(CBS NEWS) – At least three people were killed when a powerful tornado struck northern Tennessee Saturday‚ officials said‚ amid a line of severe storms which raked the area. The Montgomery County Sheriff's…

Multiple massive tornados swept through Tennessee on Saturday — and at least one was reported in Kentucky — forcing people to take shelter and leaving a trail of devastation and damages…

A new study reveals what would be a big ho-hum for conservatives‚ but might be revelatory for others: that teens with conservative parents are likely to be more health mentally. The comes from the…

A statesman in modern democracies is a politician of one sort or another and is accountable in the end to the body politic he serves. He cannot ignore the will of the people. In this‚ he is the same as any mediocre politician. What distinguishes the statesman is that he is willing to take the lead‚ certainly with tact and using his powers of persuasion‚ but not with deviousness. He respects the people who empower him; he acts on principle; and he is willing to risk his power for the sake of principle. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Has the Radical Left Finally Hit a Wall?) An example in American history is John Adams’ handling of the explosive XYZ Affair which nearly led to war with France. France warred on American trade with its enemy‚ Britain‚ seizing American ships and cargo‚ among other acts of war. Adams sought to find a solution with France that would stop what has been called the Quasi-War without sacrificing American interests. American politics‚ though‚ made this difficult. The two-party system had emerged in full force‚ and the parties were at each other’s throats. The Jeffersonian Republicans accused the Federalists of wanting to scuttle the republic and make America a monarchy. It did not like the Jay Treaty‚ which reestablished trade with Britain after the Revolution‚ and seemed to them part of the sinister plot to go back on the break with Britain and its system of governance. They favored the cause of the new French Republic and argued for it loudly and passionately. The Federalists‚ on the other hand‚ desired a rapprochement with Britain and rejected the French government as dangerous and violent. Under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton‚ they rejected compromise and wished to fight it out with France. Adams thought peace was possible and necessary. He agreed with neither the Republicans nor the increasingly bellicose Federalists‚ even though the latter were his political party. He realized that he was not so pro-French as to gain the support of the Jeffersonians and that he was not so pro-British as to maintain the support of his own party’s dominant anti-France wing. His own sense of duty to country led him to take the middle position‚ which he successfully pursued through to the treaty of 1800‚ ending the Quasi-War. But in doing so‚ he incurred the wrath of Hamilton‚ who made a strong and successful effort to scuttle Adams’ re-election campaign. Hamilton had made it clear what would happen were Adams to settle with France‚ but‚ as Adams put it later‚ “Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.” And being a man of principle and character‚ that mattered more to him than his own election. [Biden] is seeking to please the destructive forces his master‚ Obama‚ brought into the Democrat mainstream. Adams wrote that the America he left at the end of his term was a nation “with its coffers full …[with] fair prospects of peace with all the world smiling in its face‚ with commerce flourishing‚ its navy glorious‚ its agriculture uncommonly productive and lucrative.” He had no regrets at all. He wrote a friend: “I desire no other inscription on my gravestone than: ‘Here lies John Adams‚ who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with France in the year 1800.’” Neville Chamberlain failed as a statesman. His policy of appeasement resulted in a war fought on far worse terms than a courageous early confrontation with Hitler would have afforded‚ even given the inadequacies of Britain’s war readiness at the time. Chamberlain’s failure impacted all of Europe and all the world. It was the worst for Hitler’s imagined enemy‚ the Jews. His policies greased the skids for the German juggernaut that would overrun the center of Jewish population‚ the communities of Eastern Europe and Russia. By the time of Chamberlain’s Munich capitulations‚ the Jews under his governance had been denied political rights‚ had become excluded from the professions‚ the schools and universities‚ and were being eliminated from the national economic life. Tens of thousands had fled Germany‚ thousands of whom fled to the Holy Land‚ that had been designated by its mandated power‚ Britain‚ as a place to establish a Jewish national home and this had been ratified internationally in the San Remo Treaty at the end of World War I. But now‚ war was looming. Even Chamberlain saw his policies had failed‚ and total war was on the horizon. Now it was 1939‚ and the Jews of Poland felt the icy fingers stretching towards them. Zionists‚ in particular‚ the visionary Jabotinsky‚ tried to galvanize a mass exodus to the homeland before the Jews were caught in disaster. But now Chamberlain sought to rescue his policies and his country by betraying the people whom he had endangered most. In a double betrayal‚ his government pushed through a new policy on their Holy Land mandate — an end to Jewish immigration‚ with the laughable rationalization that by having admitted the Jews already present‚ they had fulfilled their pledge to make a homeland- haven for the Jews. (READ MORE: No Culture Is Immune to Human-Made Horrors) Chamberlain’s Colonial Secretary at the time‚ Malcolm MacDonald‚ later spoke of the real reason for this policy. Our policy would either offend the Jews or the Arabs‚ MacDonald said. If we displeased the Arabs‚ they could join their cause to the Germans. If we displeased the Jews‚ they had no other option. Therefore‚ we took the position that pleased the Arabs in the hope that it would stop them from actively backing our enemies. One who was a great statesman took the new Chamberlain policy to task. In Parliament‚ Winston Churchill rose to speak. An outcast in his own party for his stinging criticism of Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler‚ and who suffered political exile‚ Churchill spoke his mind and his conscience without fear: We must ask ourselves another question‚ which arises out of this: Can we — and this is the question — strengthen ourselves by this repudiation? Shall we relieve ourselves by this repudiation? I should have thought that the plan put forward by the Colonial Secretary in his White Paper‚ with its arid constitutional ideas and safety catches at every point‚ and with