The road to the Trump White House winds through Arizona‚ and that means Kari Lake’s Senate bid is critical. The question for Republicans in the state is whether they’ll get on board with the Lake candidacy and help Donald Trump win the presidency and the GOP control of the Senate. READ MORE: Katie Hobbs’ Rocky Start in Arizona Kari Lake‚ who ran for governor of Arizona and was beaten by a mostly absent Katie Hobbs and lots of ballot shenanigans in the Republican-controlled Maricopa County‚ has enemies. Lake has been shunned by some McCain-loving and Trump-hating Arizona Republicans. In her first book‚ Unafraid‚ she writes of an embarrassing interaction with then-Gov. Doug Ducey‚ a meeting of 10 minutes that passed in silence. He’s not the only Arizona Republican who’d rather have a Democrat leader than Kari Lake. One wonders why. At a fundraiser in Palm Beach Florida last weekend‚ Lake listed some basic concerns. First‚ the border. This is an obvious place to start considering that the issue was central to Trump’s 2016 win and animates the Arizona citizenry — so much so that Democrat Katie Hobbs and the other senators in the race against Lake have been making noises about stopping the illegal immigration. In an interview following her remarks‚ Lake revealed that even the Democrats are being affected by the out-of-control border. Their poll numbers are suffering‚ so they’re taking a verbal hard line while committing to do little. The efforts of Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas to stop illegal immigration has put pressure on Arizona‚ Lake said‚ and Arizona is being overrun. The issue that got the most response at the fundraiser‚ though‚ was woke education. This issue fires up old and young alike. Lake talked about returning to schools to sanity at the local level. (READ MORE: Florida’s Parents Win the Newsom–DeSantis Debate) The issues for Republicans are easy this year: inflation‚ the border‚ woke‚ Ukraine and Israel‚ and the precarious state of the world generally. Kari Lake answers solidly on all the topics. How will she do in the three-way race‚ assuming Kyrsten Sinema runs for reelection? Right now‚ Lake is behind. She has work to do to win the bitter Never Trumpers‚ and she said she’s making phone calls one-by-one to win people over and build a broad base of support from across the spectrum. Her Democrat opponent‚ Ruben Gallego‚ is‚ she says a far leftist. Moderates in the state will have to move to Lake for her to win. Currently‚ Trump is up 5 points over Joe Biden in Arizona. His coattails could help Lake. Will GOP money people‚ aka the National Republican Senatorial Committee‚ give Lake money? Will the Republicans leave MAGA Republicans out in the cold again‚ just like they did the last cycle? Do they still prefer being the minority party? Another question is whether the structural electoral problems in Arizona are fixed. The answers from Lake were ambivalent at best. Republicans must overwhelm the corruption in the system‚ said Lake. Lake also said that she’s telling Republican voters to not send extra absentee ballots back but to hold them to prevent their being scooped up by USPS workers who might give them to Democrats to use fraudulently. Arizona is a must-get seat for the Senate and for the presidency. The Republicans in Arizona have a lot to do to unify in preparation for the election. In a state like Arizona‚ division is destructive — not just for its statewide politics but also for the nation. READ MORE from Melissa Mackenzie: Dumb Jury: The Trickle-Down Effect of No Rule of Law Stumbling Into World War III How Lindsey Graham Sabotaged the Pro-Life Movement Post Dobbs The post Kari Lake’s Bid to Raise Arizona appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Alarmism can have many parents. Sometimes‚ it is conceived by perceptive insight wed to a legitimate concern. Other times‚ it is a child bred by the marriage of ignorance and bias.  Recently‚ the media has sounded an alarm that a potential second term for Donald Trump would quickly descend into despotism. Trump playfully fueled this fear when he recently said he would act as a “dictator” on “Day 1” and then not do so after that point.  This fear mostly comes from ignorance and bias. Thinking the former president can install a tyranny likely overstates his abilities. But the particular reforms proposed by those around him show the accusation’s weakness. These reforms seek to give the president greater control over bureaucratic agencies through proposals like making it easier to fire bureaucrats who refuse to obey presidential directives or who just slow-walk them to undermine their implementation.  