It was a Capitol Hill press spokesman job for a conservative Florida Congressman that got me to Washington‚ D.C. in 1982‚ where I contracted no Potomac Fever whatever. JFK was right when he described Washington as a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm — and I was there for the good years when the Gipper was dozing in the White House and it appeared the nation was returning to some semblance of sanity. I’ve never seen so many people per square yard as I did in that bloated company town. Self-importance is pandemic there. To those who asked about my D.C. experiences on my return to Planet Earth‚ I replied‚ “I’d like to buy those people up there for what they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth.” On my decision to return to Tampa and journalism in 1987‚ I was more than once heard to say‚ “At least I won’t have to worry about traffic and finding a place to park anymore.” (I believe the last available parking place in Washington‚ D.C. was filled in 1985. I’ve not heard of a sighting of one since.) I enjoyed this luxury for a short while. But in due course‚ the longstanding inflow of retirees looking to enjoy warm golden years in Florida was larded by a large new cohort of leftugees from blue hells like California‚ New York‚ Illinois‚ and Taxachusetts. So now I idle in traffic like I did in Washington and count myself lucky if I can find a parking place. I’m surrounded by strange accents at my local supermarket. What’s rarer than a day in June? A resident of Tampa who was born here. That’s what. When I tell one of these newbies that I was actually born in Tampa they look at me like I’d said I was from Mars. The population of Florida‚ fewer than five million when JFK was elected in 1960‚ has ballooned to more than 22 million. No wonder I can’t find a parking place. Those who say it’s easy to maneuver and park in downtown Tampa will lie about other things as well. Of course‚ Florida isn’t the only escape destination for those suffering from acute blue blues. Texas‚ Arizona‚ and a few Southern states also received large numbers of these ex-pats. Leftugees Tend To be Converts It’s no mystery why Americans in their millions are trading blue zip codes for red ones. They’re fleeing high crime‚ high taxes‚ and high cost of living as well as crackpot social policies. In an economical and savvy book‚ Roger L. Simon analyzes why these leftugees are fleeing‚ where they’re are going‚ and how most are prospering in their new homes. This tectonic shift in American demography is having far-ranging political and cultural effects on the last best hope of Earth. Simon sorts these to the third decimal place. Our Bruce Bawer must have finished and appreciated the book about the same time I did. But he beat me to the review. That’s just as well. Bruce is a more elegant writer than I am‚ and his review is a fine introduction to this worthwhile book. He calls the book wise‚ witty‚ and winning. Those who take our advice and read the book will find that this is so. (Read Bruce’s Review: Those Who Move to a Different State) Simon is a native of New York City who also logged years as a screenwriter in Tinsel Town‚ and until the scales fell from his eyes‚ he was an off-the-rack liberal. He lived and worked among people who would rather touch pitch than visit the South‚ let alone live there. The catastrophe of 9-11 caused Simon to rethink his view of the world. He became a larval conservative‚ and thus‚ at the hands of his lefty movie biz pals‚ came cross-wise with cancel culture before it was called cancel culture. Fully converted by 2018‚ his road to Damascus led him to Nashville‚ where he still lives. Bluntly but accurately‚ Simon writes of his former home: “California was no longer the paradisal land of the Beach Boys it was when everybody I knew wanted to be in L.A. The state had evolved into a kind of madhouse of the woke‚ with people defecating in the streets‚ homeless encampments lining nearly every freeway underpass‚ and syringes littering once-magnificent beaches‚ making you loath to lie down in the sand or even take your shoes off.” Charming. Simon outlines the reasons he and other refugees have found better lives elsewhere and catalogs some of the frustrations they have encountered in their new homes. With extensive anecdotal evidence‚ he puts to rest the biggest fear the natives of the receiving states have: that the newbies from California and New York would bring their liberal views and voting habits with them‚ thereby helping elect politicians just like the ones that had made their original homes uninhabitable. Au the contraire‚ Simon says. Simon found‚ like others have‚ that the biggest majority of the new Texans‚ Floridians‚ and Tennesseans know why they left their previous homes and are often more conservative than their new neighbors; many get involved in Republican politics. This has led to one of the chief frustrations of the rookie Southerners when they learn that their state’s elected Republicans tend to the don’t-rock-the-boat‚ go along to get alone‚ establishment types who talk a good conservative game at election time but then don’t even try to resist the left craziness when in office. (Lotta that going around‚ and not just in the South.) Simon quickly became convinced that “…most of the politicians and