vagueness overlaying it and through all of it‚ combines‚ so far as one can understand it at present‚ the disadvantages of all courses without the advantages of any. The triumphant Arabs have rejected it. They are not going to put up with it. The despairing Jews will resist it. Churchill lost this fight. The Chamberlain government shut off immigration just when its need was greatest. In so doing he not only incurred guilt for the death of millions of Jews but did not placate the Arabs any more than he placated Hitler. When given German support‚ Iraq revolted and established a pro-German regime that unleashed terror on its ancient Jewish population just as Hitler was doing in Europe and as Hamas has been doing and intends to keep doing in Israel today. Churchill was by then leading Britain‚ and in a daring gamble‚ he sent a small elite strike force that expelled the Iraqi Nazis along with the leader of the violent Palestinian Arabs‚ the Mufti of Jerusalem‚ who spent the rest of the war recruiting Bosnian Muslims to work in the Nazi extermination camps and hobnobbing with Hitler now and then about other ways of eliminating the Jews. And now to today. Frankly‚ I have been surprised that Biden has offered such support of Israel as he has. But he is far more the politician worried about maintaining his base than a statesman in the Adams mold‚ let alone Churchill’s. He and his party have welcomed in staunch and outspoken supporters of destroying the whole state of Israel‚ whose representatives in Congress have not been publicly criticized by him even when they mouth vile antisemitic slanders and who receive no reproof for not for refusing to criticize Hamas’ revival of rape‚ murder‚ torture‚ and kidnapping as an instrument of policy. With grand deviousness‚ Obama had already committed Biden’s party to support Iran‚ the new headquarters of exterminationist antisemitism. Biden and his party have chosen to relieve Iran of the oil embargo‚ pouring tens of billions into its treasury‚ which in turn went to the war machines of Hamas‚ Hezbollah‚ and the Houthis. Trump ran against this policy in 2016‚ and ended it. Biden put it back in place. Confronted with the full horrors of Hamas atrocities and their pledge to continue them without end‚ Biden feels the pull of principle and of bedrock morality. Yet his sense of political danger compromises him‚ as he refuses to end the policies which simultaneously support that which he morally condemns. (READ MORE: Let’s Surround Our Rights With a Culture of Meaning) He is failing as a statesman. He is seeking to please the destructive forces his master‚ Obama‚ brought into the Democrat mainstream. Like Chamberlain and MacDonald‚ his policy pleases neither the great majority of Americans who are with Israel in its struggle to crush the new Nazism‚ nor America’s own woke-Nazis. If our leaders will not follow the lead of democracies great statesmen‚ it remains to us. And it was Churchill himself who said that the compliments were due to the people. It was they‚ he said‚ “that had the lion’s heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.” That is‚ in the end‚ the message of our constitutions. If we‚ the people‚ will be the lions‚ we will find the one to roar. The post What Does It Take To Be a Statesman? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Pope is penalizing a retired American cardinal for his outspoken conservative views on doctrine and politics. It was reported late last month that Pope Francis referred to Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke‚ former head of the Vatican’s highest court‚ as his “enemy” and announced plans to strip him of his salary and his apartment in Rome. In the midst of the subsequent controversy‚ papal biographer Austin Ivereigh confirmed with the pontiff that Burke would in fact be denied his salary‚ but the Pope denied ever calling the cardinal his “enemy.”Far from being critical of the pontiff‚ Burke has been a zealous defender of the papacy. Last week‚ The Pillar confirmed that Burke had been notified by the Apostolic See that he would have to begin paying market rates on his apartment in Rome or else vacate the property by the end of February. According to The Pillar‚ sources close to the cardinal say he is likely to leave the apartment‚ but will not leave Rome. Burke himself stated‚ “It’s my duty as a cardinal to remain in Rome.” (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Jesuit Priest Declares Donald Trump an Antichrist) In his article on the hyper-papalist blog Where Peter Is‚ Ivereigh criticized Burke for adhering to age-old Catholic doctrine‚ treating ancient Catholic customs with reverence‚ and asking the Pope to clarify some of his more controversial statements. The papal biographer wrote: Anyone who has followed the activities‚ speeches‚ and shenanigans of the traditionalist American cardinal this past decade will have been amazed at how Burke has been allowed constantly to undermine the pope’s authority‚ setting himself against the papacy as a counter-magisterium‚ and building a lucrative career portraying himself as the true guardian of the tradition. A proficient canon lawyer‚ Burke has never questioned the authority of the Pope‚ but he and other cardinals have asked the current pontiff for clarity when necessary‚ in the form of dubia‚ formal questions traditionally submitted by members of the college of cardinals asking the Pope to clarify statements relating to morals or doctrine. In 2016‚ Burke and cardinals Carlo Caffarra‚ Walter Brandmüller‚ and Joachim Meisner submitted a series of five dubia to Pope Francis seeking clarity on his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The cardinals primarily sought clarity on the Pope’s statements regarding divorced and remarried couples. The letter’s ambiguity seemingly allowed some to interpret a particular passage as condoning divorce and remarriage without an annulment‚ something the Church has famously long opposed. The subject was one particularly important to Burke‚ who was named the first ever Defender of the Bond of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope St. John Paul II. The role meant Burke was responsible for analyzing annulment requests and arguing before the Vatican’s highest court in defense of marriage. (READ MORE: The Irreconcilability of Catholicism and Freemasonry) Other questions posed by the cardinals related to Christian living in light of the ambiguous passage in the Pope’s letter. Cardinals Caffarra and Meisner have since passed away‚ and their dubia remain unanswered. Pope Francis removed Burke — as well as the late cardinal George Pell‚ another outspoken conservative — from the Congregation for Divine Worship shortly after the dubia were published‚ prompting many to suspect the move was a retaliatory one. Previously‚ Pope