Trans Reckoning Is Not Yet Here — But It’s Coming Soon The post Tulsi Gabbard’s Book Is a Gutsy Attempt to Keep You Free appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In the long ago and far away‚ as the anti-Semitism of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis slowly became front and center in 1920s Germany‚ what became known as the “Hitler Youth” came into existence. Over there at the Holocaust Encyclopedia is this background on the group:  The Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend‚ or HJ) was the Nazi-organized youth movement. It was made up of different sections for boys and girls. The boys’ branch was simply called the Hitler Youth. The girls’ branch was called the League of German Girls (Bund Deutscher M&;auml;del‚ BDM). When the Nazis came to power in January 1933‚ the Hitler Youth movement had approximately 100‚000 members. By the end of the same year‚ membership had increased to more than 2 million (30% of German youth ages 10-18). In the following years‚ the Nazi regime encouraged and pressured young people to join the Hitler Youth organizations. Enthusiasm‚ peer pressure‚ and coercion led to a significant increase in membership. By 1937‚ membership in the Hitler Youth grew to 5.4 million (65% of youth ages 10-18). By 1940 the number was 7.2 million (82%). … Nazifying German Youth  The Role of Hitler Youth in the Nazi Regime Beginning in 1933‚ the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls had an important role to play in the new Nazi regime. Through these organizations‚ the Nazi regime planned to indoctrinate young people with Nazi ideology. This was part of the process of Nazifying German society. The aim of this process was to dismantle existing social structures and traditions. The Nazi youth groups were about imposing conformity. Youth throughout Germany wore the same uniforms‚ sang the same Nazi songs‚ and participated in similar activities. Then there was “Kristallnacht” — the “Night of Broken Glass” — in which Nazi supporters attacked shops and stores owned by Jews‚ breaking their windows and trashing them. The Holocaust Encyclopedia notes that:  Hitler Youth members across the country shattered the shop windows of an estimated 7‚500 Jewish-owned commercial establishments and looted their wares. In other words‚ violence in the name of anti-Semitism. Hmmm. Sound familiar&;#63; Here is this headline from Newsmax:  Columbia University Rabbi: Jewish Students Should Leave The story reports:  A prominent rabbi at Columbia University has issued a stark warning to Jewish students‚ advising them to depart campus due to what he describes as “extreme antisemitism‚” the New York Post reported. Rabbi Elie Buechler’s directive follows a recent surge in anti-Israel protests‚ including incidents of hate speech and threats of violence against Jewish students‚ prompting concerns over safety within the Ivy League institution. In the aftermath of yet another night marked by anti-Israel demonstrations on campus‚ Buechler conveyed his personal distressing message to students via WhatsApp on Sunday morning. He expressed a loss of confidence in the university’s ability‚ alongside the NYPD‚ to ensure the safety of Jewish students amidst what he termed as “extreme antisemitism and anarchy.” Then there was this at the Hill:  Columbia kicks the hornet’s nest with student protests over Israel-Hamas war The Hill reports:  Columbia University administrators appear to have only inflamed student protesters against the Israel-Hamas war both on their campus and at other schools after leadership chose to have more than 100 students arrested over pro-Palestine demonstrations Friday. The protests advertise themselves as the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.” Taking note‚ CBS reported this of one notable Columbia alumnus: FOXBORO – New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft indicated he will no longer be donating to Columbia University as pro-Palestinian protests continued for a sixth day at his alma mater’s New York City campus. Kraft issued a statement through his Foundation to Combat Antisemitism and its #StandUpToJewishHate campaign. “I am deeply saddened at the virulent hate that continues to grow on campus and throughout our country‚” Kraft said. “I am no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff and I am not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken.” But the real story in all this&;#63; The more things change‚ the more they stay the same. Let’s be blunt.  