The song is the Piano Man's first in close to two decades. Continue reading…

"Those bands that stop you in your tracks and make you rethink everything." The post X-Ray Spex: The band that made Beth Ditto “rethink everything” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

About three months ago‚ after months of drone strikes and other attacks on our ships and troops in the Middle East‚ this column asked how President Biden would respond when one of those attacks took the life of a U.S. soldier. Now we know. There are a lot of other‚ possibly better‚ options Biden has to hold Iran accountable for killing U.S. troops. But he won’t pursue any of them. As prior columns also explained‚ bombing Houthi drone controllers and killing a few of the people who were literally following Iranian orders to conduct those attacks would do nothing to stop Iran from funding‚ arming‚ and otherwise controlling their proxy forces. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden Wants Hamas To Win) And it didn’t. We have been bombing the Houthis since January 11 and our strikes haven’t even lessened the frequency of their attacks. There have been nine attacks on Red Sea shipping in the past three weeks. There were six in the prior three weeks. Most have been against U.S. and UK ships in the Red Sea. Of the thousands of things Biden and his advisers don’t understand about national security is that deterrence only works when you can threaten an enemy with unbearable consequences for an attack and then impose those consequences if an attack occurs despite the warning. The latest strikes against the Houthis were made on Saturday. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the attacks show the Houthis will‚ “continue to bear further consequences if they do not end their illegal attacks.” The Houthis will bear the consequences‚ not Iran. There is not even a pretense of deterring Iran from ordering more such attacks. Deterrence doesn’t work with proxy forces because they have no ability to make independent decisions. If you want to deter a proxy you need to deter the proxy’s boss‚ i.e.‚ threaten and‚ if necessary‚ carry out an attack on the principal. Last Tuesday‚ President Biden said he had made up his mind about how to respond to the January 28 drone strike in Jordan that killed three U.S. troops. On Friday he ordered strikes against Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. At last report‚ there have been strikes against more than 85 targets at three facilities in Iraq and four in Syria‚ including command and control headquarters‚ ammunition storage‚ and other facilities. That means we’re counting trucks‚ tents‚ and buildings separately to inflate the number of “targets” hit. Some of the targets were supposedly “used” by Iran’s “Quds Force‚” a part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran has denied any involvement in the drone strike that killed the U.S. troops. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said‚ “We believe that the attack in Jordan was planned‚ resourced‚ and facilitated by an umbrella group called the Islamic Resistance in Iraq‚ which contains multiple groups including Kata’ib Hezbollah.” Kata’ib Hizb’allah is just a branch of the Lebanese Hizb’allah terrorist network that Iran controls. The only relevant question is whether Biden’s response will change Iran’s behavior? In short‚ it won’t for the reason set out above: in order to prevent attacks by a proxy force‚ you have to confront and deter its principal. Biden’s response doesn’t hold Iran responsible for its actions. It pays no price‚ suffers no loss — even the loss of “face” — in the international calculus of war. Biden says he doesn’t want a war with Iran. But Iran is already at war with us and has been since the regime came to power in 1979. (READ MORE: Israel Lost the Initiative) To hold Iran responsible‚ we need not enter into a general war with the terrorist state. Iran has‚ at last report‚ two ships in the Red Sea. One is an intelligence ship that is probably guiding the Houthi attack drones to their targets. The second is a small frigate — a warship — that entered the Red Sea about two weeks ago. We could have‚ and still should‚ sink both of those ships. That would‚ at least‚ make it clear to the ayatollahs that we will not tolerate their murder of U.S. troops or their attacks on U.S. and commercial shipping. Biden won’t do that because his most closely held desire — and that of his principal advisers — is to not confront Iran’s continued aggression. There is a great deal more that Biden could do. He could resume former president Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran’s economy. That campaign brought Iran’s economy to the brink of ruin. It has since been bailed out by Chinese purchases of Iranian oil in violation of our sanctions on Iran. Enforcing our sanctions by taking actions to punish China are not something Biden would even think of. It is only by increasing the military pressure on Iran that we