Francis had removed Burke from his position as prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura‚ immediately following Burke’s characterization of the Church as “a ship without a rudder” under the Francis pontificate. However‚ Burke explicitly clarified that he was not speaking against the Pope‚ saying‚ “I have all the respect for the Petrine ministry and I do not want to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope.” Burke signed his name to a second set of dubia submitted earlier this year‚ this time seeking clarity regarding the controversial Synod on Synodality. Burke and Brandmüller were joined by cardinals Juan Sandoval Íñiguez‚ Robert Sarah‚ and Joseph Zen Ze-kiun in expressing concern that the global Synod may dilute the Church’s perennial moral teachings‚ particularly regarding homosexuality‚ and asked the Pope to clarify that such dilutions and ambiguities could not occur. This time around‚ Pope Francis responded‚ clarifying that Catholic doctrine cannot be “reinterpreted” but may be “interpreted better.” He explained that the Synod does not have the authority to contradict or reverse doctrine‚ but may seek new meaning in old texts‚ provided those meanings were in accord with Catholic teaching. (READ MORE: Catholic Priest Sentenced to Life for Sex-Trafficking) The cardinals also asked if the Church could ever bless same-sex unions‚ a topic the Synod was planning to address. The Pope’s direct response was not a definitive “no‚” which led to many claiming the pontiff was approving blessings for same-sex unions. But in the context of his prior clarifications on same-sex blessings and the Church’s immutable doctrine‚ the Pope was actually affirming Church teaching. He wrote: The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive‚ stable‚ and indissoluble union between a man and a woman‚ naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage” … It is not just a matter of names‚ but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name‚ not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.” For this reason‚ the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage. Other questions in the dubia pertained to the nature and authority of the Synod‚ female ordinations to the priesthood‚ and the nature of forgiveness. The Pope’s responses affirmed Catholic doctrine. Far from being critical of the pontiff‚ Burke has been a zealous defender of the papacy and has supported many of Pope Francis’s efforts. In 2014‚ Burke issued a vocal defense of Pope Francis‚ noting that while many saw the new pontiff as a progressive threat to Catholic teaching‚ he was in fact actively combatting the “de-Christianization of the West.” Burke defended the Pope’s pro-life pedigree and insisted that Francis sought to uphold Catholic doctrine while emphasizing a much-needed personal relationship with Christ. Perhaps most tellingly‚ Burke noted that the Pope was sometimes in need of a “fitting tool of interpretation” to clarify his unique style of teaching. Burke and other faithful cardinals have tried to be that “tool of interpretation‚” respectfully seeking clarity and allowing Pope Francis to refine his statements. It is said that a poor craftsman blames his tools‚ and Burke has seemingly been blamed and cast aside. The post Pope To Oust American Cardinal From Rome Residence appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate (your university’s) code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?” Rep. Elise Stefanik‚ R-N.Y.‚ asked three university presidents on Tuesday. The occasion was a House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing on antisemitism on campus — a hearing that follows Hamas’ brutal murders of 1‚200 Israelis on Oct. 7 and competing campus activism in support of Israel or Hamas. (READ MORE from Debra Saunders: School’s Out Forever) The response of Harvard’s Claudine Gay‚ M.I.T.’s Sally Kornbluth‚ and University of Pennsylvania’s Elizabeth Magill was illuminating. When pro-Palestinian activists talk intifada‚ they choose to look at said speech in “context” and some ask whether said speech targeted individuals.Since Oct. 7‚ however‚ his beloved Penn has become “a chilling landscape of hatred and hostility.” “If the speech turns into conduct‚ it can be harassment‚” Magill responded. The presidents have a problem: When they talk about free speech‚ their double standards are showing. “The modern form of antisemitism is more subtle‚ for it is often disguised under progressive political innuendoes‚” noted Rep. Burgess Owens‚ R-Utah. He sees offices for DEI — or Diversity‚ Equity and Inclusion — as anything but diverse or inclusive. A 2022 survey of college faculty by the academic freedom group FIRE found that three-fourths of liberal faculty support mandatory diversity statements‚ while 90 percent of conservatives see them as political litmus tests. At one point‚ Kornbluth pushed back at committee Republicans for “in effect arguing for a speech code.” She said she wants to protect “speech and viewpoint diversity for everyone.” Who believes that? Not students in those institutions. The FIRE survey found that 70 percent of Harvard students say shouting down speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus is “at least rarely acceptable.” At an event flanked by House Speaker Mike Johnson‚ Penn senior Eyal Yakoby offered that he used to think stories about campus antisemitism were “nonsense” and “fear-mongering.” Since Oct. 7‚ however‚ his beloved Penn has become “a chilling landscape of hatred and hostility.” By the end of the hearing‚ Gay‚ Kornbluth‚ and Magill had stopped answering reasonable questions‚ such as if any students had been expelled for their antisemitic speech or actions. (READ MORE: Too Pure for Harvard?) They looked like total frauds arguing for free speech despite their universities’ dubious records and with their bureaucratic language. So they graduated to silence. Debra J. Saunders is a fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Chapman Center for Citizen Leadership. Contact her at dsaunders@discovery.org. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM The post An Academic Reckoning on Antisemitism and Speech appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Surrender There have been calls for Hamas‚ or at least Hamas leadership‚ to surrender. Jerome Marcus so argued in a Wall St. Journal op-ed on October 23. President Biden urged surrender in a Washington Post op-ed on November 19 and a White House official did the same on November 18 at a gathering of Arab leaders and diplomats. On November 29‚ a bipartisan resolution introduced in the Congress called for immediate‚ unconditional surrender. The deep support for Hamas among Gazans poses a enormously difficult problem in identifying who must surrender or be killed or captured. This past week video clips and news reports showing dozens of Hamas fighters surrendering to the IDF made the rounds‚ with some reports speculating that these were terrorists fleeing tunnels flooded with sea water. On December 8‚ an IDF spokesman told reporters‚ “In the last 48 hours‚ we apprehended more than two hundred suspects … Amongst the suspects transferred for investigation are Hamas commanders and Nukhba‚” the unit responsible for the October 7 attack. (READ MORE from James Thunder: Here’s an Idea: Pay Russian Pilots for Defecting) These captured terrorists will no doubt be interrogated‚ improving the chances for hostage rescue. Will those who surrender or are captured be tried? Where will they be held? Will the U.S. offer Gitmo? Escaping the IDF Net One of the expressed concerns with the temporary pauses has been the potential for Hamas terrorists to escape from Gaza. Just as large a concern should be the potential for Hamas terrorists hiding among bona fide civilians as they evacuate from northern to southern Gaza via corridors set up by the IDF. Videoclips of these evacuees show a good number of men of military age. Is anything being done to vet the men to determine if they are indeed civilians? Neither the Press Office of the Embassy of Israel‚ the Spokesperson for the IDF‚ nor the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel‚ has responded to my inquiry‚ although an IDF spokesperson‚ Lt. Col. Amnon Sheffler admitted publicly on Nov. 28‚ “Hamas terrorists moved together with civilians to the south.” Free Gaza From Hamas While the slogan among pro-Hamas demonstrators is “free Palestine‚” as in “free Palestine of Israeli occupation‚” we who support Israel should speak of freeing Gaza‚ liberating Gaza‚ from Hamas. For example‚ when IDF forces took Rantisi Hospital and killed Ahmed Siam‚ it “freed” 1‚000 hostages of Hamas‚ civilians being used as human shields. When an Israeli army intelligence officer spoke by phone to a resident of Gaza pushing him to evacuate to the south‚ the Gazan declined‚ reporting‚ in a taped and publicly released call‚ that Hamas had placed cars to form roadblocks‚ sent people home‚ and shot at people trying to leave. Ron Dermer‚ the former Israeli ambassador to the United States‚ said on Nov. 12‚ 2023‚ on Life‚ Liberty &; Levin: “The key to helping those Palestinian civilians is to actually get rid of Hamas‚ to free Gaza from Hamas. That is how they can have a better future. Anyone who cares about them should be looking for Israel to win — win quickly and win decisively.” This I quickly observe is the phraseology of one part of the “Powell Doctrine‚” named after then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell (1937-2021)‚ namely‚ the morality of using “overwhelming” or “decisive” force: Once a decision for military action has been made‚ half measures and confused objectives exact a severe price in the form of a protracted conflict which can cause needless waste of human lives and material resources‚ a divided nation at home‚ and defeat. Therefore one of the essential elements of our national military strategy is the ability to rapidly assemble the forces needed to win—the concept of applying decisive force to overwhelm our adversaries and thereby terminate conflicts swiftly with minimum loss of life. Can Gaza Be Liberalized? The deep support for Hamas among Gazans poses a enormously difficult problem in identifying who must surrender or be killed or captured to ensure the extermination of Hamas. Which of the men and women bore arms for Hamas‚ harbored Hamas fighters‚ provided supplies‚ built tunnels‚ or smuggled goods? (READ MORE: Muslim Women Visit Israel to Show Solidarity Against Hamas) Similarly‚ after the victory‚ the deep support for Hamas among Gazans poses the enormously difficult problem of creating a postwar liberal and peaceful place like post-World War II Germany and Japan. Some examples of the support for Hamas: “[Deborah] Cohen recounted how [her nephew‚ 12 year old Eitan] Yahalomi‚ who was kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack from his home on Kibbutz Nir Oz without his family‚ was put on the back of a motorcycle by the terrorists and driven across the breached border fence into Gaza. As they drove him through the streets there‚ she said‚ people came outside and began to jeer and beat him.” “When they [the hostages] arrived in Gaza in many cases they were spat at and abused by jubilant crowds coming out onto the street to celebrate Hamas’s victory.” Hostage Ron Krivoi escaped and was on the run and hiding for four days before locals captured him and returned him to terrorists. Palestinians have wildly cheered the prisoners‚ held or convicted by Israel of violent offenses‚ released in exchange for innocents held hostage by Hamas: “In the West Bank‚ hundreds of people burst into wild celebrations for a second night as a busload of Palestinian prisoners arrived early Sunday‚ despite efforts by Israeli security services for the release of the Palestinian prisoners not to be seen as a celebration. Teenage boys released in the deal were carried on the shoulders of well-wishers in the town of Al Bireh.” The results of market research conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) among Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank “indicate that an overwhelming percentage of Palestinians support the October 7 massacre (75 percent)‚ reject coexistence with Israel (85.9 percent)‚ are committed to the restoration of ‘historical Palestine’ as a final resolution (71.1 percent)‚ and support the creation of a Palestinian state ‘from the river to the sea’ (74.7 percent) as the end of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Interestingly‚ there is more support for the 10/7 massacre from the Palestinians resident in Judea and Samaria (83.1 percent) than those residing in the Gaza Strip (63.6 percent).” Obviously‚ the postwar period will be extremely challenging. I am reminded that our experience with denazification in Germany and a similar effort in Japan became‚ in a short time‚ less focused on the past and more focused on the future.   The post Achieving Victory in Gaza: Some Questions appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