Those treating these critiques and reforms as originating with Trump have failed to pay attention to the conservative movement. Criticisms of the “Administrative State” have been leveled by the Right for decades‚ taking special prominence in the late 2000s and into the 2010s. They do not originate from Trump‚ and they not come not from a personality cult whose only desire is to empower him. (READ MORE: Trump’s Second-Term Mandate: Restore Constitutional Government) These criticisms‚ moreover‚ have a strong basis in fact. Our system of bureaucratic government contradicts our constitutional structure in two ways.  First‚ the bureaucratic system violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. The French political thinker Montesquieu argued that political power could be classified into three functions: lawmaking (legislative)‚ law enforcing (executive)‚ and adjudicating legal disputes (judicial). The Founders‚ agreeing with Montesquieu‚ created distinct institutions fitted to exercise each power. Doing so was intended to make government less prone to abuse since branches could check each other’s encroachments. The system also sought to create better quality‚ as each institution acted according to its design to operate effectively.  By contrast‚ our bureaucratic agencies consolidate all three powers into the same institutions‚ even the same persons. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency write regulations that hold the force of law. They have officials who go out across the country enforcing those regulations. They even have their own administrative law judges who adjudicate disputes between persons or businesses and the agencies in which they are housed. James Madison would call such set-ups the very definition of tyranny. But it also has proven deeply inefficient‚ with agencies often inept and bumbling in their administrative actions.  The other way bureaucratic government undermines our constitutional structure is by undermining our republican form of government. Every political system has a sovereign‚ some person or persons who hold the ultimate ruling authority. For some‚ that ruler is one king‚ while for others it is a small group of aristocrats. In our system‚ the people as a whole rule. They do so through elected officeholders‚ especially the president and members of Congress. All legitimate exertions of political will must originate from them‚ either through the Constitution itself or actions taken by those representing them in the government.  The Administrative State claims to take its cues from the people. Its bureaucrats point to congressional statutes or presidential directives enabling their actions. However‚ these laws and orders rarely give more than the most vague‚ generalized guidance. The agencies tend to make the real policy and principled decisions independently. When they get clear orders from Congress or the president‚ they often ignore or willfully misinterpret them. This all results in the will of the people being ignored or even contradicted on many counts. It risks replacing our popular government with an aristocracy of administrators.  Many of the concrete proposals for a new Trump — or really any new Republican administration — will seek to push back toward our constitutional system by reforming its bureaucratic competitor. Does that mean there won’t be overreach by President Trump? No. Presidents themselves often try to usurp the powers of other branches‚ especially the legislative. However‚ unlike our modern‚ superimposed Administrative State‚ our constitutional system has the checks to push against that.  Let’s not fall for false alarmism. Instead‚ let’s assess presidential candidates on the level of their policies and whether those policies conform to our system of constitutional government. RELATED: After Axon‚ the Supreme Court’s Battle to Keep Powers Separated Is Just Beginning Cancel Chevron‚ Not Disney The post Debunking False Alarmism Surrounding a Second Trump Administration appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

How do you rein in a belligerent colossus with 1.4 billion people‚ nuclear weapons‚ and a desire to command and control the world’s economic order that has prevailed since the end of World War II?  Well‚ there is a way; it is the specter of Adam Smith‚ the 18th-century Scottish economist and philosopher‚ who could give China some reckoning.  READ MORE: Are the US and China Truly ‘Polar Opposites’? “Holding China accountable” was the mantra in the early days of the COVID-19 global pandemic‚ undisclosed by China‚ which shut down domestic flights in and out of Wuhan yet allowed international ones to proceed‚ seeding the world with a deadly pathogen. As I have written in The American Spectator‚ holding a country to account‚ particularly the second-largest economy in the world‚ is a theoretical and impractical concept — one that would require investigation and good faith collaboration by China itself.  