There’s a famous scene in the Humphrey Bogart classic The Caine Mutiny in which Bogart’s character‚ the unstable and largely incompetent Captain Queeg‚ appears as a witness against the officers who relieved him as the ship he commanded was at risk of foundering and proves them right for having done so. We had something of a reprise of that scene last Thursday in the person of Joe Biden‚ who’s rapidly living up (or down) to the nickname of Joe Deadhorse that I gave him a few weeks ago (and if you’ve had a look at the two installments of my new novel King of the Jungle‚ now being serialized here at The American Spectator‚ you’ll recognize the reference). Biden’s handlers juiced him up on … something‚ then hastily sent him out to angrily denounce the report of special counsel Robert Hur‚ who had been appointed to investigate the fact that Biden was in possession of oodles of classified documents that he was not legally entitled to have‚ and it went pretty badly: Of course‚ Biden should have been thanking Hur for noting his enfeebled mental state and his cognitive incompetence as a likely affirmative defense to a prosecution for his clearly illegal mishandling of classified information. Had Hur not made that reference the discussion would have been the absurdity of Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump for the same crime‚ with one major difference. READ MORE: Biden’s Sound and Fury That being the fact that Trump was president at the time he brought home those documents‚ and with the president having plenary power to declassify documents‚ it is physically impossible for Trump to have broken such a law — the act of taking those documents home is a de facto declassification. Biden‚ of course‚ was not president when he spirited those documents away. He was a senator and a vice president. We’re not talking about that fact. Instead‚ we’re talking about Joe Deadhorse and his broken mental state. We’re talking about the demented‚ senile old man roaring at the reporters who finally‚ at long last‚ are beginning to smell blood and ask the questions that ought to have been asked all the way back in 2020. But at the end of the day‚ perhaps it doesn’t matter — either way we would be talking about the brightly lit “DANGER” sign blinking in the faces of today’s Democrat Party honchos for their manifest mistake of attempting to foist Biden on the public for a second term. A term‚ it should be noted‚ that would end with Biden having had his 86th birthday. Thursday’s Captain Queeg denouement reboot wasn’t a particularly bad moment for Biden. In fact‚ it might have been about as good as it gets from here on in. Biden’s handlers made sure he skipped the traditional presidential interview in the lead-up to Sunday’s Super Bowl coverage‚ because everyone knows and understands that he couldn’t sit down for a real interview with an actual journalist who would ask substantive questions about issues like the border‚ our exit strategy — or lack of one — in Ukraine‚ our $34 trillion national debt‚ inflation‚ Bidenomics‚ transgenderism‚ the declining national birthrate‚ the decreasing availability of decent housing or health care not just for the poor but for the middle class‚ catastrophic downturns in military recruitment numbers‚ and oodles of other issues on which his administration is performing abysmally. This is what Biden is now. And it’s going to get worse. All last week‚ the media circles were buzzing about that atrocious NBC News poll that had Biden at a meager 36 percent approval rating and getting blistered by 5 points in a head-to-head race with Donald Trump. Well‚ now there’s an Economist/YouGov poll giving Trump a 7-point lead on the question to respondents: “Who do you think would win?” That’s usually a pretty good predictive question‚ though it often has more power late in a race rather than early. Ah‚ yes‚ but is it really early in this race? Or is it actually fairly late? Mitch Landrieu‚ the formerly apocalyptically horrible mayor of New Orleans (he’s the dolt who knocked down the iconic statues of Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and built a billion-dollar airport without bothering to arrange a proper connection to I-10‚ all as crime skyrocketed thanks to a hug-a-thug consent decree he signed with the Obama DOJ) who was tabbed as Biden’s infrastructure czar and is now in charge of his reelection campaign‚ swears Biden ain’t goin’ nowhere. Landrieu dismissed Thursday’s debacle in front of the cameras by impugning the mental capacity of men far more lucid and successful than either himself or his boss: President Trump‚ just the other night‚ confused what day of the week it was. He is confused who the leader of North Korea and China are. He’s confused the leaders of Hungary and Turkey‚ by the way. Speaker Mike Johnson was on the other day and he confused Iraq and Iran. And of course‚ President Trump doesn’t know the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley. Landrieu