David Rockefeller‚ grandson of oil magnate John D. and longtime head of the Chase Manhattan Bank‚ must be laughing his head off right now‚ for his global government dream might come into existence through one of the most ridiculous and unbelievable scams in history‚ called “climate change.” So‚ “global warming” was invented by men who are still committed to eliminating over seven billion humans from the earth. Rockefeller created‚ funded‚ or joined various secret societies that spawned globalist conspiracy theories‚ such as the Council on Foreign Relations‚ the Bilderberg Group‚ and the Trilateral Commission‚ and Rockefeller often stoked those theories with provocative statements: “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are … conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world‚ if you will. If that’s the charge‚ I stand guilty‚ and I am proud of it.” [David Rockefeller‚ Memoirs] “But [today] the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.” [1991 speech at Bilderberg meeting in Berlin] Another Rockefeller-funded group is the Club of Rome‚ co-founded by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scotsman Alexander King in 1968‚ whose stated goal was to reduce the world’s population to a “sustainable” level of between 500 million and 1 billion people. Their 1972 book‚ The Limits to Growth‚ explained their Malthusian vision: too many people on earth‚ using too much of the planet’s resources‚ would result in a catastrophic world-wide societal collapse within 100 years “if something wasn’t done immediately.” They believed that only a world government could implement that “something.” (READ MORE: VIDEO: Kerry Promises to Get Rid of Coal Faster. That’s Not Good.) Fast-forward to today‚ when we’re scolded by climate zealots that “we only have 12 years left to save the planet” from the effects of global warming. Same scaremongering‚ just a shorter timeframe. In both cases the dire warnings were just useful lies‚ as the Club of Rome openly admitted in 1991 in a book titled The First Global Revolution‚ co-authored by co-founder Alexander King.  In the intro to Part II‚ he quoted French futurist Gaston Berger: “We must no longer wait for tomorrow; it has to be invented.” So invent they did: King noted that the end of the Cold War resulted in the sudden absence of traditional enemies against which support for global government could be justified. He wrote‚ “In searching for a new enemy to unite us‚ we came up with the idea that … the threat of global warming … would fit the bill.” (italics mine) So “global warming” was invented‚ a new Frankenstein’s monster against which the gullible world would zealously unite. But‚ just like Miss Shelly’s frightful creature‚ “global warming” (later “climate change”) is an imaginary monster; the real threat to human society are the “solutions” proposed and backed by avid globalists. I had thought that the Club of Rome was just a group of bored elitists who would quickly move on to EST‚ Scientology‚ etc.‚ but I was wrong.  In a 2017 interview‚ co-author of The Limits to Growth (and World Economic Forum member) Dennis Meadows said that “86 percent of the world’s population needs to be eliminated.  But a benevolent dictator could accomplish that peacefully.” (italics mine) So‚ “global warming” was invented by men who are still committed to eliminating over seven billion humans from the earth‚ men who recognize that only a global government can accomplish that task. Another David Rockefeller protégé was Canadian millionaire Maurice (pronounced “Morris”) Strong.  A high school dropout‚ at age 18 he met Rockefeller‚ who took Strong under his wing‚ introducing him to “the Canadian Rockefellers‚” the Desmarais family. Strong went to work for them in the Alberta oil fields‚ and by age 28 was a millionaire‚ at which time Rockefeller got him his first job at the United Nations. (READ MORE: Al Gore for President) In 1972‚ Strong was selected to head the UN’s new Environment Program (UNEP)‚ where he convened the first international expert group on climate issues‚ and created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  Under the UNFCCC‚ he formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‚ the body that provides the climate Assessment Reports that have been termed “the Environmentalists’ Bible” (that the computer models used for those assessments have been repeatedly and embarrassingly wrong hasn’t deterred climate zealots from renewed hysteria at every IPCC report release). Strong is credited with coining the term “climate change” when “global warming” became awkward due to declining global temperatures starting around the year 2000. His most important legacy‚ though‚ is the UN’s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development program‚ unveiled in 1972 (rebranded in 2015 as Agenda 2030). Agenda 21/2030 is the blueprint of the global government scheme‚ using “climate change” as its alluring mask. In the UN’s own words‚ it “will require a profound re-orientation of all humans‚ unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” Such as the massive redistribution of wealth from Western democracies to the developing world: “Between $3.3–$4.5 trillion per year … to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That staggering amount would cripple the Western economies‚ thus removing a major barrier to global government — the ultimate goal of the “climate change” ruse. Agenda 21/2030‚ Chapter 4 calls for drastically reducing consumption and production of everything‚ which comports nicely with the Club of Rome’s 2018 Climate Emergency Plan‚ which calls for halving consumption/production and halting all fossil fuel investment.  (Neither document addresses the millions of jobs that would destroy‚ or the poverty and vulnerability of the populace that would ensue.)  Chapter 5 almost lets the cat out of the bag‚ blaming the growth of world population for “placing increasingly severe stress on our planet.” Chapter 7 calls for an end to private property‚ claiming that “social justice … can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society-as-a-whole.” Lest you think I’m misinterpreting the true goals of Agenda 21/2030‚ in 1991 Maurice Strong wrote in a report for the UN’s Conference on Environment and Development: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — high meat intake‚ use of fossil fuels‚ home and workplace air-conditioning and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” (italics mine). So “the good life” that most humans aspire to must be abandoned to “save the planet.” But is it worth saving the planet if most of us must exist only in wrenching poverty‚ disease‚ and hopelessness? It’s telling that Strong was on the board of the Club of Rome‚ the group that invented “global warming” to justify its call for global government largely to eliminate seven billion people from the planet. He wrote in his autobiography (Where on Earth Are We Going?) that the death of two-thirds of humanity would be “a glimmer of hope” for the future. So the man most responsible for the decades-long climate hysteria was a committed de-population advocate. But there’s more. Maurice Strong was also a Foundation Director of the World Economic Forum (WEF)‚ Klaus Schwab’s “self-selected coalition” with the answers to all the world’s problems. Upon Strong’s death in 2015‚ Schwab credited him with being “my mentor since the creation of the Forum.” In 1973 Klaus Schwab invited Club of Rome co-founder Peccei to give the keynote address at the European Management Symposium (later the World Economic Forum)‚ providing an influential global audience for the Club’s de-population ideas. (READ MORE: A Climate Change Believer’s Curse) There is yet another Rockefeller connection to the UN and the WEF: Rockefeller’s longtime friend Henry Kissinger tutored Schwab for two years at Harvard’s International Business Seminar‚ and Schwab named him (along with Strong) as a mentor. Kissinger was the architect of the secret 1974 U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200‚ which called for abortion on demand‚ widespread birth control‚ and sterilization to stem global fertility rates and “overpopulation.” In 2019‚ Schwab signed an agreement with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to “accelerate the implementation of Agenda 2030 across the globe.” And oh‚ my‚ has Herr Schwab “accelerated” that process!  