The hard fact here is that Columbia University is awash today in Jew-hating kids who‚ in the style of the long ago decidedly infamous Hitler Youth‚ are doing everything they can to threaten the safety of Columbia’s Jewish students. Threaten them to such a degree that the New York Post headline of this goes:  Columbia rabbi warns Jewish students to go home‚ don’t come back to campus because of ‘extreme antisemitism’  The world has been here before. Not good. Not good at all. The post Columbia University Turmoil Recalls the Hitler Youth appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up By Abigail Shrier (Penguin Random House‚ 297 pages‚ $30) Generation Z has a problem. In fact‚ several. The main culprit for their malaise and general unwillingness to take risks‚ according to Abigail Shrier in her new book Bad Therapy‚ is that their childhoods are plagued by society-wide “mom-agers.” These helpful minders take the form of therapists‚ school administrators and counselors‚ Silicon Valley venture capitalists‚ and yes — even parents themselves. If you are a member of Generation X‚ your childhood was likely marked by a few key features: your perception of your parents’ purported authoritarianism‚ a lack of smartphones‚ a smattering of latchkey kids in your neighborhood‚ and a far more opaque understanding of so-called mental health. When you grew up and became a parent‚ you resolved to be different; you promised to never spank‚ to make sure your child felt heard and loved‚ and to ensure they got the accommodations they needed. All you wanted&;#63; For your kids to like you in the end. When parenting difficulties arose or Johnny wasn’t “sitting still in class‚” you consulted the experts. First‚ you read all the parenting books you could find. Eventually‚ some of you took your children to the pediatrician or a psychiatrist. They got a diagnosis — ADHD‚ oppositional defiant disorder‚ sensory processing disorder — and a prescription. You were relieved to finally know what was wrong with them. Then‚ the iatrogenic effects started to manifest themselves. It turns out that focusing on one’s feelings in therapy can lead to more bad feelings. Medications have side effects. According to the author of Irreversible Damage‚ the trauma-aware soup that Gen Z has been swimming in has made them self-conscious and hyperaware of their internal troubles‚ which is a recipe for depression and anxiety. The constant presence of watchful eyes from adults on the playground‚ counselors in school‚ and coaches in extracurricular activities removed all possibility of childhood danger and scraped knees. If a child was known to come from a troubled home‚ she was watched even more intently and expectations for her performance were lowered. Trauma is forever‚ after all. Today‚ social-emotional learning circles pervade schools and encourage children to divulge their trauma or to confront their bully. Everyone liberally speaks about their Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)‚ their struggles with gender identity‚ and their feelings about their parents’ divorce. The children know that talking about their struggles is one surefire way to receive the attention they crave‚ and schools encourage it. Repression is out‚ dysregulation is in. The news that repression is out is well met by pop psychologists‚ many of whom are profiting off the American people’s desire to plumb the depths of their childhood to find a cause for what is presently wrong with them. In chapter six‚ Shrier informs us that‚ contrary to popular notions‚ your body does not keep the score. In response to a potentially traumatic event‚ resilience is the norm‚ not brokenness. Some of the psychological studies on trauma are shaky at best‚ as Shrier details‚ and our memories‚ while powerful‚ can be quite fallible. Meanwhile‚ back at your child’s school‚ parental authority is questioned at every turn. Children are dispatched to spy on their parents and detail their family’s dynamics. Secret surveys have been put forward to kids to ensure their attachment to their parents is healthy. If not‚ a call to Child Protective Services is not out of the question. These surveys ask students if they smoke‚ have had sex while still a minor‚ or have any plans to kill themselves. Smartphones are absolutely everywhere‚ and kids are poorly behaved. If they are not acting out‚ many of them are zonked on antidepressants or must ask an adult for help to achieve simple tasks. Also‚ they can be vicious. The monitored have grown up and become the monitors — they keep screenshots of the problematic texts their friends send them‚ just in case they need dirt if their friend tattles on them first. Who’s to blame&;#63; Besides the “experts‚” Shrier lays the blame at the feet of gentle parenting‚ a more maternal style of interaction that prioritizes a massive increase in the hours spent with the child‚ getting the child’s buy-in on the myriad of choices affecting their lives‚ and parents having unconditional positive regard. And boy‚ was it exhausting. One particularly chilling example of the failings of gentle parenting comes in chapter nine‚ where Shrier tells of a battered mother who is struggling and bargaining with her little Pol Pot at a park. “Please be a good boy … and when we get home‚ I’ll let you do anything you want. What do you want&;#63;” The 6-year-old said plainly‚ “I want to punch you in the face.” There you have it. For all of the hours spent together‚ all of the soft voices‚ loose boundaries‚ and “consequences‚” her child wanted to punch her in the face. Unfortunately‚ gentle parents are not enjoying the children they’re raising. But they can’t