the business community on the right were immune to solutions‚ as if they had an allergy to actually doing anything that might disturb the status quo and effectuate positive change.” You Win Some‚ You Lose Some Political frustrations aside‚ Simon pronounces himself more than satisfied with his new Dixie home. He’s adapted to Southern ways and manners. I don’t know if he’s learned how to say “howdy” and blow gnats at the same time — very useful in the Southern summer — but he says he likes the greater civility found in the South‚ as well as the food. He even says he now likes country music. As my Alabama relations might say: “Well‚ bless his heart.” An area that Simon doesn’t touch on much is the effect this large number of new residents has had on the states where they land. I’ve lamented the new traffic congestion and local authorities are now demanding more tax money to untangle the mess this causes. New apartment complexes and condos to house the rookie Floridians spring up almost overnight like mushrooms after spring rain. And of course‚ as cities grow‚ the cost of living invariably goes up. Growth is a mixed blessing. Localities lose their unique identity when overrun by people from all points. Some of our new residents from New York City have turned out to be nice enough people once they’re out of that pressure cooker. But boy‚ they sure talk funny. There are patterns to the new arrivals in Florida. Midwesterners favor the western part of the peninsula. Tampa now could be described culturally as Peoria with palm trees. So many Northeasterners have set up shop in the southeastern counties of Broward and Palm Beach the area is known by some as Baja New Jersey. There’s no indication that the demographic spigot will be turned off any time soon. Elected officials in blue states show no signs of backing away from the bat-guano-crazy policies they delight in enacting. So it appears I’ll have to continue to endure idling in traffic‚ and as I look at the endless sea of cars asking myself the same question Butch asked Sundance when they were being so efficiently and relentlessly pursued after a botched train robbery: “Who are those guys?” The post The South Is Being Flooded by Leftugees appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Bipartisan.” Most people think that the word means that politicians have put on their thinking caps (if they have them)‚ crossed the aisle‚ and had meaningful discussions about the direction Americans — their constituents — want the country to go in. (READ MORE: This Has to Be the End of the Road for Mitch McConnell) That’s what it should mean. But the odd thing about compromise is that it is only a good thing to engage in if there are issues and values that you won’t compromise on. Given that we live in a country with some democratic values‚ I think it’s fair to say that the issues politicians shouldn’t compromise on are the issues the American people care about. But alas‚ politicians breathing in the swamp gas in Washington‚ D.C.‚ don’t always have an accurate reading of what the American people want. They are also easily distracted by green paper‚ and most are so old that they have no reason to care about the future. Sen. Mitch McConnell apparently thought a border bill funding illegal immigration and a war Americans no longer care about was going to work — although exactly why he thought that is unclear. What is clear is that Americans are having none of it. The internet erupted in a veritable storm of protest‚ and GOP senators who still have to face the ballot box may listen. Even if they don’t‚ GOP representatives‚ including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)‚ have promised that the bill will be a total waste of time. It’ll be dead on arrival. (READ MORE: Chuck Schumer: ‘I Have Never Worked More Closely With Leader McConnell’) Why‚ you ask‚ does this matter? Well‚ according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Maris poll‚ just 29 percent of Americans approve of how President Joe Biden is handling immigration — a number that translates into the issues that will be most important in the 2024 election (one that matters for 34 out of 100 senators and 435 representatives). Forty-one percent of Americans think reducing illegal immigration by increasing border security should be the top immigration priority. GOP senators and representatives want to get reelected — and they also may be finally taking the hint that Americans aren’t interested in half-baked compromises that don’t address their needs. One can always hope. This article is an excerpt from The American Spectator’s Spectator P.M. newsletter. Subscribe today to read future letters from our staff! WATCH the podcast: The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 20: New York Times Questions Transgender Insanity The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 19: Nikki Haley Says She Would Be Fine With States Seceding The Spectator P.M. Podcast Ep. 18: Woke Women Can’t Stop Buying Themselves ‘Little Treats’ The post Is Democracy Alive and Well? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is blaming barriers to high-quality prenatal care and systemic racism for the alarming 30 percent increase in newborn syphilis cases in the past year‚ but the real cause is much more complex than it is willing to admit. The problem is bigger than anyone realizes. In some parts of the country — like Mississippi — congenital syphilis cases have risen 900 percent over the past five years. In just the past year‚ syphilis rates in the general population increased by 17 percent. There has been an especially alarming 80 percent in the rates of syphilis in the past five years. Although Black Americans comprised about 30 percent of primary and secondary syphilis cases with a rate of 67 cases per 100‚000‚ gay men and other men who have sex with men have the highest rates. The CDC reports that “even though gay‚ bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) account for only 4 percent of the United States male population‚ they account for more than one-third of reported syphilis cases.  Men who have sex with men remain disproportionately affected by syphilis.” Rather than blaming the degraded culture that is increasingly promoting sexual behaviors that were once considered taboo‚ and the growing acceptance of polyamorous relationships and non-monogamous marriages in both the heterosexual and the homosexual communities‚ the CDC and mainstream media continue to look for the “easy answers.” Publicly identifying the real causes for this surge is not acceptable in a culture that refuses to judge the sexual behavior of others — no matter how depraved. In 2012 — just a decade ago — even the New York Times was willing to admit that men who have sex with men‚ and then have sex with women are putting both women and their unborn children at risk. The Times reported on a collaborative study in Uganda by the CDC and Makerere University School of Public Health‚ which found that of 306 male respondents who reported having engaged in sex with men in the three months before the survey‚ 51 percent had been or were currently married to women. Sixteen percent of these men were living with and having sex with female sex partners during the period they were engaging in sexual behavior with men. Twenty-nine percent had fathered children. Seventy percent said they were attracted to mostly/only men — but many of them still engage in sexual relations with women. The Times was careful to indicate that Ugandans demonstrate a “much higher incidence of bisexual behavior than occurs among men who have sex with other men in this country.” That may not be true today. Syphilis Among Children Unborn children are the fastest-growing cohort in this surge in syphilis. Congenital syphilis occurs when an infected mother passes the infection to her baby during pregnancy. It can cause miscarriage‚ stillbirth‚ prematurity‚ low birth weight‚ or death shortly after birth. Babies born to infected women can have deformed bones‚ severe anemia‚ and brain and nerve problems like blindness or deafness among other birth defects. As the syphilis rate has risen dramatically in the past year‚ we can predict an exponential increase in newborn syphilis rates especially as there is a growing acceptance in our culture for non-monogamous relationships and marriages. Polyamory was once the practice of bizarre cults on the fringes of society like the Children of God whose members believed that since sex was a “gift from God‚” there should be no limits‚ regardless of age or relationship; or the Oneida community of the 1840s whose communism “included all property of family living and associations” resulting in “complex marriage” in which any member was free to have sex with any other member who agreed. Today’s polyamory‚ also referred to as “consensual non-monogamy‚” has emerged in some of the trendiest neighborhoods in the country. Even the once-conservative HGTV House Hunters show promoted the concept of the “throuple” — a man and two women in a romantic relationship in an episode called “Threes Not a Crowd in Colorado Springs.” The televised threesome is searching for a home with a “very large master bed” and three sinks in the master bathroom. Likewise‚ the New Yorker’s December issue asked: “How Did Polyamory Become so Popular?” and described how consensual non-monogamy is now part of the culture of marriages in the posh Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn‚ N.Y. and “prestige television.” Experimenting With Polyamory According to a 2023 Pew Research study‚ about half of all Americans say open marriages — a marriage where both spouses agree that they can date or have sex with other people — are somewhat or completely unacceptable. However‚ 36 percent of all men and 30 percent of all women claim that having an open marriage is acceptable to them. These data vary by sexual orientation. While 29 percent of heterosexual individuals indicate that an open marriage is acceptable‚ 75 percent of gay‚ lesbian‚ or bisexual individuals find open marriage to be acceptable. Not surprisingly‚ those who describe themselves as Democrats are much more likely to endorse open marriages. Only 20 of Republicans or “lean Republican” claim to endorse open marriages while more than twice as many Democrats or “lean Democratic” (47 percent) claim to endorse open marriage.  