This is huge.

Eurythmics singer performed "Nothing Compares 2 U" during the show's in memoriam section. Continue reading…

Singer-songwriter also took home the award for Best Folk Album. Continue reading…

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.