yell‚ punish‚ or lay down firm rules — those are things the bad kind of parents do. And Dad telling the kid to knock it off or tough it out&;#63; Anathema. Plus‚ it’s too late. Perpetually accommodating the child’s sensitivity has already resulted in a sensitive child. Much to the gentle parents’ surprise‚ when the children get older‚ some of them cut them off. According to Shrier‚ the young adults who repudiate their parents state that they felt “crushed by the burden of serving as the buttress for their parents’ emotional lives.” The kids were — are — miserable about having been put in charge of their lives at such a young age. They wanted an authoritative parent‚ not a permissive‚ smothering one. Bad Therapy states that there is a way to fix this. It starts with leaving the kids alone. It means sometimes ignoring expert advice. It involves parents not running interference in their kids’ lives and not praising them for doing things that are not difficult. As Shrier says‚ “[T]hey never learn to do for themselves if we do everything for them.” Shrier provides an anecdote from her own life: She stepped back from managing her kids to great success. She started by letting them walk home from the bus stop alone‚ then trusting them to keep track of their homework due dates‚ then sending them out to run errands on their bikes. Their confidence and desire for independence only grew‚ as did their street smarts. In previous generations‚ teens were trusted to make a decision on whether to go to college‚ who to date‚ who to be friends with‚ and what and how many activities to be involved in. They should be allowed to make these decisions once more. However‚ it would behoove parents to make one critical decision to help their children flourish and that is getting rid of their smartphones‚ or at least social media. Adversity and hurt feelings will come for your children no matter what‚ and that can be healthy‚ but the human psyche is not built to be humiliated by thousands or millions. If you are a mental health professional‚ teacher‚ or administrator‚ Bad Therapy is a must-read. It challenges many of the baked-in assumptions of the psychological field and their gradual descent into the classroom. It may also inculcate a healthy dose of humility on the part of experts and engender a greater collective pause before practitioners rush to diagnose or prescribe a remedy for a mental malady that may be transient — or not present at all. If you are a Gen X or Millennial parent‚ you need this book. If you are a Gen Z kid‚ now grown up‚ it’s a good buy for you too. All generations will come away with a new understanding of their potential. For the parents‚ you will begin to trust yourself and your instincts with your child. You might trade the tower of gentle parenting books for a few more practical choices (that Shrier generously supplies). You will now realize what is actually happening in your child’s school. You will stop labeling your child and banish those from your life who call them disordered. And maybe‚ just maybe‚ you’ll take away that phone. The post Gen Z Has Had Enough Therapy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Hoover Institution’s Stephen Kotkin is probably America’s top Kremlinologist. He knows Russia — its history‚ culture‚ and politics — as well or better than any contemporary scholar in the United States. He is in the process of completing the third and final volume of his magisterial biography of Joseph Stalin. And he has written a lengthy essay in Foreign Affairs that plots five likely futures for Russia. Policymakers in the United States‚ Europe‚ and Asia should take note. Kotkin’s essay is about Russia after Putin — what comes next when Putin leaves the scene. Kotkin believes that Putin fancies himself a new tsar‚ but in reality he has created a “personalistic autocracy” that will likely present Russia with a succession crisis rather than a smooth transition of power. Putin’s mortality and what Kotkin calls “larger structural factors” will contribute to shaping Russia’s future. This is not just a scholarly exercise. Kotkin urges Western leaders to “extrapolate from current trends in a way that can facilitate contingency planning” for post-Putin Russia. He imagines five possible futures for Russia. At the outset of the essay‚ Kotkin suggests that Western leaders approach Russia with realism informed by history. The United States and its Western allies‚ he writes‚ have hopefully learned that we cannot transform or shape Russia (or China) into liberal democracies. Russia‚ he notes‚ is a civilization “that long predat[ed] the founding of the United States” and is a country that cannot be separated from its customs‚ traditions‚ culture‚ and history by well-meaning platitudes about a rules-based international order. The same goes for China. Instead of trying to “shape Russia’s trajectory‚” Kotkin writes‚ U.S. and Western policymakers “should prepare for whatever unfolds.” He describes Russia as having a “statist and monarchical tradition” that is part of its peoples’ DNA. The late‚ great Kremlinologist