can change its behavior. Sinking the two Iranian ships in the Red Sea would be a very good start. Remember when‚ in January 2020‚ Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani‚ the head of the IRGC? That shocked the Iranians but even that wasn’t enough to quiet their terrorism for more than a few weeks. If Biden were serious about deterring Iran from ordering proxy attacks on our troops and other assets‚ the IRGC’s headquarters could be the target of a U.S. cruise missile strike. (READ MORE: Biden Is Bankrolling the Ayatollahs) There are a lot of other‚ possibly better‚ options Biden has to hold Iran accountable for killing U.S. troops. But he won’t pursue any of them. The theory of deterrence is to prevent war and to respond‚ as noted above‚ with consequences the enemy will find unbearable. Its purpose is to change the enemy’s behavior. As the late Donald Rumsfeld was fond of saying‚ weakness is provocative. As long as Biden refuses to strike back at Iran directly‚ there’s no hope of changing its behavior.       The post Biden’s Random Bombings appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Joseph Nye‚ the emeritus professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School and former foreign policy adviser to Presidents Carter‚ Clinton‚ and Obama‚ who has advocated continued engagement with China even as the Chinese Communist regime looks to seize control of Taiwan and replace the United States as the world’s leading power‚ uses his syndicated column to accuse Donald Trump and his populist-nationalist supporters — close to half the voting public — of being a greater threat to America than the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Voters‚ embittered by loss of jobs to Chinese imports‚ Nye wrote‚ “responded readily to Trump’s populism and protectionism.” Nye writes that the United States has “soft power” advantages over China that give it a “strong hand in the twenty-first-century great-power competition.” But he worries that Trump and his populist-nationalist followers — if they regain power — will weaken America and lead to its decline. Nye has been preaching his “soft power” mantra for decades now‚ but China’s leaders know that it is “hard power” that wins international rivalries. (READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: China’s Defense Minister Is Now an Admiral. What Does That Mean for Taiwan?) Nye worked for three failed foreign policy presidents‚ though in his most recent book Do Morals Matter?: Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump he has the chutzpah to rank Clinton‚ Obama‚ and Carter ahead of Eisenhower‚ Reagan‚ Nixon‚ and George H.W. Bush. Nye in that book revealed himself to be nothing more than a partisan advocate who uses academic theories to support his preferred candidates — which are always Democrats. And now‚ Nye joins the leftist media narrative repeated daily on MSNBC that Trump and his followers are the greatest threat to America.  In an interview this past October‚ Nye calls himself a “liberal realist‚” though he is anything but realistic about China’s rise and its long-term goals. U.S. policymakers have been engaging China since the early 1970s. During the Cold War against the Soviet Union‚ it made sense to engage China because it was a de facto ally of the United States during the final decades of the Cold War. Once the Soviet Union collapsed‚ Nye was one of those liberal internationalists that thought China could be integrated economically and politically into the U.S.-led liberal world order. In an article in 2006‚ Nye reflected on the Clinton administration’s policy toward China‚ which derided the “hawks” who called for containing China. “We … knew‚” he wrote‚ “that if we treated China as an enemy‚ we were ensuring future enmity.” He characterized Clinton’s policy as a combination of “realism and liberalism: balance of power and economic integration.” In a January 9‚ 2024 column‚ Nye again praised Clinton’s approach to China‚ and lamented that engagement’s “last gasp” was in 2015 when China joined the Obama administration is supporting climate change and Xi and Obama agreed to refrain from cyber espionage. Engagement died when Trump became president. Voters‚ embittered by loss of jobs to Chinese imports‚ Nye wrote‚ “responded readily to Trump’s populism and protectionism.”  But engagement has risen from the grave with the Biden administration. Nye calls it by other names — ”managed competition” and “competitive coexistence” — but the substance is the same. And those embittered voters are now a greater threat to America than China‚ according to Nye.