would‚ of course‚ say these things because Joe Deadhorse Biden is his personal gravy train and sole path to political relevance. Landrieu can’t go home and run for much of anything without humiliating himself‚ and his record of achievement to date would likely qualify him for a career selling aluminum siding‚ or perhaps solar panels. The thing is that those not quite-so-personally invested in Landrieu seem to be a bit less sanguine about Biden’s future prospects. For example‚ there is this guy‚ who speaks for the Democrats’ boss‚ Barack Obama: David Axelrod warns Biden presser 'reinforces the meme' that the president is too old: 'Can't unring the bell' https://t.co/JAIi9L4ykT #FoxNews — Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) February 10‚ 2024 But Axelrod was full of bad news for Democrats — he poured ice water all over the idea of parachuting Michelle Obama in as the nominee: David Axelrod says Michelle Obama will not replace Biden on Democrat ticket. And Smerconish throws shade at NY Post reporter Cindy Adams‚ who has been stoking the Michelle rumors.pic.twitter.com/29duelhbHb — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) February 11‚ 2024 Well‚ what happens next‚ then? It won’t be Gavin Newsom‚ in case you’re thinking he’s the real nominee. The thing is‚ the Obama machine still controls the Democrat Party‚ and as such you cannot be the nominee without the machine giving you — or‚ better put‚ you earning — their imprimatur. Which is another way to say you have to be a puppet of the Obama regime if you want to be the Democrat nominee. And Gavin Newsom is nobody’s puppet — his ego is even bigger than Obama’s. What’s more‚ Newsom is entirely transactional — he’ll do whatever he thinks will make him popular‚ so long as he’s the center of attention. Wait‚ Scott‚ you’re saying — are you trying to tell me we’re about to see Kamala Harris’ (brief) moment in the sun? Well… Maybe so. Probably not‚ but then again… The thing is‚ Landrieu might be right for once in his life when he says that Joe Biden won’t step down no matter what. And the Democrats on Capitol Hill are not going to do to their president what the Republicans did to Richard Nixon. Joe Biden could be molesting toddlers live on MSNBC‚ and it won’t move them to ousting him via impeachment. And if Biden won’t walk the plank on his own‚ the 25th Amendment won’t dig him out of the White House. As David Catron noted here at the site yesterday‚ Johnathan Turley wrote at the Hill that this is no magic bullet: It is Section 4 [of the amendment] that allows the removal of a president.… It requires a vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office‚” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Kamala Harris could get eight Cabinet officers to go along with a letter to Congress‚ her status as the “Acting President” would likely be short-lived. Joe Biden (who yesterday declared‚ “I’m elderly and know what the hell I’m doing”) would only have to declare to Congress that “no inability exists.” Biden would then resume his powers. But while they can’t get rid of him if he doesn’t agree‚ the party’s in-crowd does actually have a say at their convention. Yes‚ you retort‚ but will they vote to dump Biden if Kamala Harris is all they’ve got? In that same NBC poll‚ Harris’ approval rating was a lot more upside-down than Biden’s was. She’s at 28 up‚ 53 down. And I don’t disagree with you. Kamala Harris as the nominee is little more than a sacrificial lamb. If she’s at the top of the ticket‚ all of their money will flow to the bottom of the ticket in a mad scramble to take back the House (the Senate is almost surely gone from the Democrats’ grasp this fall‚ given Biden’s unpopularity and the 12 seats currently held by Democrats in states Trump won in 2016‚ 2020‚ or both). Here’s the fundamental problem‚ though: They might not have a choice. The Democrats have been the party almost exclusively of ruinous‚ radical urban socialist political machines for close to two decades now‚ and that existence has denuded them of candidates capable of carrying a broad spectrum of the electorate. That’s one reason their bench is so scandalously short. The other reason‚ which is related‚ is the identity politics problem: They can’t afford to alienate black women‚ and passing Harris over for anybody other than Michelle Obama would do just that. Black women actually really like Kamala Harris‚ which doesn’t say great things about that demographic but does put the Democrats’ dilemma on the big screen in technicolor. One struggles to conjure up much sympathy‚ especially as events tumble forth to illuminate the damage this president‚ and the regime he represents‚ has done to the country. The post The Deepening Joe Deadhorse Dilemma appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Tucker Carlson’s recent‚ two-hour interview of Vladimir Putin generated massive attention around the