Richard Pipes in his book Russia Under the Old Regime called it “patrimonialism‚” which he described as “a regime where the rights of sovereignty and those of ownership blend to the point of becoming indistinguishable” and where “political power is exercised in the same manner as economic power.” “In a patrimonial state” like Russia‚ Pipes explained‚ “there exist no formal limitations on political authority‚ nor rule of law‚ nor individual liberties.” Political life is rooted in the persons of the rulers. The Bolshevik coup d’etat ushered in a police state and eventually Stalinism. Today’s Russia‚ Kotkin notes‚ is not Stalinist. Putin‚ as bad as he is‚ is not the monster that Stalin was. Kotkin describes Putinism as “an authoritarian‚ resentful‚ mystical nationalism grounded in anti-Westernism‚ espousing nominally traditional values‚ and borrowing incoherently from Slavophilism‚ Eurasianism‚ and Eastern Orthodoxy.” One possible post-Putin future is Russian retrenchment‚ which Kotkin believes could be forced upon Putin’s successor as a result of demographics‚ economics‚ and a stalemated Ukraine war. A second possible future is Russia as a “vassal” of China in a reversal of roles from the Sino-Soviet bloc of the early 1950s. Kotkin believes that the renewed Sino-Russian “strategic partnership” largely rests on the personal relationship between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping as well as a common interest in undermining the U.S.-led global order. The foundations of the relationship‚ however‚ are otherwise “brittle‚” according to Kotkin. A third future involves Russia emerging as a “gigantic North Korea … dependent on China but still able to buck Beijing” when it suits Russia’s rulers to do so. Russia‚ in this scenario‚ could play the “America card” against China the same way the Nixon administration used the “China card” against Moscow in the early 1970s. Kotkin’s fourth future scenario is a post-Putin Russia in chaos and anarchy that falls victim territorially to a predatory China and even Japan‚ and where armed criminal groups struggle for power and privilege‚ including to control nuclear and biological weapons. Kotkin’s final scenario is Russia as a Eurasian great power “operating as a key arbiter of world affairs” with renewed ties to Europe in a multi-polar balance of power. The United States and the West must prepare for whatever emerges from a post-Putin Russia. “Peace comes through strength‚ combined with skillful diplomacy‚” Kotkin writes. “[T]he rise of a Russian nationalist who acknowledges the long-term price of extreme anti-Westernism‚” he continues‚ “remains the likeliest path to a Russia that finds a stable place in the international order.” He suggests that U.S. diplomats endeavor to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war on terms that both sides can accept‚ and to pursue what he labels as a “pro-Russian policy” that provides incentives for a post-Putin Russia to a version of detente without forcing Russia to embrace democracy. Until then‚ Kotkin suggests the possibility (which appears remote at best) of “asking China to help restrain Russia” in the interests of maintaining global peace. Russia’s future may not neatly fall into any of Kotkin’s scenarios‚ but U.S. policymakers would do well to consider approaching global geopolitics with a Kotkinesque realism that abandons ideological straitjackets like “democracy vs. autocracy” in favor of order and stability in the service of peace. READ MORE: At 75‚ Remember NATO Objective of Rearming Europe Most Americans Can’t Find Ukraine on a Map. That Doesn’t Dilute Our Duty to Defend It. Russian Self-Destruction Helps America The post What Will Happen to Russia After Putin&;#63; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Want to enjoy easy-sipping‚ smooth tequila without the price tag of Clase Azul&;#63; Look no further than our selection of tequilas that measure up to the test.

Born on January 17‚ 1922‚ in Oak Park‚ Illinois‚ Betty White’s career spanned seven decades and was filled with memorable roles that showcased her versatility and charm. White was a pioneer from the start‚ creating‚ producing‚ and starring in “Life with Elizabeth” in the 1950s‚ making her one of the first women to exert control in the male-dominated television industry. Her blend of sweetness and wit won hearts on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” as Sue Ann Nivens‚ earning her two Emmy Awards. However‚ it was her role as Rose Nylund on “The Golden Girls” that solidified her status as a beloved cultural icon. Beyond acting‚ White was a dedicated animal welfare advocate‚ supporting various organizations and serving on the board of the Los Angeles Zoo Commission. White continued to entertain and inspire throughout her life‚ even hosting “Saturday Night Live” at the age of 88 after a massive fan campaign on Facebook‚ earning yet another Emmy for her performance. Betty White passed away on December 31‚ 2021‚ just shy of her 100th birthday. The post Stunning photos of a young Betty White first appeared on History Defined.