(READ MORE: The Folly of Empire‚ 20 Years Later) Nye urges Americans not to “succumb to hysteria about China’s rise‚” even as FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress‚ “China’s hackers are positioning on American infrastructure in preparation to wreak havoc and cause real-world harm to American citizens and communities.” Wray warned that China is threatening “our security and economy.” Perhaps Director Wray has “succumbed to hysteria about China’s rise.” Back in 2015‚ Nye told The Diplomat that “it is doubtful that China will have the military capability to pursue any overly ambitious dreams in the next several decades‚” and noted that he “welcomed” China’s “peaceful rise.” In 2022‚ Nye noted Xi Jinping’s more assertive policies‚ but cautioned U.S. leaders to avoid “ideological demonization and misleading Cold War analogies.” At least Nye is consistent — consistently wrong about the implications of China’s rise.   The post Joseph Nye Claims Trump Supporters Are a Greater Threat Than China appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado presidential ballot in 2024 is inconsistent with critical facts in the timeline of events that occurred on January 6‚ 2021‚ in Washington‚ D.C. The Court’s conclusion that Trump incited an insurrection is largely based on words that Trump spoke after the barricades at the Capitol were first breached. In Anderson v. Griswold‚ the Court ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection‚ largely basing its decision on the phrase in Trump’s January 6 speech in which he said “fight‚ we fight like hell.” Although the Court gave other reasons‚ the Court made it clear that this phrase was a significant reason for its decision. The Court stated on page five‚ “President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6‚ 2021‚ was not protected by the First Amendment.” On page 10‚ the Court said the following: In his speech‚ which began around noon‚ President Trump persisted in rejecting the election results‚ telling his supporters that … if they did not “fight like hell‚ [they would] not … have a country anymore.” Before his speech ended‚ portions of the crowd began moving toward the Capitol. In the section beginning on page 96 entitled “President Trump Engaged in Insurrection‚” the Court stated on page 101: “And upon breaching the Capitol‚ the mob immediately pursued its intended target — the certification of the presidential election — and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building.” On page 102‚ the Court stated that “soon after breaching the Capitol‚ the mob reached the House and Senate chambers.” On page 106‚ the Court stated that Trump engaged in “insurrection by acting overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose.” On page 111‚ the Court noted that Trump gave his speech at “the Ellipse.” On pages 111-112‚ the Court wrote: President Trump then gave a speech in which he literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol. Among other things‚ he told the crowd … “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell‚ you’re not going to have a country anymore.” The “fight” phrase was critical for the Court. On page 116‚ the Court stated that Trump “exhorted the insurrectionists” “to fight.” On page 124‚ the Court relied upon testimony by a sociology professor who was “an expert in political extremism” who testified in the district (trial) court: that (1) “violent far-right extremists understood that [President] Trump’s calls to ‘fight‚’ which most politicians would mean only symbolically‚ were‚ when spoken by [President] Trump‚ literal calls to violence by these groups‚ while Trump’s statements negating that sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability” … and that (2) “Trump’s speech took place in the context of a pattern of Trump’s knowing ‘encouragement and promotion of violence’ to develop and deploy a shared coded language with his violent supporters.” On pages 125-126‚ the Court approvingly cited the district court’s conclusion that Trump’s “fight” phrase was “incendiary”: The district court then identified specific incendiary language in President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on January 6 … President Trump announced‚ “we’re going to walk down‚ and I’ll be with you‚ we’re going to walk down …  to the Capitol” … He “used the word ‘fight’ … (“And we fight.  We fight like hell.  And if you don’t fight like hell‚ you’re not going to have a country anymore.”) … In short‚ the district court found that President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse “was understood by a portion of the crowd as‚ a call to arms.” On pages 127-128‚ the Court stated: The fact that‚ at one point during his speech‚ President Trump said that “everyone here will soon be marching to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” does not persuade us that the district court erred … This isolated reference “cannot inoculate [President Trump] against the conclusion that his exhortation‚ made nearly an hour later‚ to ‘fight like hell’ immediately before sending rally-goers to the Capitol‚ within the context of the larger Speech and circumstances‚ was not protected expression. The Court continued to focus on Trump’s “fight” phrase on pages 128-130 &; 132. Trump said the phrase “fight‚ we fight like hell‚” only once and the Court never quoted the phrase in context. Here is the paragraph of the speech in which the phrase appears: Our brightest days are before us.  