world. Carlson deserves credit for the exclusive‚ although he left the former KGB apparatchik off the hook and looking more like an honest broker than he is or ever was. Of the numerous lies and non sequiturs that gushed from the Russian dictator‚ what he said about Poland cries out for rectification. I will get to that‚ but first let me set the stage. READ MORE: Utterly Conventional: Thoughts on the Tucker–Putin Interview Putin sounded like a scholar of history‚ spending the first half hour in a marathon lecture (some would call it a filibuster) about Russia’s past Ukrainian connections. Twice‚ Carlson questioned the relevance of it all‚ but Putin’s purpose was starkly obvious: He wants the world to believe that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that belongs to Russia‚ that to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians in the 21st century is a noble venture grounded in events from the 9th century. You’re excused if you didn’t follow the logic or the history. Neither did I. Nor does anyone who wonders why an authoritarian‚ blood-soaked regime that governs 11 time zones really needs one more. World governments whose hands are clean in foreign policy are few and far between. I am no apologist for Washington’s behavior at home or abroad. One can be on either side of the question of U.S. support for Ukraine and still find no justification — moral or geopolitical — for Putin’s invasion. I was repulsed by Putin’s prevarications not because of some unwarranted bias or vested interest but because I dislike prevarications from wherever they emanate. It’s a fact that history is one long tale of thugs battling each other for control of people‚ territory‚ and borders. Just about everyone can cherry-pick something from the past to prove their claims on others‚ but violence is violence. Putin’s slaughter today is senseless and immoral regardless of what some medieval tyrant said or did centuries ago. And it cannot be justified by any reasonable claim of self-defense. When Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February 2022‚ Putin argued that the possibility of Kyiv joining NATO was intolerable to Russia. From the Carlson interview‚ we now know that this was not the main reason for the invasion. Putin attacked simply because he sees Ukraine as nothing more than a hijacked Russian time zone. He knows full well that no agreement was ever signed between NATO and Russia that forbade the alliance’s eastward expansion. Some officials may have suggested privately or publicly that NATO would stay put‚ but that’s not a treaty. Whether Kyiv should be in NATO is a debatable matter‚ but who can fault any Ukrainian for favoring it? The country sits next to a giant neighbor that 1) imposed a communist tyranny on it for decades; 2) murdered millions of Ukrainians in a Moscow-directed adventure in famine and genocide in the 1930s; 3) abrogated 1990s agreements that recognized Ukrainian sovereignty and forswore the use of force; and 4) invaded Ukraine just a decade ago? Russia even offered Ukraine assurances of security in exchange for Kyiv relinquishing its nuclear weapons (inherited from Soviet days). All of that seems far more real to me than the ridiculous fear that NATO is about to bomb Russia and start World War III. How can anyone expect Ukraine to trust serial liars in the Kremlin? Putin himself denied he planned to invade right up to the moment he invaded. Poles know about Russian aggression as well as anybody‚ and after the Carlson interview with Putin‚ they also know that he lies about Poland too. He told Tucker that in 1939‚ Poland was so “uncompromising” that Hitler had no choice but to attack and start World War II. Poor little Adolf. By not caving to the Nazi demand to give Germany the Danzig corridor (where the Polish city of GdaÅ„sk now resides)‚ the Poles pushed him into war. All he wanted (yeah‚ right) was a little strip of Polish territory‚ but the Poles had the audacity to say no! Maybe the Poles knew something that Britain and France had to learn painfully‚ namely‚ that appeasement only encourages dictators.   Putin even claimed that Poland “collaborated” with Hitler to partition Czechoslovakia in 1938–39. Poland had its issues with the Czechs‚ to be sure‚ but no evidence exists that the country saddled up with the Nazis to take the place over. None. Does anybody but Putin really believe that Hitler’s plan for Europe was peace‚ only to be derailed by an intransigent Poland?  Marcin Chmielowski‚ a good friend from the Freedom and Entrepreneurship Foundation in Katowice‚ Poland‚ tells me this: Poland was the country that militarily first opposed Hitler. We paid a high price for this. True‚ Hitler offered us an alliance‚ but we rejected it. Poland chose France and Great Britain as its allies. Now Putin‚ speaking of Poland as Hitler’s ally‚ is simply lying. It was the Soviet Union that was an ally of the Third Reich. Together these two countries invaded Poland. There was even a joint Soviet-Nazi victory parade. It was held in Brest-Litovsk and a German military orchestra played the anthems of both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Putin’s ridiculous revisionism is ironic‚ given his claim (repeated in the Carlson interview) that Ukraine needed a bloody invasion to stamp out Nazism. He says one of his objectives is the “de-Nazification” of a nation whose president is Jewish.  