As I also suggested‚ it would ultimately be Adam Smith’s invisible hand‚ a metaphor introduced in his treatise The Wealth of Nations‚ which refers to the unseen force of self-interest as governing economic activity — supported by the profit motive.  Foreign direct investment in China‚ estimated at over $4.3 trillion since 1979 according to Macrotrends LLC (data summed by the writer)‚ has for decades driven China’s economic model: It has raised standards of living‚ pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty‚ and given China massive foreign currency reserves‚ which are now over $3.1 trillion. With this stunning success has come belligerence toward Japan‚ South Korea‚ Taiwan‚ India‚ Southeast Asia‚ and the United States; gloating over its Belt and Road Initiative‚ which‚ established in 2013‚ now embraces over 150 countries in an effort to supplant the current rules-based order for trade and investment; and suppression of dissent in western China and Hong Kong. Once a vibrant center for investment banking‚ insurance‚ international trade‚ manufacturing and services‚ Hong Kong has lost its autonomy and attractiveness under the authoritarian rule of Beijing. (READ MORE: Why Has the CCP Banned Demonizing America?) Having assessed operating and political risk‚ some of corporate America is now rethinking its China commitments and exposure there.  Of late‚ Adam Smith’s invisible hand is at work in Apple’s strategic decision‚ as reported last week by the Wall Street Journal‚ to produce over 50 million iPhones per year in India‚ representing one-fourth of the company’s iPhone production after several years. While Apple is not withdrawing from China‚ the company is nonetheless reducing concentration in its supply chain and is a high visibility vanguard. Another signal‚ as reported in November by the Peterson Institute for International Economics‚ is an outflow of foreign capital from China — more than $100 billion through September of this year. This is said to evidence a lack of reinvestment of earnings as well as divestitures of direct investments to Chinese parties. Increasing business regulation‚ intensified national security concerns‚ the desire to control cross-border data‚ the shutdown of foreign consultancy firms‚ and increasing tensions between the United States and China are cited as governing factors.  Further‚ institutional investors reduced their holdings of Chinese debt and equity by $31 billion through October of this year‚ as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Major investment firms such as Carlyle and Vanguard have moderated or cancelled their China initiatives.  The Chinese economy is also floundering. Although the International Monetary Fund predicts 4.5 percent to 5 percent GDP growth for 2023‚ this is well below historical rates and is believed insufficient to address youth unemployment‚ which earlier this year exceeded 21 percent. In August‚ China’s leading property developer‚ Evergrande‚ filed for Chapter 15 protection under the U.S. bankruptcy code‚ and subsequently other Chinese developers have defaulted on foreign debt.  China’s vaunted Belt and Road Initiative has resulted in loans for development of infrastructure of over $1 trillion‚ with emphasis on the Global South — however‚ an estimated 80 percent of such debt is now in distress‚ according to AidData‚ a research organization affiliated with the College of William and Mary. Longer term‚ the joint family system of China‚ a social safety net to support the elderly‚ is stressed by the one-child policy implemented in 1979 by Deng Xiaoping‚ and China will need to allocate resources for this domestic priority. (RELATED: Kim Jong Un‚ Demographic Destiny‚ and DINKs) For over four decades‚ foreign direct investment has been vital to China’s remarkable economic success. Leading multinationals and investment firms are now concluding that operating and political risks do not justify the size of their existing commitments to China. Management and boards of directors are mandating supply-chain diversification and reduction of exposure. This is the most important lever of the West to minimally hold China accountable.  