Pew concludes: “As may be expected‚ conservative Republicans are the most likely to say these marriages are unacceptable (74%)‚ while liberal Democrats are the most likely to say they are acceptable (63%).” What is most worrisome is that 51 percent of all adults younger than 30 told interviewers that open marriage was “acceptable‚” and 20 percent of all Americans report experimenting with some form of non-monogamy. A growing number of elite celebrities‚ like Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith‚ are public — and self-congratulatory — about their open marriage.  Last year‚ Time magazine featured the open marriage of former New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio‚ a Park Slope resident‚ in an article titled: “Does it Really Work to Date Within a Marriage? Bill DeBlasio and Chirlaine McCray Are About to Find Out.” Despite the celebratory headlines in favor of polyamory and non-monogamous relationships published in the past year in Vanity Fair‚ New York Magazine the New York Times‚ and other sites‚ it should be acknowledged that many of these non-monogamous marriages end badly. In 2019‚ former U. S. Representative Katie Porter (CA-D) had to resign her congressional seat when her “throuple” with her then-husband and a female campaign staffer became public. The scandal resulted in her divorce and very public humiliation when her husband shared photos with the media of the throuple engaging in drug abuse and other deviant behaviors. It should surprise no one that these non-monogamous marriages and polyamorous bisexual relationships often end badly. The dramatic increase in syphilis — especially congenital syphilis — should be a reminder that engaging in deviant sexual practices and polyamorous relationships still carries a high price no matter how glamorous it may be presented by the media. The post Kids Don’t Get Syphilis In a Healthy Society appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It took only a few days after Oct. 7 for the Biden administration to resume pushing for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. As far as Washington is concerned‚ the only appropriate response to the slaughter of 1‚200 Israelis‚ and the kidnapping of 240 more‚ is to reward it — thereby justifying it — with international legitimacy. At first‚ the administration camouflaged its plan by appearing only to inquire about “the strategy for the day after” the end of military operations in Gaza. Three months later‚ the administration is now openly describing the situation as an “opportunity” to give the Palestinians a state. There is “no way‚” according to the administration‚ for the Israelis “to solve their long-term challenges to provide lasting security … without the establishment of a Palestinian state.” (READ MORE: Israel Should Reject the Palestinian State Snake Oil) The administration is now ratcheting up the pressure to move in this direction and wants to begin this process as soon as possible. On multiple occasions‚ Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly rebuffed President Biden on the prospect of a Palestinian sovereign state. “In any arrangement in the foreseeable future — with an arrangement or without one — Israel must have security control over all the territory west of the Jordan‚” Netanyahu said during a recent news conference. People of Palestinian descent constitute a majority of Jordan’s population (some estimates say more than 70 percent). While the Biden team will paint Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace‚ which supposedly could only come in the form of a Palestinian state‚ the fact is that‚ more than ever‚ the Israeli public views the idea as a suicidal proposition. No one is under the illusion that providing a political solution to a century-long conflict is simple‚ but now‚ if there ever was a time — as Israeli soldiers are fighting one of the most intense urban battles in history‚ with the northern border heating up‚ and feeling the growing international pressure — putting forth a viable end-game to what has been an endless war with Palestinians has become a matter of critical national urgency for Israel. As it stands‚ the choice for Israel according to the mainstream internationalist paradigm is a return to the two-state formula once military operations are completed. There are essentially three popular policies currently on offer; Bringing a terror-light Palestinian Authority back into Gaza — only for Abbas and his cronies to be inevitably toppled by Hamas 2.0. Internationalizing the territory — applying the abject failure of the Lebanese-UN border security formula that has enabled Hezbollah’s Radwan Brigade to entrench itself on Israel’s border. A prolonged IDF military administration — an odious occupation scenario‚ that foolishly holds out hope that over time a Palestinian Mandela will somehow emerge. None of these strategies offer Israel the long-term security formula it desperately requires. Instead‚ they promise only to exacerbate its security threats. Moreover‚ none of these policies and their variations will change the fundamental nature of the Palestinian conflict as it stands today. They present a Hobsons choice — fake choices‚ designed to create intellectual cul-de-sacs‚ a cognitive grind‚ and plays right into the attrition warfare precepts cardinal to the “Palestinian resistance” playbook. Looking at the core of the conflict‚ being steely-eyed regarding the vital forces at play‚ the essence of it can be reduced to four main elements‚ with two core