If anybody is a Nazi here‚ it’s the guy who thinks Poland pushed Hitler into war‚ who jails or murders his political opponents‚ who has all but wiped out any semblance of democracy in Russia‚ who kidnaps and deports Ukrainian children to Siberian reeducation camps‚ who is responsible for war casualties now exceeding half a million‚ and who perpetuates himself in power by shredding the law of his own country.  Having Vladimir Putin as an enemy is a badge of honor for Poland‚ a country that never signed an agreement with Adolf Hitler to divide and conquer anybody. Poland liberated itself from the Russian yoke in 1989 and is a free country today‚ no thanks to Moscow. It supports Ukraine because it knows that if Putin wins there‚ he’ll be sitting hundreds of miles closer to Warsaw. Poles have taken into their homes at least 1.5 million Ukrainians because they know what Russian oppression is about.  In 1940‚ the Russia of the old Soviet Union murdered 22‚000 Polish officers in the infamous Katyn massacre. You can see why an independent Ukraine‚ for Poland‚ is a matter of national security. “Show me a liar‚” wrote the English poet George Herbert in 1651‚ “and I will show thee a thief.” Vladimir Putin is both‚ in spades. Lawrence W. Reed‚ www.lawrencewreed.com‚ is President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education in Atlanta‚ Georgia‚ and a recent recipient of the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland. The post Putin’s Self-Serving Lies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Annual income twenty pounds‚ annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence]‚ result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds‚ annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six‚ result misery.” —Mr. Micawber (fictional character in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens) Twenty pounds sterling would be pocket change in today’s global economy ($1 equals £0.78)‚ but when Charles Dickens was writing David Copperfield‚ a typical London laborer earned 20 shillings (£1) per week. The cost of living was‚ of course‚ considerably lower in 19th-century England than it is nowadays‚ amounting to about 19 shillings per week‚ according to some estimates. So if Dickens’ impecunious Mr. Micawber worked a then-standard 10 hours per day‚ six days per week year-round and was unmarried‚ childless‚ and abstemious‚ his annual income might have been £52‚ allowing him to live reasonably comfortably and debt-free. At £20‚ though‚ any extraordinary expenses would have plunged him into dire financial straits. READ MORE: Year 2024: Everyone Except Paul Krugman Is Wrong The U.S. national debt (the federal budget deficits that have been accumulating since the early 1960s) now is north of $34 trillion‚ a sum unimaginable to Wilkins Micawber‚ to the founders of our constitutional republic‚ and to most people living today. And that number does not include the unfunded future liabilities of Social Security‚ Medicare‚ and other so-called entitlement programs. Until the 1960s‚ a balanced-budget norm constrained Washington’s fiscal policymaking: Public revenues and expenditures remained largely on par‚ except during wartime. Borrowing was necessary to finance acquisitions of munitions and other war materials along with paying the men and women responsible for carrying out military operations‚ because‚ as Adam Smith recognized‚ it would be too perilous to wait for new tax revenue to flow into the Treasury. Even so‚ policies to retire public debts incurred during wartime (for example‚ by establishing “sinking funds”) were accepted widely. That norm held from the Revolutionary War to the end of World War II‚ more or less. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt‚ the architect of profligate New Deal spending initiatives‚ campaigned for his first White House term on a platform calling for a balanced federal budget. Of course‚ a third method of financing wars and responding to other “emergencies‚” other than taxing and borrowing‚ is available only to the federal government: resorting to the currency printing press (“quantitative easing”). Expanding the money supply to “pay” for current public spending — as the Lincoln administration did by issuing “greenbacks” during the 1861–1865 War of Secession and the last two presidents did during the COVID-19 pandemic — predictably causes price inflation‚ sometimes disguised temporarily by wage and price controls‚ as happened during World War II. The balanced-budget norm was broken for good by President John F. Kennedy under the influence of Keynesian macroeconomics. (See James Buchanan and Richard Wagner’s Democracy in Deficit.) Federal budget deficits have been business as usual in Washington‚ D.C.