A 2019 WEF video titled‚ “8 Predictions for 2030” gives the lie to the “factcheckers” at CNN‚ Reuters‚ USA Today‚ and others who deny that the WEF ever claimed “you’ll own nothing and be happy‚” for that is the first of the eight predictions.Aside from the questionable science of climate change‚ it’s the same old hackneyed lust for power and control by a small group of elites. The video also calls for a merging of capitalism and socialism‚ more government intervention in the lives of citizens “for fairness‚” and more public/private partnerships (once known as “fascism‚” where corporations collude with government to make a shambles of Constitutional rights and free markets). Again‚ the aim of all this is to cripple the Western democracies‚ smoothing the way for globalist control. Rockefeller’s minions at the UN and the WEF are getting closer to that goal. In his book The Great Reset‚ Schwab proposes “to change and move on from free-market capitalism‚” replacing it with his idea of  “stakeholder capitalism‚” which requires companies to consider the interests of employees‚ customers‚ suppliers‚ and community instead of just investors (thus the ESG and DEI travesties). But Schwab’s scheme is modeled after a 1937 Nazi Shareholder Law that required companies to consider “public welfare before individual gain.” Just another lie supporting the “necessity” of draconian actions that will decimate Western societies‚ clearing the path for globalist control. In light of this evidence‚ it seems that the “climate change” hysteria that has overtaken Western institutions has less to do with the problems associated with a changing climate and much to do with global elites’ efforts to acquire power and control for their de-population schemes‚ and possibly even for their own enrichment. But here is the bottom line: Eliminating fossil fuels‚ the basis of the modern world economy‚ will effectively return us to the material world of the mid-1800s‚ depriving the rest of us of the means and wherewithal necessary to resist the globalists’ dictates. The unquestioning zealotry of the virtue-signaling supporters of Net Zero‚ “sustainable development‚” and the elimination of fossil fuels are blissfully making that gloomy future a certainty‚ decrying “greedy capitalists” even as they mindlessly help create a real tyranny of wealthy elitist masters. (READ MORE: Whitmer Signs Michigan’s Green New Dystopia) Aside from the questionable science of climate change‚ it’s the same old hackneyed lust for power and control by a small group of elites … only this time the whole world has fallen for it because it’s disguised as a noble cause to “save the planet.” But in that 2017 interview‚ Limits to Growth co-author Dennis Meadows explained that de-population (under the guise of climate change) was necessary “in order to maintain the survivors’ freedom and standard of living.” Not such a noble cause after all‚ is it? Like the communists’ “long march through the institutions‚” David Rockefeller played the long game‚ and placed his minions in positions of influence and power to eventually achieve his globalist dream.  The Club of Rome‚ the UN‚ Agenda 2030‚ Klaus Schwab and the Great Reset … are all part of the pre-determined “solution” to the false crisis of “climate change‚” a solution that gives them the global power and control they’d never be able to achieve otherwise.  Somewhere‚ David Rockefeller is smiling.   The post Rockefeller’s Dream: Global Governance Through ‘Climate Change’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

This month marks 10 years since John C. Beale‚ the highest-paid employee at the Environmental Protection Agency‚ was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison. Beale told his bosses he was a CIA spy working in London‚ India and Pakistan when he was actually kicking back at his vacation home. That fakery was hardly his only problem. Beale reported to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. In the wake of the spy scandal‚ she was promoted to head the agency. When he applied with the EPA in 1989‚ John Beale claimed he had worked for former senator John Tunney of California. He didn’t‚ and nobody bothered to check. Beale said he served in Vietnam‚ where he contracted malaria and therefore needed a handicapped parking spot. He didn’t serve in Vietnam‚ and didn’t contract malaria. Nobody checked those claims either and Beale got his handicapped parking spot. (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Newsom’s COVID Coverup) In 1994‚ Beale told his bosses he was a secret agent for the CIA but nobody at the EPA picked up the phone to verify that whopper. That empowered Beale to take more than two years off‚ with full pay‚ claiming to be in London‚ India‚ and Pakistan when he was actually performing no work. Beale pulled off his CIA ruse for nearly 20 years‚ not exactly the model for a good employee. With degrees in political science‚ administration‚ and law‚ Beale boasted little if any scientific expertise for his job as a “senior policy adviser” in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. October 2013 hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence that Beale produced anything of value in that role. Even so‚ the EPA ponied up “retention bonuses‚” authorized by deputy assistant administrator Robert Brenner. As investigators discovered‚ Brenner co-owned a vacation home with Beale‚ and at the time Beale was staying at Brenner’s house. Brenner cooperated with the investigation of Beale but retired after the EPA’s inspector general investigated favors from a lobbyist who had previously worked on the EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. Beale also retired‚ continued to draw a paycheck 19 months after his retirement dinner cruise on the Potomac. Beale also got retention bonuses even after he retired. As one representative asked in hearings shown on C-SPAN‚ “was that so he wouldn’t retire again?” All told‚ the EPA’s agent 007 bilked taxpayers of nearly $1 million. Judge Ellen Huvelle found Beale’s crimes “inexplicable” and “unbelievably egregious.” Beale served time at the Federal Correctional Institute in Cumberland‚ the favored soft landing spot for the government’s white-collar criminals. The fraudster gained release after 18 months‚ but there’s more to the story. Beale reported to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. In the wake of the spy scandal‚ she was promoted to head the agency.  