requirements on each side of the conflict. The main requirements for the viability of a given political solution from the Palestinian point of view must address; Palestinian statelessness. The right to self-determination‚ which is the source of the perceived justness to their “resistance‚” is the fundamental requirement. No large-scale transfer of the Palestinian population‚ much of which has lived where they are for multiple generations. On the Israeli side of the equation‚ there are two core necessities for a viable political solution: As the sole Jewish State‚ Israel’s ancestral land is intrinsically connected to its national interest. No Israeli leader today will cede the Biblical Land of Israel as it did in Gaza in 2005. Any division of the land would irreparably fracture Israel. The need for a long-term and sustainable security posture. The Oslo “Land for Peace” formula ended in Intifada and diplomatic warfare. Disengagement led to Oct. 7. Neither approach is feasible. In constructing a cogent political solution‚ there is only one strategic avenue that genuinely addresses all four of these foundational elements. Thinking it through dispassionately‚ the Kingdom of Jordan — due to history‚ demography‚ geography‚ and necessity — is the best alternative for a Palestinian state. The Hiccup That Created a Country There is an informative book about events in the Middle East in a seemingly unimportant year in world history – Winston’s Hiccup‚ by Frank Jacobs‚ provides critically important insight on how‚ in 1921‚ the Kingdom of Jordan was formed. As he describes it‚ Winston Churchill‚ the then-Colonial Secretary‚ said that “with a stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon in Cairo” he created the British mandate of Trans-Jordan. (READ MORE: The ‘Two-State Solution’ Echoes Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’) Jacobs goes on to describe the disaster in the making: “Apparently‚ having been drinking that day‚ the colonial secretary’s penmanship was wobbly‚” allegedly producing “a particularly erratic borderline.” The resulting zigzag that delineates the border between Jordan and Saudi Arabia is sometimes referred to as “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze.” Instead of a fair and equitable partition of Palestine in 1947‚ with the Jordan River as the natural boundary between Jews and Arabs‚ Britain — for its political expedience — sliced off what was three-quarters of the geographical area of “Palestine” and handed it over to the Saudi Hashemite clan as a consolation prize‚ anointing them minority rulers in an alien land. Thus understood‚ a Palestinian State of Jordan would satisfy the vital needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. People of Palestinian descent constitute a majority of Jordan’s population (some estimates say more than 70 percent). If one believes in the liberal value of governing by consent‚ Jordan would be considered a de facto Palestinian State. Furthermore‚ Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948-1967 and only renounced its claim to the West Bank in the late 80’s. Arafat and his liberation movement’s first attempt at political power — in 1964 — was the failed Black September coup in Jordan’s capital Amman. It is hard to deny that the ties that bind Jordan to the Palestinians are vast and deep. Dispensing With the Zero-Sum Dilemma On the Palestinian side of the board‚ a Palestinian State of Jordan would address the central demand for self-determination and an end to statelessness. Providing recognition to a de facto state of Jordan as a Palestinian State‚ would at minimum‚ require that the Jordanian legislative body be free and representative of a majority of its Palestinian population‚ which would fulfill the Palestinian aspirations of statehood. If it is the will of the people‚ the Hashemite king of Palestine could theoretically retain power as a constitutional monarch and continue its alliance with Israel. The main upshot is that the Palestinians would make such decisions in a state of their own. The second core requirement is that Palestinian settlements west of the Jordan River need to be recognized. The concept of Palestinian statehood in Jordan also allows for creative thinking regarding the Palestinians residing west of the Jordan River. As a case in point‚ Israel could annex the disputed territories‚ at no expense to a Palestinian State. Such a scenario allows for a power-sharing arrangement for Palestinians in these disputed territories; they could retain full individual‚ civil‚ and municipal rights protected under Israeli sovereignty and law‚ while a future Palestinian State in Jordan would accord the Palestinians west of the Jordan River full national rights and citizenship. An unorthodox arrangement to be sure‚ nonetheless‚ providing confederated citizenship for these Palestinian communities will go a long way in solving the current impasse.