‚ ever since. They were worsened by the twin tragedies of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam War and Great Society‚ global financial crises‚ and more recent “shocks‚” during which little pretense to fiscal responsibility has been evident among politicians‚ policymakers‚ and most macroeconomists. Like Mr. Micawber‚ twice imprisoned for failure to pay his debts‚ our elites apparently remain hopeful that “something will turn up.” It is obvious that chronic budget deficits are explained by excessive public spending‚ not inadequate revenue. So-called modern monetary theory teaches that the government can borrow and spend without limit; if too much liquidity is injected into the economy‚ the theory says that it can be soaked up by raising taxes‚ which would amount to political suicide in an era‚ like today’s‚ in which GDP growth is anemic. For that reason‚ I am wary of proposed constitutional amendments that force Washington to balance its budget rather than reform fiscal policymaking simply to constrain the growth of spending. One problem with today’s budgetary processes is that neither the president nor any congressional committee is responsible for “bridging” the gap between the revenue and spending sides of the federal budget‚ as most state governors are required to do. Federal outlays these days are determined first‚ and then‚ as afterthoughts‚ “ways and means” of financing that spending are determined separately. Since raising taxes is politically costly‚ borrowing (which implies higher future tax bills but creates the illusion that government is less burdensome than it is) becomes the easiest way out. Political expedience aside‚ as Adam Smith wrote‚ “if [an empire or commonwealth] cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense‚ it ought‚ at least‚ to accommodate its expense to its revenue.” William F. Shughart II‚ research director of the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ California‚ is the J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice at Utah State University’s Jon M. Huntsman School of Business. The post Charles Dickens Teaches Washington Elites How to Budget appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“A well-meaning‚ elderly man with a poor memory” is not a reassuring descriptor for a statesman with enough fissile firepower at his fingertips to incinerate the globe to a depth of several feet of charcoal. No more would we be reassured if the same statesman‚ while cleared of criminal wrongdoing‚ were simultaneously judged too mentally truant to stand any prospect of a fair trial even if he were likely guilty. These are obiter comments to be sure‚ not intended by special counsel Robert Hur to stand as the main thesis of his recent report into allegations of documentary impropriety during President Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president (a tenure that‚ according to Hur‚ Biden can’t remember in any event)‚ but as with Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire‚ it’s always the footnotes and apposite asides that vivify and justify an otherwise laborious read (come to think of it‚ pluralize the Fall there and you have yourself as good a title as any for a summary of Biden’s political dotage). READ MORE: Is Joe Biden’s Campaign Dead? To read‚ as we do in Hur’s report‚ that Biden can’t recall the date of his son’s death is to feel pity. On a human level‚ it’s the only seemly response. On a political level‚ too‚ it’s to feel yet more pity for the president’s handlers‚ who even with the connivance of a tame and forgiving media are working shifts to convey any credible‚ coherent image of Biden that goes beyond the binary logic of At Least’s He’s Not Trump. But like a callous ringmaster putting a tired old circus elephant through its paces long after its utility has ended‚ they keep trying. President Barack Obama is famously said to have remarked about his then vice president‚ “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” For once‚ his judgement cannot be faulted. In civilian life‚ a man of similar moribundity would be having a hard enough time of it puzzling his way through the flurry of post-it notes left by concerned relatives on fridge doors‚ hob dials‚ and hot water taps while struggling to remember why he’d wandered from his armchair to the kitchen. On top of that‚ Joe just happens to be running for reelection to what remains‚ for all its shop-soiled prestige‚ the most powerful political station in human history‚ the presidency of the United States. Given this asymmetrical collision‚ it’s not surprising that we’re watching a sitting president mentally unspool in real time on the national