No one should rule China out or believe that its economic distress will moderate its desire to upend the world order set forth by the United States and Europe. Nor should one conclude that China would abandon its objective of taking over Taiwan. But Adam Smith can discipline China and slow it down — and‚ at least‚ the gloating may stop. Frank Schell is a business strategy consultant and former senior vice president of the First National Bank of Chicago. He was a lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy‚ University of Chicago‚ and is a contributor of opinion pieces to various journals. READ MORE from Frank Schell: The Naivete of American Foreign Policy China Is Preparing for War — Are We? The post A Specter Is Haunting China appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When Sergio Marchionne was running Fiat‚ he advised people to not buy the electric version of the 500‚ Fiat’s “Italian Job” micro-car. Why? Because each “sale” would cost Fiat a lot of money as the electric 500 could not be sold for what it cost to build‚ plus a profit margin sufficient to make it worth building. It was too expensive — and too limited. It was for these reasons what people in the car industry call a loss leader — usually also a compliance car. The latter refers to a car that’s built solely to satisfy government regulatory requirements and is inevitably sold at a loss — because very few buyers want to pay for it. READ MORE from Eric Peters: The Car That Pulls Itself Over Sergio’s gone now‚ and Fiat’s bringing back the 500‚ which this time will only be available as a battery-powered device. It will cost $34‚095 — and the price you’ll pay for that is device that might go 149 miles on a full charge. When the Fiat 500 (no “e”) was last available new‚ just before the event all too many people continue to refer to as the “pandemic” (it’s a mistake to refer to that event as such for the same reason it’s a mistake to use the word “vaccine” to describe the drugs that were and are being pushed on people)‚ it cost about half as much and could go about twice as far (about 300 miles in city driving; 365 on the highway)‚ in part because it weighed about 2‚500 lbs.‚ which made it one of the lightest new cars then available. The battery-powered 2024 500 will probably set a new record-holder for the smallest‚ heaviest new car ever offered for sale. Just 142 inches long‚ the Fiat is so small it makes a compact-sized sedan such as a Honda Civic seem a full-size car in comparison. The latter is 184 inches long — or nearly 4 feet longer than the little Fiat. The only car that was just slightly smaller than the 500 was the no-longer-available Smart car made by Mercedes-Benz. And it only seated two. How much will the battery-powered 500 “e” weigh? According to preliminary reports‚ something in the vicinity of 3‚000 pounds — the difference (versus the Fiat 500 sans the “e”) being the weight of the batteries. These push up the weight of this micro car to nearly as heavy as a current mid-sized family car such as the 2024 Toyota Camry. That’s 192.1 inches long — or 4.1 feet longer than the 500 — but only weighs 3‚310 pounds‚ just slightly heavier than the battery-powered 500 “e.” Yet the device is being heralded by the complicit car press as the “lightest EV in America” as well as “affordable” (because it is‚ relative to the $50K average price for a new device) and something spectacular because it goes “almost twice as far” as the last battery-powered version of the 500‚ which Fiat stopped trying to sell (here) just before the event that was a “pandemic” in the same way that what you’re forced to “contribute” to Social Security isn’t a tax precisely because it cost too much relative to how far it could go. The 2019 500 “e” had a best-case range of just a little over 80 miles on a full charge. Now you know why Sergio told people not to buy it. Not that he had to do that. Few did — for the obvious reason. Who willingly pays twice as much to get 50 percent less? That’s a good summary of the battery-powered‚ $34K‚ and 149 mile–range device that looks like the Fiat 500 but amounts to a total repudiation of the concept. As well as the point of the thing. That being lightness‚ efficiency‚ and affordability‚ the reasons for making small cars — or‚ at least‚ used to be. Of course‚ that was before events such as catching a cold that 99.8 percent of the population didn’t die from were called “pandemics.” It is boggling to witness the transitioning of what was‚ as recently as 2019‚ a $16K-ish economy car that almost anyone could afford into a battery-powered device that carries what used to be considered an entry-luxury MSRP heralded by the car press as something other than an idiocy and an outrage. Fiat had trouble selling the 500‚ which wasn’t a device in this country because even though almost anyone could afford to buy it‚ most Americans wanted something bigger and were willing to pay more for it. So now the same car is being returned to the “market” (that term ought also to be retired in favor of something more etymologically honest‚ since the market is not driving the proliferation of these devices) sans the one thing it offered that others didn’t. That being a price tag well under $20K to start. For that sum‚ the buyer