In 2015‚ EPA contractors released three million gallons of contaminated wastewater into the Animas River‚ unleashing a veritable tsunami of lead‚ arsenic‚ and other toxic materials through southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico. Despite the disaster‚ McCarthy kept her job as EPA boss. In the wake of the Beale scandal‚ no reports emerged about CIA officers claiming to work for the EPA. On the other hand‚ the spy agency also has special personnel issues. As Ron Radosh (The Rosenberg File) noted‚ Clinton national security advisor Anthony Lake failed to become CIA director partly because he believed Alger Hiss might be innocent. (He wasn’t. See Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case‚ by Allen Weinstein.) (READ MORE: Gov. Gavin’s Gun Gambit) In the 1976 presidential election‚ college student John Brennan voted for the Stalinist Gus Hall of the Communist Party USA‚ a wholly owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union. That should have barred Brennan from any job with the CIA‚ but the agency hired Brennan in 1980 and in 2013 the Gus Hall voter came to run the place. With all its money and resources‚ the CIA failed to prevent the events of September 11‚ 2001‚ the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor in 1941. Despite the death and destruction‚ CIA director George Tenet kept his job and the money kept coming. By now it should be clear that‚ as a prosecutor said of John Beale‚ the CIA and EPA are also “the poster child for what’s wrong with government.” Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ Calif. The post Lessons from the EPA’s Agent 007 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Warner Brothers By Chris Yogerst (University of Kentucky Press‚ 360 pages‚ $34.95) I visited Hollywood California in the summer of 2022 and shared my LA story in these pages. I toured some of the major sites‚ including Warner Brothers Studio where the studio tour plays homage to its most well-known classic films such as Casablanca  (1942) starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman‚ the movie that gave us the famous line “Here’s looking at you‚ kid.” LA is also home to the Griffith Observatory‚  the location of the climactic scene in the celebrated Warner Brothers film Rebel Without a Cause  (1955)‚ starring James Dean‚ Natalie Wood‚ and Sal Mineo. Given this recent experience‚ I was delighted to learn of film professor Chris Yogerst’s latest book‚ The Warner Brothers‚  a comprehensive history of the legendary film studio and its four founding brothers‚ Harry (1881-1958)‚ Albert (1884-1967)‚ Sam (1887-1927)‚ and Jack (1892-1978).Chris Yogerst is to be commended for writing such a thoroughly researched portrait of these cinematic pioneers. With the purchase of a $1‚000 projector these brothers launched what would ultimately become an international multibillion-dollar film production and distribution powerhouse. The Warner Brothers tells the story of the four brothers and their groundbreaking contributions and enduring legacy to cinema. They cultivated the medium’s potential to not only entertain audiences but to also educate and influence them. Now more than 100 years since inception‚ Warner Brothers remains a force in the film industry with their recent distribution of last summer’s $1.442 billion blockbuster Barbie (2023)  starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling‚ and this month’s much anticipated prequel Wonka  starring Timothée Chalamet. (READ MORE from Leonora Cravotta: Fauci Lied‚ People Died: Sen. Rand Paul Dissects the COVID Cover-Up) The Warners’ parents Benjamin and Pearl immigrated from Poland to the United States in the late 1800’s and eventually settled in Youngstown‚ Ohio. Ben‚ the father of twelve‚ saw the value of assimilation and ultimately decided to Americanize his family’s Yiddish names. However‚ he also encouraged his children to retain their Jewish identity‚ a lesson that was not lost on the brothers who continued to acknowledge their Jewish heritage while building their Hollywood careers. This was not typical at a time when Jewish actors‚ directors‚ producers‚ and writers shied away from any outward expression of Jewishness to avoid prejudice. The book begins with the Warner family’s immigration to the United States and ends with the death of the youngest son Jack in 1978‚ nine years after his retirement as Warner Studio’s company president. Yogerst provides a comprehensive portrait of the Warner brothers’ childhood and the genesis of their interest in moving pictures. Due to some instability in Ben’s work and the sheer size of the family‚ the Warners moved multiple times while living in Youngstown‚ a situation that made the children more resilient. Since money was scarce‚ the sons all had jobs. It was while working at a penny arcade at Cedar Point Amusement that Sam first witnessed a kinescope projecting a motion picture. He later learned of a local business person who was selling a projector for $1‚000 along with a copy of Edwin S. Porter’s film The Great Train Robbery (1903). The brothers pooled their money to purchase the projector. When they came up short‚ Ben pawned his gold watch to cover the balance. The author details how the brothers used the projector to exhibit The Great Train Robbery in their backyard for a fee and negotiated with local venues to create their makeshift theaters. As legend has it‚ they ran out of money to purchase chairs for the Cascade‚ their first theater‚ and they borrowed chairs from a local funeral home on the days when a funeral was not taking place. As the money started coming in‚ the brothers would invest it in purchasing used films. By 1907‚ the Cascade and its sister theater the Bijou were bringing in $2‚000 a week. Harry decided to sell the Cascade for $40‚000 and then invested the proceeds in a new film exchange. The author details the brothers’ various early partnerships and exhibition efforts. And while they had no shortage of creativity and continued to invest in content and distribution‚ they were often strapped for cash. In 1913‚ they made the pivotal decision to sell their stock in Warner Features‚ Inc. while