and international stage (and we might reasonably‚ if uncharitably‚ conclude that he would do well to remain sitting‚ simply for his own safety). It may seem invidious to focus on Biden’s rhetorical demerits when there are precious few 21-entury politicians capable of voicing anything other than decaffeinated bromides‚ but when gaffes and verbal missteps begin to accumulate like pathogens in a petri dish to the extent that entire speeches sometimes amount to blunders agonizingly stretched out on the rack of senescence to the length of several paragraphs‚ it becomes legitimate‚ even necessary‚ to stop and marvel at the sheer negative grandeur of the spectacle‚ the same way we all slow down on the highway to rubberneck at a multi-car pile-up. We are all by now familiar with Bidenisms so mangled that they make Trumpisms by comparison look like polished gems of locution plagiarized from the pages of Nabokov. Almost every speech Biden delivers is followed by an embarrassed corrigendum from the press office‚ amending dates here‚ correcting names there‚ rearranging the president’s word salad into something vaguely resembling sentient speech: “What the President meant to say was…” But that’s the trouble. Sometimes it’s not clear what the president meant to say at all‚ least of all to those luckless souls in the administration charged with telling us what he meant. Consider this: Virtually every … mass shooting … every … circumstance where a large number of people have been victimized and lost‚ I spoke to them … I learned a long time ago‚ but you all learned in your life as well… Or this: There’s not a single solitary Biden man that is younger than any Biden woman. Or any of these: At a food insecurity summit in September 2022 Biden wondered where Sen. Jackie Walorski had got to (she died a month previously). On the campaign trail in Las Vegas in early February of this year‚ casting his mind back to the prehistoric past of the 2021 G7 summit‚ not only did Biden forget that François Mitterrand (who died in 1996) is no longer president of France‚ but he also forgot that Mitterrand had never been president of Germany. Recalling the same conference a few days later‚ Biden claimed to have taken counsel with Helmut Kohl (who died in 2017). Ah yes‚ the consolations of dementia. No one ever dies‚ and you make new friends every day. On a visit to Israel in 2022‚ meanwhile‚ Biden assured his Jewish audience that he would continue to “bear witness” to the “honor of the Holocaust.” To a slightly less offended‚ but doubtless similarly perplexed‚ audience at an ecological rally‚ he promised to build a railway “across the Indian Ocean” (one week earlier‚ at a press conference with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak‚ he’d promised to build the same railway across the Indian‚ Pacific‚ and Atlantic Oceans). Then there are the transpositions of titles‚ presidencies‚ entire nations‚ with names and faces lost in a haze of fungible fog: Ukraine becomes Iraq (or‚ on another occasion‚ Iran); the president of Egypt becomes the president of Mexico; Rishi Sunak is the president of the United Kingdom; Donald Trump is still the sitting president of the United States. (READ MORE: ‘Gratuitous‚ Inaccurate‚ and Inappropriate’: Kamala Lies Some More) And so on. The risk of Joe stumbling over his words is‚ of course‚ the least of his minders’ problems. It’s a polite peculiarity of our language that as you get older‚ you no longer fall over; instead‚ you have a fall. And we are all wincingly familiar with Joe Biden and his falls‚ his habit of crumpling to the ground like a marionette with its strings cut‚ the only bright spot being that all things considered‚ he seems to bounce back from the ordeal more or less immediately. One of the baleful benefits of dementia we must concede is the patient’s invulnerability to embarrassment. Alas‚ the aesthetician’s skill cannot repristinate the mind‚ nor can it reinvigorate the body. The face- or latex-like rictus that Biden’s plastic surgeons stapled artlessly and needlessly over his ageing but still handsome features sometime after 2008 may convey in certain lights and from certain angles a weird patina of rubbery vitality‚ but behind the fixed grimace we surmise a tired and confused old man wishing he was somewhere else‚ or perhaps already there‚ far away from all these strange people congregating in their strange crowds‚ with their strange voices‚ strange faces‚ and strange demands. In Woody Allen’s Sleeper (1973)‚ the zombified gratification-based dystopia of the future takes pains to present its leader to the public as physically and mentally vigorous — while‚ in fact‚ behind the scenes‚ all that remains of him is his nose‚ his head‚ body‚ and limbs having been atomized by an assassin’s bomb. In the person of President Joe Biden‚ in the high weirdness of his words and actions‚ what we are presented with in the zombified gratification-based dystopia of 2024 is the very inverse: The body is still there‚ still animate‚ just about; but something vital is visibly declining‚ dimming‚ putting out to sea and receding from solid shores. And this is no longer comedy‚ nor even tragicomedy. This is simply a tragedy‚ and a high-stakes one at that. The post Joe Biden’s Tragic Invulnerability appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Call it a Trump Triumph. There is no special wisdom in noting that my own Commonwealth of Pennsylvania‚ the fifth-largest state in the Union‚ will be playing a central role in the 2024 presidential race. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: The Enemy Within: Corrupt DOJ Will Not Charge Biden — Only Trump Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes are significant well beyond being those of a “swing state.” The historical fact is that those 19 votes are a mere half of the 38 votes the state had a century ago. Why? Because like a lot of blue states‚ Pennsylvania fell into the trap of tax-and-spend policies that saw chunks of its population simply pack up and leave‚ moving frequently but‚ of course‚ to Florida. And taking their jobs with them. All of which is to say that there is a reason thousands of enthusiastic Trump supporters filled what is known as the Farm Show arena on Friday night at a rally sponsored by the NRA in downtown Harrisburg.  The Washington Times headlined the former president’s cheering reception as follows: Trump heats up Pennsylvania battleground in preview of showdown with Biden Among other things‚ the Times reported this of the crowd: The same negatives that haunt Mr. Biden in national surveys threaten him in the state‚ and doubts about the 81-year-old president’s mental acuity deepened with special counsel Robert Hur’s report last week that described him as an “elderly man with a poor memory” who wasn’t worth prosecuting for mishandling government secrets. Mr. Trump seized on that report at the NRA event. He spent much of his speech dismantling Mr. Biden’s presidency and criticizing his diminished memory. “Joe Biden is the worst and most incompetent and most corrupt president in the history of our country‚” Mr. Trump said. “If Crooked Joe gets four more years‚ his second term will make his first term look like paradise. We’re not going to have a country left anymore. We’re not going to let it happen. We can never‚ ever let that happen.” Here’s what should be vividly obvious about this Trump appearance in Harrisburg. As it happens‚ I live in the area. Having come up through the ranks of the Pennsylvania political arena‚ I know my state fairly well. I was an invited guest at this Trump NRA rally‚ even getting a few minutes with the man himself before he went on stage. There is no question that he is seriously popular here in this state. And as I saw up close and firsthand‚ there is no question that‚ unlike Joe Biden‚ the former president has his mental capabilities completely intact and ready to roll. But that there will be an ongoing battle for those 19 Pennsylvania electoral votes for all of the 2024 election there can be no doubt. It is‚ as mentioned‚ seriously obvious that Biden isn’t even close to the intense popularity that was on display for Trump at this rally on Friday night. This means something. Widening the scope out beyond Pennsylvania‚ there is a serious divide between the American elites who run the media and the massive bureaucracies of the federal government‚ not to mention other elite entities‚ including the legal‚ political‚ academic‚ and‚ as mentioned‚ media monoliths. Which is to say that this 2024 election is about the very future of this country. And the Pennsylvanians at this Harrisburg Trump rally know it. Without question‚ as the former president made clear‚ the very future of the Second Amendment is at stake. And his appearance at this NRA event‚ not to mention his discussion of the anti-gun mania that dominates both the Biden campaign and Biden himself‚ will be a critical part of carrying the state. Outsiders may not get it‚ but a huge swath of Pennsylvania’s population are gun owners and famously pro–Second Amendment. This became politically apparent decades ago‚ specifically in a 1968 race for the U.S. Senate. The incumbent Democrat Pennsylvania senator was the decidedly liberal Joe Clark‚ a former mayor of Philadelphia. His run for reelection was opposed by the GOP’s young Rep. Dick Schweiker. Schweiker was standing up to oppose gun control — and‚ in an upset‚ he won the Senate seat from the pro–gun control Clark. In doing so‚ he sent the shock-wave recognition that being pro–gun control was seriously unpopular with huge swaths of Pennsylvania voters outside of places like the liberal big cities Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — an impression that‚ in effect‚ Trump and the thousands at his NRA rally reenforced in spades. So mark down this last week’s Trump rally with the NRA as a serious