[T]he argument from both sides against a policy for Jordan is Palestine is that the hostility it would engender from either the Hashemite elite and/or its Palestinian subjects would inevitably result in war. The second necessity for Israel is its security posture. Leaving vast territories — which straddle Israeli population centers along Israel’s eastern border — in the hands of a century-long irredentist population that expresses the worst forms of antisemitism and is a veritable recruitment hub of jihadi terrorism is‚ to put it gently‚ impracticable. By providing a state for Palestinians in Jordan‚ Israel will have the political solution it needs. Israeli security forces would be able to expel any Palestinian criminals and terrorists that manifest a security threat inside their communities in Gaza‚ Judea‚ and Samaria‚ extraditing them as Jordan nationals to the State of Jordan permanently. (READ MORE: Israel Isn’t Prepared for a Three Block War) So how would Israel in practice effectuate a “Jordan is Palestine” policy? Below are three initiatives that would serve as its bedrock: Public Diplomacy: Israel’s message to the region and the world should be clear in its desire to solve Palestinian statelessness; that it stands for the liberal value of consent of the governed and call for a representative government in Amman. Israel should emphasize that the true oppression of Palestinian national aspirations is embodied by the few Hashemites governing the many Palestinians. This message will primarily serve Western audiences and provide cover from its elites as they cling to a failed Oslo paradigm. Direct Diplomacy: Israel’s diplomacy should rest on the passage of a Knesset law that recognizes Jordan as the sole Palestinian State‚ without the threat of any forced transfer of Palestinians who reside west of the Jordan River. Where diplomacy fails‚ Israeli clandestine operations begin. Israel’s intelligence services should be empowered to assist in organizing‚ funding‚ and advising Palestinian political activism inside Jordan‚ to apply extended pressure on the Jordanian government to recognize the rights of the majority population of Jordan. Thus understood‚ a Palestinian State of Jordan would satisfy the vital needs of both Israelis and Palestinians; which brings us to the question of why such a policy‚ which seemingly checks all the boxes for Israel‚ is ignored by mainstream leaders and institutions. Institutional Pushback For decades‚ the main objection to the “Jordan is Palestine” paradigm by the Israeli political elite is that it would destroy the alliance with the Hashemite monarchy. As they point out‚ the king‚ like his father before him‚ has been consistent in his opposition to any involvement in a formula that designates him the guardian of the Palestinian people. This refusal until now was seemingly worth the trade for a stable neighbor in an unstable region. Yet the truth is that the Hashemite Kingdom sits on a throne of cards. It has always‚ since its inception‚ relied on its Western patrons to prop it up. As the U.S. has retreated from the region‚ Iran is on the march‚ with its terror proxies congealing as much on Jordan’s borders as they are on Israel’s borders. With an uptick of Iranian arms flowing across the Jordanian border and U.S. soldiers attacked in its Jordanian bases by Iranian proxies‚ Jordan is increasingly seen in Israel as an unreliable partner at best and ripe for an Iranian takeover at worst. For those that do see the sense in a Jordan is Palestine solution‚ doubt remains that even if there was a theoretically free Jordanian legislature with the Palestinian majority represented‚ such a body politic — with or without the Hashemite monarchy — would still reject peace with Israel‚ as it would not fulfill the maximalist aims of the Palestinian “resistance” west of the Jordan River. To put it simply‚ the argument from both sides against a policy for “Jordan is Palestine” is that the hostility it would engender from either the Hashemite elite and/or its Palestinian subjects would inevitably result in war. The counter-argument is that Israel will be fighting a conventional war with another state actor. Putting it bluntly‚ a war with Jordan‚ one Israel should be able to win‚ would finally solve the Palestinian conflict once and for all. With a natural boundary — the Jordan River — between them‚ and a sovereign Palestinian state to transfer any hostile Palestinian terrorists‚ it is a far better situation than Israel finds itself in today. If the Palestinians still want to continue this war from Jordan‚ they will no longer do so as homeless people. Israel‚ forced for decades to fight an increasingly grueling war of attrition on asymmetric battlefields with no end in sight‚ has a real alternative in advocating for a Jordan is Palestine formula: to midwife a Palestinian state in Jordan‚ and in so doing‚ flip an unwinnable paradigm on its head. Paradigmatic Crossroads Necessity governs‚ the sands of the Middle East have shifted‚ and Israel is in desperate need of solid ground. After the Abraham Accords‚ the paradigm of Arab-Jewish relationships in the region has changed significantly. Jordan‚ unlike in the previous three decades‚ is now one of many Arab countries that have peace with Israel. After Oct. 7‚ a majority of Israelis have eschewed the political fashions of yesteryear and would today jeopardize Israel’s Jordanian alliance if it meant rescue from the Palestinian policy quagmire it can’t escape. (READ MORE: Israel Must Obtain an Unconditional Surrender) Israel’s leadership needs to ask themselves the hard question: Is solving a century-long internationalized conflict worth risking an