Our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security‚ because nobody‚ until I came along‚ had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again‚ most people would stand there at 9 o’clock in the evening and say‚ “I want to thank you very much‚” and they go off to some other life. But I said something is wrong here‚ something is really wrong‚ can’t have happened‚ and we fight. We fight like hell‚ and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore. Based largely on Trump’s “fight” phrase‚ the Colorado district court judge concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection‚ as seen on pages 43 &; 45-46 of her decision. Trump begins his speech at 3:28:45 in this video‚ with the paragraph quoted above coming at 4:41 in the video. Trump’s speech ends two minutes later. A time-stamped video of his speech is here. Trump’s speech began at noon local time and ended at 1:12 p.m. and was delivered from the Ellipse across the street from the south lawn of the White House. From the location of the speech to the Capitol is a little more than a mile and a half. The barricades at the Capitol were first breached at 1:00 p.m. Because the phrase “fight‚ we fight like hell” was spoken by Trump two minutes before the speech ended at 1:12 p.m.‚ he spoke the phrase at 1:10 p.m. Given that the barricades were first breached at 1:00 p.m.‚ and Trump’s delivery of the “fight” phrase took place at 1:10 p.m.‚ Trump’s speech could not have caused the breach of the barricades. Although the loudspeaker system was massive‚ it is highly doubtful that the people breaching the barricades could hear Trump from the loudspeaker system‚ and neither the district court nor the Colorado Supreme Court provide any evidence that anybody who breached the barricades were listening to Trump’s speech. The Colorado Supreme Court does not provide any evidence that the “fight” phrase was transmitted by text messages or otherwise to people at the Capitol building. The Colorado Supreme Court does not tell us who was incited to breach the barricades at the Capitol by Trump’s phrase “fight‚ we fight like hell.” Where is the evidence that those who breached the barricades were incited to do it by that part of Trump’s speech? Where is the evidence that those who were inside the Capitol building were incited to stay there by that part of Trump’s speech? The Colorado Supreme Court largely based its opinion on Trump’s phrase “fight‚ we fight like hell” when that phrase could not have caused the breach of the barricades. Moreover‚ there is no evidence cited showing that the phrase was communicated to anybody who thereafter committed illegal activity on January 6‚ 2021. Trump’s recent Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court does not discuss the timeline issue. READ MORE on Jan. 6: The Law of Conspiracy: Its Use and Abuse Against Trump The Left Has Plenty More Reasons to Indict Trump Jan. 6: Bad Advice Has Bad Consequences Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles.   The post Colorado Supreme Court Fails Jan. 6th Timeline appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Former President Trump is all but certain to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and he will defeat President Biden in November — if the voters are allowed to decide the outcome. Though a number of polls show Trump leading in most if not all of the seven states that will be truly competitive this year‚ only Georgia and North Carolina have enacted meaningful election integrity legislation since the last presidential contest. The remaining five have doggedly refused to adopt serious reforms that will ensure fair and honest elections. Not coincidentally‚ they include states that Biden won in 2020 by tiny margins after protracted post-election vote counting. [B]eing ahead in the polls on Election Day means virtually nothing in an all mail-in state. Arizona provides an illustrative example. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average‚ Trump leads Biden in the Grand Canyon State by 4.5 points. This obviously suggests that his chances of capturing its 11 electoral votes‚ particularly considering that he won them in 2016 and only lost to Biden by a miniscule 0.4 percent in 2020. The fly in the ointment is Arizona’s Democratic governor‚ Katie Hobbs. Despite the chaos and controversy that has characterized her state’s last two elections she has vetoed 21 election integrity bills passed by the Republican legislature. This won’t surprise anyone who read the guest editorial she wrote for the far left Democracy Docket about attacks on “our democracy” by the wicked GOP: Across the country‚ Republican legislatures are hard at work passing laws to restrict and deny the fundamental and sacred freedom to vote. Even worse‚ conspiracy theorists are running for public office … There is no mistaking what these Republicans are doing. They are explicitly