got a very practical little runabout that was perfect for city driving (it slots easily into parking spots) that could also venture out on the highway‚ if need be. And for almost 400 miles‚ if necessary. Even so‚ it didn’t sell well enough to keep it on the market‚ and that’s why it no longer is. The only reason it’s coming back — as a device — is to serve as a compliance car for Stellantis‚ which is the corporate umbrella for not just Fiat but also Dodge‚ Ram‚ and Jeep. The latter are also rapidly being force-transitioned into devices‚ but‚ in the meanwhile‚ there is the necessity of complying with the almost-here federal requirement (CAFE) that every manufacturer’s fleet average just shy of 50 MPG. Ram 1500s and Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Chargers (RIP) don’t. But the battery-powered 500 “e” will likely be credited by the regulatory apparat as delivering much more than that‚ via the trickery of “MPGe‚” which makes an EV that only goes 149 miles seem as though it goes much farther by claiming it delivers 100-plus “MPGe” (112 “MPGe” in the case of the 2019 500 “e”). Can you see? Sergio is probably glad he’s no longer around to see it. But we’re going to have to deal with it. The good news is that more and more people are seeing — and no longer believing. Sales of devices are petering out‚ chiefly because those who wanted one already have one — and the rest don’t. The last device Fiat tried to sell didn’t — and after six years‚ Fiat stopped trying. How long will it take this time? READ MORE from Eric Peters: ‘Gas Guzzlers’: The Government Lied About Car Markets Manual Cars Will Soon Be No More The post Complicit Car Media Heralds ‘Revolutionary’ New Electric Vehicle appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Recent rulings by two federal judges in the District of Columbia illustrate how politically biased its entire judiciary has become.  Former Chief Judge Beryl Howell concluded that Donald Trump had not been sufficiently forthcoming in producing documents sought in a defamation suit‚ so she awarded judgment to the plaintiffs in a decision that is certain to be challenged on appeal. She also ruled there were grounds for a ‘crime-fraud exception‘ to Trump’s claims of attorney-client privilege. Earlier‚ she had publicly expressed the hope that federal prosecutors would go easier on J6 defendants who agreed to cooperate with the House’s heavily partisan J6 Committee‚ a rather astonishing breach of judicial ethics. (READ MORE: The Lies of Trump Prosecutor Jack Smith) Along the same lines‚ District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan scheduled Trump’s trial for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election for March 4‚ 2024‚ the day before the multitude of primary elections on Super Tuesday‚ claiming she had balanced Trump’s attorneys’ need to prepare against the public interest in resolving the case expediently. She also has consistently ruled against Trump’s efforts to subpoena J6 Committee materials. Unsurprisingly‚ both judges were appointed by President Barack Obama. At least at the District Court level‚ Trump has yet to prevail in any substantive motion. Judicial Corruption at Watergate Trials The rulings of these two judges are eerily reminiscent of those of the D.C. judges who came to prominence 50 years ago during the unfolding of the Watergate Scandal. Judge Chutkan‚ for example‚ has distinguished herself for meting out exceptionally harsh sentences to those convicted in the January 6 riots‚ including imposing jail time even when not recommended by prosecutors. One cannot help but be reminded of “Maximum John” Sirica‚ the self-appointed Watergate trial judge‚ who (at the secret behest of Samual Dash‚ Majority Counsel of the Senate Ervin Committee) imposed sentences of up to 40 years on the Watergate burglars‚ but conditioned possible reductions for those agreeing to cooperate with Dash’s committee‚ which was as stacked against Republicans as last year’s J6 Committee. Sirica was also the judge who famously refused to postpone the Cover-up Trial following Nixon’s dramatic resignation‚ despite recommendations by both prosecutors and defendants‚ saying on Aug. 19‚ 1974‚ “There is no better time to try this case than the present‚” and adding (rather astoundingly) “this case does not arouse passions‚ hatred and anger‚” which might have justified a delay.  