already-diminished Jordanian partnership? In the wake of Oct. 7‚ as Israel fights on all its fronts without a political solution currently in play‚ is maintaining a tenuous alliance with the Hashemites at the expense of a real alternative Palestinian two-state solution a good deal for Israelis and Palestinians? Common sense and the demands of self-preservation compel that the Jordan is Palestine formula no longer be ignored by Israel’s mainstream. I will conclude where I started. Where does Israel turn to for a real and credible solution to this interminable conflict? Looking at it from the Israeli vantage point‚ an honest observer admits the futility in the current blueprint‚ whether it is Oslo‚ Oslo-lite‚ disengagement‚ or some variation of all three. “Jordan Is Palestine” is the only political solution that solves the core demands of both sides. What better solution for Israel and the Palestinians is there? Ariel Harkham is an executive in Israel’s hi-tech industry‚ co-founder of the Whiskey Debate Society‚ and has contributed to The Hill‚ Forbes‚ American Thinker‚ Haaretz‚ Ynet‚ Jerusalem Post‚ Times of Israel‚ and other such outlets. The post The Palestinian State of Jordan appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — There’s a video that shows Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‚ presidential candidate‚ walking in what looks like the California hills with his dog. The Democrat-turned-independent sees a rattlesnake on the ground‚ picks it up‚ and holds the reptile in a straight line‚ his fingers strategically placed to avoid any venom. The message Kennedy posted on Twitter: “This is how I’ll wrangle the snakes in DC come January 20‚ 2025. #Kennedy24.” READ MORE: This Has to Be the End of the Road for Mitch McConnell You can find a 19-minute video‚ “Midnight at the Border‚” on Kennedy’s campaign website that documents his recent overnight visit to the Yuma‚ Arizona‚ border. The video should give President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump night sweats. Biden should be worried because RFK isn’t afraid to call the mess at the border a “dystopian nightmare” that puts migrants at risk and benefits “Mexican drug cartels.” Trump should be afraid because RFK knows how to frame tougher border enforcement as a humanitarian issue‚ without the sort of race-baiting rhetoric — that migrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” — the former president is known for. RFK’s optics are different than the usual campaign offerings. Kennedy isn’t speaking at huge rallies. There are no adoring crowds of enthusiastic voters. There was no entourage‚ not even Secret Service‚ thanks to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ finding that the Kennedy scion doesn’t rate. Instead‚ RFK walks along the uncompleted border wall with Yuma County Supervisor Jonathan Lines‚ who schooled him on how partisan politics have led to rampant dysfunction. And suffering. Lines pointed to the “Rape Tree” where women‚ girls‚ and males routinely are sexually assaulted. Kennedy and Lines chatted with those lined up to cross into America. Kennedy and Lines asked in Spanish where they’re from. Kennedy says he thought most migrants would be from Central America. Instead‚ he meets long-haul global travelers from Uzbekistan‚ Kazakhstan‚ Azerbaijan‚ Bangladesh‚ Peru‚ and Colombia. Clearly they are not simply fleeing. They have been traveling to an intended destination. 60 Minutes aired a segment Sunday night about the fastest-growing group at the Southwest border: They’re from China‚ and they’re feeding money to an industry that exploits children and traffics dangerous drugs. Only one individual‚ Kennedy offered‚ claimed to be seeking asylum. (Be it noted‚ only about 15 percent of those crossing illegally meet that standard and‚ hence‚ are protected from deportation.) We live in a time where far Left and far Right often find themselves in agreement. RFK’s skepticism about the government’s overzealous COVID policies endeared him to many on the right. With the immigration issue‚ Kennedy has found another cause to cross the partisan divide. His secret weapon: He’ll challenge his birth party’s orthodoxies. If 2024 presents a rerun of the 2020 Trump–Biden show‚ as conventional wisdom suggests‚ RFK could draw voters from both major parties — people who in a normal year would never think of voting for Kennedy but would find themselves outraged that the world of politics couldn’t offer more than the choice Americans don’t want. A Reuters poll last month found some 67 percent of respondents were “tired of seeing the same candidates in presidential elections and want someone new.” There’s a belief in politics that voters may flirt with third-party candidates‚ but‚ in the end‚ they come home. But what if they don’t want to? And there’s this new guy … Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow her @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Could RFK’s Border Spotlight Spare America From 2020 Retreads? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Yes‚ It Is An Invasion - Our Border Crisis

Trump Called 'Racist' for Saying 'Invasion' -- Is it Still Racist When Sharpton Says It?

Dueling Cowboys at Eagle Pass

Are You a Contagious Conservative?

Why Are Red State Republicans Often Such Losers?