and unapologetically making the ballot box inaccessible for voters‚ especially for people of color and seniors. The freedom to vote is fundamental to our democracy. Hobbs is by no means the only Democratic governor of a battleground state to wield the veto pen in the war against election integrity. In Wisconsin‚ where the RCP polling average shows Trump leading Biden by less than 1 point‚ Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed every election reform bill passed by the state’s Republican legislature. In 2022‚ he killed nine such bills‚ including legislation that would ban election officials from accepting grants from private entities (e.g. Zuckbucks). Evers also vetoed a measure that would have banned automatic mailing of absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. In 2023‚ he vetoed legislation that would have required the state Elections Commission to verify voter citizenship. In nearby Michigan‚ where the RealClearPolitics polling average shows Trump leading Biden by 5.1 points‚ Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has made common cause with her Arizona and Wisconsin counterparts in their war on election integrity legislation. She has vetoed bills meant to make absentee ballot fraud a felony. Whitmer has killed measures that would have strengthened voter ID requirements. She has vetoed legislation requiring Michigan to clean up its voter rolls‚ ignoring a report from the state’s Auditor General that found multiple failures by the state’s Bureau of Elections to remove deceased voters and those who have failed to vote since the last century. Readers will find her rationalizations all too familiar: I vetoed legislation that would have perpetuated the “Big Lie” or made it harder for Michiganders to vote. Right now‚ Michigan Republicans are participating in a coordinated‚ national attack on voting rights that is designed to undermine confidence in our election system and systematically disenfranchise Black voters‚ communities of color‚ older voters‚ and college students. I will have no part in any effort that grants an ounce of credence to this deception. In Pennsylvania Trump’s poll numbers are underwhelming and election integrity legislation was throttled in the cradle by the current governor’s predecessor. Before his term ended in early 2023‚ Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed legislation that would have strengthened voter ID requirements‚ decreased the abuse of mail-in ballots‚ and tightened the rules governing ballot drop boxes. The current incumbent‚ Democrat Josh Shapiro‚ has been spared the necessity of using his veto pen on election reform because Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is divided. Republicans control its Senate and Democrats control its House of Representatives. Even if an election reform bill reached his desk‚ it would be vetoed by Shapiro. (READ MORE from David Catron: Is This What Biden Meant By ‘Unity’?) The fifth state in which election integrity will be a serious problem in 2024 is Nevada. This should be a good state for Trump. The RCP average shows him leading Biden by 7 points‚ but the Silver State has now become the latest to conduct elections entirely by mail and ballot harvesting is legal. As former Senate candidate Adam Laxalt discovered in November of 2022‚ being ahead in the polls on Election Day means virtually nothing in an all mail-in state. It is no coincidence that every state that conducts its elections entirely by mail (California‚ Colorado‚ Hawaii‚ Oregon‚ Utah‚ Vermont‚ and Washington) have become single-party fiefdoms — all but one of which is controlled by Democrats. Nevada is unlikely to be an exception. Where does this leave Trump’s bid to become the second President in American history to be elected to nonconsecutive terms? Assuming Trump wins every state he won in 2020‚ plus Arizona‚ Georgia‚ and Nevada he will still need a “blue wall” state to hit 270. Unless the bottom falls out due to a conviction for one of the “crimes” he has been charged with‚ he may well win Michigan. If a significant percentage of Muslim voters refuse to vote for Biden because of his (tepid) support for Israel or Trump picks up a lot of the union vote‚ it’s plausible. If he wins those 15 electoral votes‚ he could afford to give up Arizona or Nevada. This will overcome Trump’s swing state challenge and restore the public’s faith in our elections. READ MORE from David Catron: College Grads for Trump Trump Ballot Bans and the Specter of Bush v. Gore The post Trump’s Swing State Challenge appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’ve been stating for a decade that men will save America from the forces of leftist darkness‚ and this election year should be the turning point. Because time is running out‚ as more young women turn to the dark side. But the entertainment medium which once helped guide the two sexes toward their essential separate roles has spent this century denying both and diminishing one — manhood. Today‚ screen fiction can’t even present a classic male hero story without sinking it in woke garbage. Case in point — the new Amazon Prime series‚ Zorro. Portela sticks reasonably close to the original great story … but his liberal deviations damage it beyond repair. There’s a reason Zorro has been a popular character for more than a hundred years‚ preceding yet inspiring all the comic-book heroes that followed‚ in particular Superman and Batman. The idea of a lone mystery man using his exceptional warrior skill to fight societal tyranny but disguising it under a meek persona never gets old. For‚ sadly‚ neither does societal tyranny. And the contemptible clot now wrecking America certainly deserves to be branded by a Z‚ the mark of Zorro. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Look What They’ve Done to My Song) The rot starts at the top with the decomposing zombie in the White House. His corrupt Department of Justice and other legal minions hunt nonviolent ideological opponents with Stasi-like zeal. Last week’s conviction of six pro-life Christians who did nothing more than pray outside a Tennessee abortion center cries out for dynamic intervention. The group could face more than ten years in prison‚ while the illegal-alien muggers of two New York City policemen strut out free from the courthouse‚ one flipping his middle finger at the camera. A crimson Z across his chest would be very appropriate. During the now effectively over Republican primary‚ I actively supported Ron DeSantis‚ the best state governor in my lifetime. I knew he would drain the liberal swamp politically‚ not violently like Zorro. Last week‚ DeSantis didn’t just talk‚ he acted. He deployed members of the Florida National Guard to Texas to support governor Greg Abbott’s border-closing effort‚ defying the Biden Administration’s open-border adamance. And as a nightcap‚ a federal judge tossed out Woke Disney’s crybaby lawsuit against DeSantis for being a meany to them. However‚ the septuagenarian former president beat DeSantis‚ practically guaranteeing a rematch between two tired old men‚ one of them senile. In a way‚ it had to be thus — the last gasping battle cry of a generation about to lose power forever. I’ll back Trump with everything I got‚ short of a rapier‚ because now only he can stem the darkness. And this time it’s personal. Unfortunately‚ Zorro won’t be riding to the rescue this year‚ perhaps in 2024. What about his latest screen incarnation? The new show could have been decent but falls short‚ brought down by the inescapable gravity of wokeness. Writer-creator Carlos Portela sticks reasonably close to the original great story by Johnston McCulley in his 1919 novel‚  The Curse of Capistrano‚ but his liberal deviations damage it beyond repair. What do Portela and the series producers care that the book sold more than 50 million copies to be one of the bestselling books of all time? Or that the 1920 Douglas Fairbanks adaptation‚ The Mark of Zorro‚ was one of silent cinema’s biggest hits. Or that the 1940 Tyrone Power version‚ The Mark of Zorro‚ is the best swashbuckler ever made‚ featuring the greatest swordfight in film history. They just had to modernize it‚ which in showbiz speak means feminize‚ which in reality means ruin. (READ MORE: Beauty Survives the Left) The pilot episode begins with the death of Zorro. That is the Latino Indian embodying Zorro‚ who it turns out even the bad guys know is a succession of different men. This idea rather diminishes the Zorro mystique. Portela should have checked out The Phantom‚ Lee Falk’s hugely popular‚ enduring comic strip about a seemingly immortal Zorro-like hero in Africa nicknamed “the ghost who walks‚” really the first-born male of one family going back centuries. Then the real female trouble starts. An Indian warrioress — a typical modern Hollywood fabrication — played by Dalia Xiuhcoatl demands that the medicine man make her the new Zorro (or is that Zorra?). The resulting sound isn’t the Indian spirits but the channel being changed by every boy who knows she’d last about half a minute in a swordfight. The remaining spirits choose young Diego De La Vega (a tolerable Miguel Bernardeau)‚ whose father was also just murdered by the corrupt regime. So where in all good versions of the tale‚ Diego seeks justifiable vengeance against the ruling tyrants of Los Angeles‚ this Diego is reluctantly drafted. It’s a major dent in his knightly armor. Soon follows the next fatal blow for girl power over enjoyment. Diego’s childhood girlfriend Lolita (a stunning Renata Notni) sees him riding toward her father’s hacienda. She runs up to her bedroom and gets into a lovely red dress‚ becoming a rare screen vision of feminine beauty. For a moment‚ some naïve viewers might think the vision will hold. Until Lolita apparently remembers her girl-boss obligation and says‚ “No!” She appears to Diego wearing a hideous hat and manly dress. Diego still kisses her‚ but as he’s riding away‚ she fires a rifle at his hat and blows