To the monolithic media‚ Sirica was a national hero and was named Time magazine’s 1973 Man of the Year for his aggressive conduct in the Watergate Burglary Trial. But it is difficult to recall a single instance where he ruled in favor of any Watergate defendant. Perhaps the best critique of Judge Sirica is Renata Adler’s article published in Harper’s Magazine in August 2000. (READ MORE from Geoff Shepard: The 18½ Minute Gap in Watergate Recording) Additional documents surfacing in the past decade shed further light on Sirica’s extraordinary judicial conduct. They detail at least a dozen ex parte meetings with Watergate Special Prosecutors‚ including Archibald Cox‚ Leon Jaworski‚ Henry Ruth‚ and the Ervin Committee’s Majority Counsel Samuel Dash. Those hugely improper meetings‚ along with Sirica’s false sentencing of John Dean‚ show an undeniable lack of due process for Watergate Cover-up defendants. Sirica sentenced Dean‚ Nixon’s principal accuser‚ to a prison term of one to four years‚ for the avowed purpose of increasing his credibility as prosecutors’ lead witness. He then reduced that sentence to “time served” once Nixon’s senior aides had been convicted in the Cover-up Trial.  Had these documents not been improperly removed by the top prosecutors — and kept secret for 40 years — they could well have resulted in overturning Sirica’s Watergate verdicts.  Similarly‚ Judge Gerhard Gesell‚ appointed by Sirica to preside over the Plumbers Trial at the behest of prosecutors‚ also had a series of ex parte meetings with Watergate prosecutors‚ each dutifully noted in their internal records. This was particularly offensive as they successfully lobbied the judge to exclude any national security defense for White House Plumber investigations into leaks of highly classified materials. D.C. Circuit Corruption Continues Any hope that the bizarre rulings by Judges Howell and Chutkan might be reversed by an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit appears remote at best. Its current makeup stems from 10 Democrat appointments against three by Republicans — the desired result of Sen. Harry Reid’s ending the filibuster on judicial appointments in his infamous exercise of the “nuclear option” on Nov. 21‚ 2013. Judge Chutkan‚ in particular‚ is a direct beneficiary of Reid’s action‚ being nominated to the D.C. Circuit on Dec. 19‚ 2013 — just a month later. Political troubles on the D.C. Circuit did not originate recently. Perhaps most egregiously‚ there is Archibald Cox’s ex parte meeting with the D.C. Circuit’s chief judge‚ David Bazelon‚ in October 1973. Cox had become so concerned with Judge Sirica’s pro-prosecution rulings‚ that he feared they would win at trial‚ only to be reversed on appeal. This was particularly true because Sirica was already the most reversed judge in the District‚ typically for running roughshod over defendants’ due process rights to fair trials. (READ MORE from Geoff Shepard: Reevaluating the Saturday Night Massacre) In a highly improper secret meeting‚ Cox urged Bazelon to stack the appellate panel on any appeals from Judge Sirica’s criminal cases. Suggesting that the full nine-member appellate court hear all such appeals‚ thereby assuring the court’s dominant liberal bloc could see to it that Sirica’s rulings would not be overturned. That’s precisely what Bazelon did‚ hearing all 12 such appeals sua sponte en banc‚ that is‚ by the full court from the very beginning‚ a procedure that had never occurred — before or since — in any criminal appeal to any Circuit Court in our land.  The full story is best told by the distinguished jurist‚ D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman‚ in his last public appearance before his 2022 death. You can find his re-telling at 1:36:27: It’s not just that clear judicial bias has existed in the District for at least the past 50 years‚ the D.C. jury pool remains equally tainted. Its juries are selected from voter registration rolls‚ a pool that voted 95 percent against Trump in his 2016 victory against Hillary Clinton. This is a well-recognized‚ long-standing bias. According to Bob Woodward’s The Brethren (1979)‚ Justice Potter Stewart told Justices Byron White and William Brennan on July 13‚ 1974‚ the day following John Ehrlichman’s conviction in the Plumbers Trial‚ “Stuart said that‚ as a white man‚ he would not want to be tried in the District of Columbia‚ where the juries were predominantly black. ‘You bet your ass‚’ Brennan replied.”  One major difference since Watergate is today’s lack of a media monopoly. Fifty years ago‚ there were only three TV networks: ABC‚ NBC‚ and CBS‚ all headquartered within six blocks of each other in mid-town Manhattan‚ along with two dominant newspapers: The New York Times and the Washington Post‚ and two weekly news magazines‚ Time Magazine and Newsweek. It wasn’t just a single narrative‚ it was a single narrative generated by one group of New York City elitists. Today‚ at the very least‚ such seemingly biased judicial holdings are being publicly challenged — by Newsmax and Fox News‚ by podcasts and talk radio — and the American public is being offered the opportunity to learn first-hand of their potential impact.  