retaining the rights to their name. The new organization had Pat Powers as president‚ Albert Warner as vice president‚ and Harry Warner as sales manager. This re-organization proved to be a match made in heaven. “Powers had the capital‚ and the brothers had the ideas. If the Warners could secure funding‚ their tested methods of exhibition‚ distribution‚ and production were sure to provide big returns.” The Warner family would ultimately resume control of their organization. On April 4‚ 1923‚ Warner Brothers was incorporated in the state of Delaware with $50 million in capital and the Warners creating three corporations and issuing five hundred shares of stock. “By 1930‚ Warner Brothers held 51 companies‚ 93 film exchanges‚ and 525 theaters in 188 American cities‚ in addition to the studio lots. The company stock was valued at over $200 million‚ and it employed a total of 18‚500 people.” The brothers were endowed with different talents. Harry‚ the oldest who served as the company’s president for many years‚ had a firm understanding of the industry from a financial perspective. He was also an even-tempered person who cultivated relationships. Albert was the master of distribution and exhibition. Jack‚ was the consummate showman with an eye for content with a mercurial personality. Sam was the technology wizard‚ who is credited with forming a partnership with Western Electric to create the Vitaphone‚ a synchronized film sound system that Warner Brothers deployed to produce the first sound picture The Jazz Singer  (1927). Unfortunately‚ in a cruel twist of fate Sam contracted a mastoid infection of the brain and died of pneumonia shortly before the premiere of The Jazz Singer‚ which garnered millions of dollars and turned the Warner Brothers into household names. (READ MORE: From Deconstruction to Wokeness: French Conservatives Fight Back) In the 1930s‚ Harry Warner started advancing the notion that due to the increasing number of moviegoers‚ Hollywood had a social responsibility. “This steadily increasing influence over recreational hours of millions has grown a corresponding responsibility‚ and we have not shirked it.” To that end‚ the studio believed in creating realistic “ripped from the headlines” dramas that brought attention to important social problems such as crime‚ poverty‚ and mental disorders. During the depression of the 1930s‚ Warner Brothers produced many gangster films such as Little Caesar  (1930) starring Edward G. Robinson and The Public Enemy   (1931) with James Cagney. The brothers also maintained that it was equally important to provide the movie-going public with other film genres. Consequently‚ they balanced their social dramas with musicals such as Gold Diggers of 1933  (1933) and 42nd Street  (1933).  It is important to note that even though these films featured beautifully choreographed dance sequences‚ they were not escapist fare. They were punctuated by references to the social and economic realities of the Depression. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration was also aware of the moving picture’s potential to disseminate messaging and influence thought. In the wake of the poverty associated with Herbert Hoover’s presidency‚ the Warner brothers who were previously Republicans‚ saw that FDR could regain the nation’s trust with his proposed recovery plan. Consequently‚ Warner Brothers cultivated a  reputation as  ‘the studio that most explicitly upheld the New Deal in its production.” The studio and the White House were not shy about promoting this collaboration. In advance of FDR’s inauguration‚ Warner Brothers promoted its 1933 portfolio of films as “inaugurating a NEW DEAL IN ENTERTAINMENT.”  Warner Brothers also ran a full page advertisement in Film Daily with a photo of FDR which read “OFF WITH THE OLD LEADERS. ON WITH THE NEW! WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES‚ THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE.”  Interestingly enough‚ Jack would later return to the Republican party to support Richard Nixon in his failed bids for the presidency in 1960 and the California Governor’s office in 1962‚ The Warner Brothers also provides in-depth coverage of the many times that the film industry was at risk of being censored or silenced by various entities‚ including the Hays Commission‚ the Production Code Administration‚ the House Un-American Activities Committee etc. In 1941‚ the industry had to defend itself against allegations of propagandizing films. In 1947‚ they were on the hot seat for the House Un-American Activities Committee’s communist blacklist hearings‚ and in 1955‚ the industry had to fend off allegations that films such as  Rebel Without a Cause  (1955) and Blackboard Jungle  (1955) promoted juvenile delinquency. During the 1955 hearings‚ Jack Warner reinforced the comments that his brother Harry had made twenty years prior about the social responsibility of filmmakers. “I have very rarely ever seen a film that hasn’t had some kind of moral‚ either for good or bad‚ but they have some kind of moral … Motion pictures must be entertaining and therefore‚ must have dramatic content. You cannot make motion pictures about a tranquil world or a utopia because it does not exist. When you make films‚ you have to show the bad and how good triumphs.” Yogerst also does an effective job of conveying the film industry’s behind-the-scenes perspective.  For aficionados of movie lure‚ the book is peppered with anecdotes about why a certain actor was cast instead of the original choice‚ who exhibited diva behavior on the set or some other offputting behavior. The author also includes several examples of Warner family internal discord. Most notably‚ he depicts Jack’s famous betrayal of Harry. When the brothers decided to sell a 90 percent stake in the studio to Semenenko in the late 1950’s‚ Jack struck a deal with the new owners to buy his way back into the company and assume the presidency‚ effectively pushing out Harry. Jack’s behavior created a rift between him and Harry that was never resolved. And when Harry died in 1958‚ Jack did not attend his funeral‚ although he later attempted to make amends with other family members. (READ MORE: Barbie Questions the Success of Feminism)  The Warner Brothers is a highly engaging book about an ambitious family and their namesake studio who revolutionized the film industry with their instinct for content and talent‚ their mastery of technology‚ their optimization of distribution‚ and of course their passion for storytelling. Chris Yogerst is to be commended for writing such a thoroughly researched portrait of these cinematic pioneers whose contributions to the seventh art continue to cast a big shadow to this day.   The post The Warner Brothers and American Cinema appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.