political success. The grassroots in Pennsylvania are with Trump. But take nothing for granted. Without question‚ the former president himself is not taking Pennsylvania for granted. To borrow from that famous line from Ahhhnuld: Trump will be back. And his appearance in Harrisburg this past Friday was‚ without doubt‚ a Trump Triumph. A serious one. The post Trump Triumphs in Pennsylvania appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Idealists‚” wrote Halford Mackinder in his 1919 geopolitical masterpiece Democratic Ideals and Reality‚ “are the salt of the earth; without them to move us‚ society would soon stagnate and civilization fade.” But idealism untempered by an appreciation of human limitations and imperfections can be dangerous. The ideologues who envisioned “new worlds” where human beings would ascend to their innate potentialities‚ and the political leaders who used the coercive powers of the state to attempt to accomplish that end in the face of human resistance‚ have caused more havoc and destruction than most of history’s autocrats. Today‚ the ideologues have envisioned a world without autocracy‚ and some of the West’s political leaders‚ including President Joe Biden‚ have portrayed 21st-century world politics as an existential struggle between autocracy and democracy. As Robert Kaplan points out in a new essay in UnHerd‚ those political leaders and observers who seek to end autocracy in Russia and who are trying to “fix” the Arab-Persian-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East all in the name of “democracy” risk sowing the seeds that will transform regional wars into a global conflagration. READ MORE: Putin’s March to the Red Sea Kaplan’s essay is focused on Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the dangers of imperial collapse. Throughout history‚ he notes‚ “empires‚ as they collapse‚ leave chaos in their wake‚” and “[h]istory has provided no solution to this conundrum.” His point is that those who seek Russia’s collapse are ignoring the order and stability that empires‚ including Russia’s‚ often maintain. The Wilsonian strain in American foreign policy that seeks to remake the world in America’s image‚ however‚ is strong and resilient despite its past failures. The United States today is waging a proxy war against Russia for the self-determination of the Ukrainian people‚ just as we are pressuring Israel to permit the creation of a separate state for Palestinians who seek Israel’s destruction. In the western Pacific‚ the Wilsonians want us to defend Taiwan because it is a democracy‚ instead of defending it (as we did in the 1950s and 1960s when it was more autocratic than democratic) for the sounder geopolitical reasons of preventing the strategically located island from falling under the control of China.  Kaplan writes that “we face no choice but to manage the interlocking wars and crises afflicting the Eurasian land mass — for‚ ultimately‚ they can’t be fixed.” That is sound geopolitical realism. But what Kaplan doesn’t say is that it is our own policies that have transformed separate regional conflicts into “interlocking wars and crises” in Eurasia. We have grouped these conflicts under the Wilsonian banner of “democracy versus autocracy.” We have grouped Russia‚ China‚ and Iran into an “axis of autocracy‚” imagining that these regimes are coordinating their policies in a joint effort to destroy “democracy.” We risk repeating George W. Bush’s failures by waging a “global war on autocracy‚” which would dwarf Bush’s Global War on Terror in resources and casualties. (READ MORE: Utterly Conventional: Thoughts on the Tucker–Putin Interview) Kaplan notes that one of the unintended consequences of the Ukraine war and our support of Ukraine was “forcing Russia to lean increasingly on China for support‚” and that “has fused the conflict zones of Europe and Asia.” And while Kaplan favors continued U.S. support of Ukraine‚ he also reminds Western leaders that “we should not want the war to grind on indefinitely” and “should aim to leave Russia chastened but not collapsed.”    In Democratic Ideals and Reality‚ Mackinder urged the Western democracies to adjust their ideals to geopolitical realities. The statesman he most admired was Otto von Bismarck‚ whom he described as the “great realist.” “No statesman‚” Mackinder wrote‚ “ever adjusted war to policy with a nicer judgment than Bismarck.” Bismarck had “an insight into the minds of other nations than his own‚” a trait noticeably missing from Biden‚ Blinken‚ Sullivan‚ et al. Bismarck understood‚ as he once remarked‚ that “man cannot control the current of events; he can only float with them and steer.”   The post Global Order and Stability Are More Important Than Democracy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Left and Chaos

American Hostage Omer Neutra's Family Pleads for Son's Safe Return

The Unmaking of a President

Obama Poised to Pull the Plug on Biden?