Even so‚ one can only wonder about the possibility of private communications going on behind the scenes today — by and between judges‚ journalists‚ prosecutors‚ and Congress — all of which might just surface over the next 50 years. Geoff Shepard came to Washington in 1969 as a White House fellow after graduating from Harvard Law School. He served on President Richard Nixon’s White House staff for five years‚ including a year as deputy counsel on the president’s Watergate defense team. He has written three books about the internal prosecutorial documents he’s uncovered‚ many of which are posted on his website‚ www.shepardonwatergate.com.  The post Yesterday and Today: Judicial Bias in Washington‚ DC appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Homosexuals abusing surrogacy‚ mold‚ and the Boston Tea Party are just some of the subjects considered on this week’s Spectator P.M. Podcast. Hosts Aubrey Gulick and Luther Abel get into what the Supreme Court might think about abortion pills. The two then consider Christmas decor and the merits of tap dance before Luther recommends checking out Ben Stein’s thoughts on aging in “My Life at 79‚” while Aubrey highlights Scott McKay’s thumping of Joe Biden’s failure to secure foreign-aid funds in “It’s Joe Biden’s Fault He Can’t Get the Ukraine Funding.” (WATCH: The Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Abortion Pill. Here’s Why That Matters.) The two conclude by discussing Anne of Windy Poplars and two films Luther finally got around to seeing: Master and Commander and Top Gun: Maverick. Like and share The Spectator P.M. Podcast on all your favorite platforms‚ and be sure to tune in next week! Read Aubrey’s and Luther’s writing here and here. Listen to The Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Luther Abel on Spotify. Watch The Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Luther Abel on Rumble.  The post <;i>;The Spectator P.M. Podcast<;/i>; Ep. 9: Tap Dance Is Joe Biden’s Fault appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Shortly after returning home from Israel‚ I attended a pro-Hamas demonstration in Toronto‚ Canada‚ as a counterdemonstrator. But this was no ordinary pro-Hamas rally. Its participants billed themselves as “Jews Against Genocide.” It was held outside of Indigo‚ a big-box bookstore in Toronto that is owned by Heather Reisman‚ a wealthy Jewish businesswoman and philanthropist. Ironically‚ her store is known for promoting progressive books. But in the eyes of the demonstrators‚ this fact was irrelevant because she had committed an unforgivable sin: She was known for supporting charities in Israel. During an earlier demonstration in front of this bookstore‚ one of the attendees‚ a professor at York University‚ had vandalized the exterior of the building. Afterward‚ she had been arrested and charged with vandalism‚ and added to this was the charge that the crime was motivated by hate. In Canadian criminal law‚ any crime that is deemed to have been motivated by hate can lead to a stiffer sentence. This demonstration was clearly organized at least in part to protect her. READ MORE from Max Dublin: In Their Words: The Families of Hamas’ Victims “Jews Against Genocide” appears to be an umbrella group of ultra-leftist Jewish organizations. They are the ideological heirs to the rump of the numerous Jewish leftist organizations that arose mainly during the Great Depression‚ when it was considered humanistic by many‚ not only Jews‚ to be a communist. However‚ in February 1956‚ Nikita Khrushchev‚ then premier of the USSR‚ delivered a speech to the 20th Congress of the Soviet Union condemning his predecessor Stalin for his cult of personality‚ his violent repression of the population through purges and the gulag‚ and anti-Semitism. As he delivered this speech‚ some members of the audience burst into tears‚ and others had heart attacks‚ thus discovering that they did have hearts after all. This speech‚ which was soon partially leaked‚ created a huge rift in communist organizations both within the USSR and in the West‚ including in Jewish leftist organizations. After the revelations of Khrushchev’s speech‚ many Jews left these organizations entirely‚ and others split away into more mildly progressive organizations‚ while a rump clung to the extremist dogma. The “Jews Against Genocide” are alt-left Jews who are the spiritual and ideological descendants of this rump. It was a fairly large crowd of demonstrators‚ most of whom were wearing masks and many of whom were wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan “Jews Against Genocide‚” along with the obligatory Arab keffiyeh — but it was impossible to tell how many were actually Jewish. There were also a PA system and a table with microphones for speakers. The demonstration was apparently well organized and well-funded. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: A Goldfish in Time of War) When the first speaker began addressing the crowd‚ she said not a word about the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israelis on Oct. 7. Instead‚ characteristically‚ she began her speech by proclaiming the bone fides of her Jewish organization. They were Jews who cared deeply about Judaism and were there to uphold its highest ideals. They were deeply troubled because they remembered the Holocaust and were‚ therefore‚ horrified by the genocide that Israel was now perpetrating against the Palestinians. G.K. Chesterton once wrote: The Devil can quote Scripture for his purpose; and the text of Scripture which he now most commonly quotes is: “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” That text has been the stay and support of more … self-righteous spiritual bullies than all the dogmas of creation. This was the Jewish version of that sentiment. The second speaker was full of self-righteous indignation. How could the police have arrested the professor for what was obviously no more than civil disobedience? And to add on the charge of hate crime — obviously the work of an ignorant policeman! This speech was the part of the demonstration organized to exonerate the professor and save her from serving any jail time. And on that account‚ it may very well succeed. Canada’s criminal justice system is not corrupt as is America’s‚ but it nevertheless leans heavily toward excusing offenders. The rally was supposed to be an affirmation of righteousness but‚ despite all its pretenses‚ was clearly a mask of hatred‚ a hatred of Israel and of Jews. It has often been said that this is the ilk of the self-hating Jew. That epithet is a misnomer. Such Jews do not hate themselves. On the contrary‚ they are vain and full of themselves. But they do hate. They hate other Jews and anyone who is situated on the wrong side of the tracks vis-à-vis their touted intersectional ideology. For me the worst part of this experience was to find among this crowd one of my very oldest friends. He greeted me and‚ knowing what I must have been thinking and feeling‚ said this shouldn’t come between us. I said that we needed to talk. He said he did not want to talk‚ but I insisted we had to. We met for lunch the next day. First off‚ I asked him how he thought Israel should have responded to the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7. He refused to answer and tried to change the subject. He claimed that he too had once been a Zionist but was no more since 1967‚ the year of the Six-Day War. He branded Israel as a settler-colonialist enterprise‚ parroting the propaganda that the Soviet Union had left as a parting shot when it was kicked out of the Middle East back then. All of the rest of his arguments consisted of whataboutisms‚ false-equivalencies‚ half-truths‚ diversions‚ accusations of thought crimes‚ and rhetorical fallacies. For example‚ he claimed that 150 of the Hamas prisoners who Israel released in exchange for the hostages were mere children. How old? Well‚ under 18. And why had they been arrested? No one knows. The obvious implication was that a 15-‚ 16-‚ or 17-year-old was a mere child who could not possibly do any harm or‚ at least‚ could not possibly have known what he or she was doing. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: We (Non-Islamists) Are All Jews Now) These are the mental gymnastics of the moral idiot savant. In her essays on lying in politics‚ Hannah Arendt observed that in order to be able to deceive‚ the deceiver must first deceive him or herself. This is inevitable; if the deceiver is no mere useful idiot and has even a smattering of conscience‚ then he or she must deceive him or herself in order to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Having recently returned from Israel and having witnessed in real time how the left and right sides of the country have now largely united in the face of this threat to their nation’s existence‚ it was particularly repugnant for me to witness this display of Jewish Jew-hatred in the crowd. As to the old friend I found among them‚ I have other friends to the left of me in the political spectrum‚ and we get along well enough by joking and bantering about our differences. I have always felt that people should not let their political differences come between them. But in the case of this particular old leftist friend‚ I felt compelled to make an exception to that rule. The post Throw That York Professor in Jail‚ Canada. Her Vandalism Was Anti-Semitic. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.