it away. That’ll teach him for his “Me too” violation. (READ MORE: The Boys in the Shaky Boat) Eventually‚ Diego must also contend with Indian Warrioress‚ who challenges him to a fight for snubbing her as Zorro. This being a modern rendition of the story‚ Indian Warrioress wins. Consequently‚ the mark of Zorro is no longer Z but L — for loser. But male and female viewers won’t be sticking around to see more of him The post The Woke of Zorro appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The loud pro-Hamas protests that have unfolded across Europe and North America for the past few months are the latest manifestation of a transformation that has been going on for decades. Many protesters carried Islamic flags and chanted “death to the Jews” or “from the river to the sea‚ Palestine will be free.” They attempted to disrupt the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in New York City‚ with some shouting “burn it down.” They blocked roads‚ targeted shops‚ disrupted gatherings‚ and harassed Western leaders and politicians‚ from King Charles to Justin Trudeau‚ Keir Starmer‚ and Joe Biden‚ to name a few. The elites have instigated a demographic change‚ resulting in crime-ridden‚ divided‚ poorer‚ and less tolerant societies. In Montreal‚ thousands gathered to listen to a man masked with a Palestinian kufiyah in the style of Hamas chief terrorist Abu Obaida. He asked his audience what they wanted‚ and they replied: a revolution — “intifada.” The same slogan was repeated on January 13th at a demonstration in front of the White House. The Elite Universities and Terrorism While the world was reeling from the shocking brutality of the October 7th attacks‚ vocal groups in the West began praising Hamas and justifying its crimes. In a staggering display of callousness‚ 31 student organizations at Harvard University‚ consisting mainly of students from the Middle East and Asia‚ issued a lengthy statement indicting Israel for Hamas’s crimes‚ hours after the attacks. They stated that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for the unfolding violence.” A student group at Tufts University issued an even more disturbing statement‚ claiming that “Since Friday‚ Palestinians have been launching a historic attack on the colonizers. Footage of the liberation fighters from Gaza paragliding into occupied territory has shown the creativity necessary to take back stolen land.” Columbia University’s Students for Justice in Palestine claimed that Hamas’s actions were “a counter-offensive against their settler-colonial oppressor.” On January 23rd this year‚ during a pro-Hamas protest held at that university‚ the gathered students praised the violence and called (in Arabic) for the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews. From the Halls of Power to the Streets In contrast to Western governments‚ most of which condemned Hamas and supported Israel‚ two Muslim American congresswomen‚ along with 19 Muslim MPs in Britain‚ failed to denounce the terrorist organization‚ or even urge it to release the children and women they had kidnapped. Instead‚ they have raucously condemned Israel and the governments which support it. For instance‚ the British MP for Birmingham‚ Tahir Ali‚ accused the British Prime Minister of having “the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands.” Muslim American congresswoman Rashida Tlaib‚ who came to the U.S. as a refugee‚ defended posting the first half of the slogan: “From the river to the sea‚ Palestine will be free‚” claiming that it is a call for peace. In contrast‚ British PM Rishi Sunak affirmed that “Those who chant ‘from the river to the sea’ are either useful idiots who do not understand what they are saying or worse‚ people who wish to wipe the Jewish state from the map.” One Country but Not One Nation In France‚ a poll conducted a month after the Hamas attacks revealed that 50 percent of French Muslims under 25 years of age and 53 percent aged over 50 characterize Hamas atrocities as “resistance against colonization.” Nineteen percent of the questioned French Muslims affirmed that they support Hamas. This contrasts sharply with the French general public‚ 90 percent of whom view Hamas attacks as war crimes and terrorism. A similar disparity exists in most other European countries. The gap between immigrant societies and native communities in Europe encompasses a wide array of essential values‚ from views on homosexuality‚ women’s rights‚ human rights‚ freedom of expression‚ and the role of religion in daily life. Did the leaders of the Western world understand this disparity when drafting their immigration policies? Revolutionary Vision of the Mediocre The ruling political parties of western Europe oversaw a mass migration of people mainly from Africa and Asia to the West‚ aiming to improve the prosperous‚ peaceful‚ homogeneous‚ aging populations with multicultural‚ multi-ethnic‚ diverse communities. They argued that this would bring a surplus of laborers‚ progressive voters‚ more tolerance‚ and prosperity. Angela Merkel is a prominent example of a politician who pursued this policy. She argued that Germany should have no limits in accepting illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. In 2015‚ she reportedly asked then-Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to censor criticism of her decision to allow millions of illegal immigrants into Germany. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is another staunch champion of multiculturalism and mass migration; he allowed over a million immigrants in the past three years and has repeatedly affirmed that “Diversity is Canada’s strength.” The newcomers were encouraged to maintain their cultures‚ beliefs‚ and social identities and to look down on the culture of the host societies. For instance‚ in 2006‚ Sweden’s then-Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said while visiting a town known for its large immigrant population that ‘Swedish indigenous culture was simple barbarism. Civilization had come from outside.” The number of Syrian-born individuals living in Sweden increased from less than seven thousands in 1990 to 197‚799 in 2023; Iraqi-born from 9‚818 to 146‚831; and Somali-born from 1‚441 to 69‚477. Over six million people immigrated into Germany alone between 2013 and 2022‚ and an additional 351‚915 individuals applied for asylum just last year: 104‚561 from Syria‚ 62‚624 from Turkey‚ and 53‚582 from Afghanistan. In France‚ the number of asylum applicants in 2023 was 142‚500‚ and in the UK‚ a further 93‚296‚ with Afghans constituting the largest portion. Criminal clans‚ grenade attacks‚ rape pandemic‚ no-go zones‚ mass shootings‚ honor killings‚ terrorism‚ and gang warfare became the new norms in Sweden‚ Norway‚ Denmark‚ Finland‚ among other European countries‚ with migrants and asylum seekers having been blamed for them. The Paris attacks of 2015‚ the Charlie Hebdo shooting‚ the Manchester Arena bombing‚ the Brussels bombings‚ the Berlin attack‚ the 2015-16 New Year’s sexual assaults in Germany‚ the 2010 Stockholm bombings‚ the 2017 truck attack‚ and the 2018 Freiburg gang rape are a few of the countless major crimes perpetrated by immigrants and asylum seekers. While steadfastly pursuing their agenda‚ the elites have demonstrated a striking disregard for the larger public’s opinion and the facts on the ground. They don’t tolerate dissenting voices and cast those who don’t conform to their ideas as evil‚ greedy‚ unwilling to share with others‚ and ignorant. The way Gordon Brown dealt with a Labor voter who confronted him about the economy and immigration policies during his 2010 election campaign exemplifies the elite’s mentality. Brown feigned compassion while listening to the sincere woman‚ but once in his car‚ was overheard calling her a “bigoted woman” whom he “shouldn’t have met with.” The elites have instigated a demographic change‚ resulting in crime-ridden‚ divided‚ poorer‚ and less tolerant societies. This change has caused immense harm to the natives‚ not just the many victims of terrorism and crimes but also all taxpayers‚ who bear the burden of supporting foreigners unwilling to contribute or assimilate into society. Legal immigrants eager to integrate might be the most adversely affected by illegal migration. Meanwhile‚ the elites‚ along with a portion of their supporters‚ have benefited from this transformation. The promise of improving Western societies by creating policies based on notions such as open borders‚ positive discrimination‚ equity‚ diversity‚ inclusion‚ and multiculturalism has been successfully employed to secure electoral victories‚ fame‚ and influence. Many corporations have made fortunes from lucrative government contracts dedicated to providing housing‚ healthcare‚ education‚ and other services for illegal immigrants. In 2023‚ Germany spent at least 48.2 billion Euros of taxpayers’ money on migrants.  (READ MORE: Georgetown University Stumps for the Muslim Brotherhood) The people who have instituted the societal transformation have largely remained sheltered from its negative effects. Angela Merkel was re-elected after she allowed the entry of millions of unvetted‚ illegal immigrants‚ including terrorists and rapists. Fredrik Reinfeldt‚ who played a significant role in changing the demographics of Sweden‚ remained in power for eight years. The demographic change has already occurred‚ at a price to the people on the ground‚ while benefiting the elites. The mass migration and demographic transformation will continue as long as the decision-makers are not directly affected by the adverse consequences. Until the elites are held accountable for what they have done‚ there won’t be any meaningful reform. READ MORE: American Muslims Must Repudiate Pro-Hamas Charities ‘Holocaust Envy’ and the New Anti-Semitism Islamist Academics and Activists Shill for Jailed Jihadists The post Hamas and the West’s Demographic Transformation appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.