If you were under the illusion that the Women’s National Basketball Association was actually about basketball, the league’s reception of Caitlin Clark might strike you as bewildering. Clark began her professional basketball career in May amid an unprecedented amount of positive attention and energy, with all the makings of the first true WNBA superstar. But from the outset, the world of women’s basketball — both the players themselves and the broader ecosystem of journalists, media outlets, and activists who cover them — made no secret of its hostility to the 22-year-old phenom. Earlier this month, when Clark’s Indiana Fever faced off against the Chicago Sky, the Sky’s Chennedy Carter took the opportunity to physically assault Clark, incurring a flagrant foul. Carter appeared to call Clark a “bitch,” before shoving her to the ground. After the game, Carter refused to take any questions about the foul, before proceeding to take to social media to attack Clark’s prowess as a basketball player — and liking numerous posts encouraging her to foul Clark again. Carter’s teammate, Angel Reese, congratulated her with a hug, before proceeding to commit another flagrant foul against Clark a couple of weeks later. “No one, on either team, came to Clark’s defense,” OutKick noted. WNBA players and their counterparts in the media have been remarkably candid about the source of their resentment towards Clark. “A lot of people may say it’s not about black and white, but to me, it is,” the Las Vegas Aces’ A’Ja Wilson said when asked if Clark’s whiteness played a role in her popularity. “It doesn’t matter what we all do as black women, we’re still going to be swept underneath the rug. That’s why it boils my blood when people say it’s not about race because it is.” Elle Duncan, co-host of ESPN’s main WNBA studio program, used a recent episode of her show to provide her own unsolicited advice to Clark: You’re just new in this space, and so while you’re new before you put your f***ing feet on my couch, look around. Get the lay of the land; get to know it a little bit before you just jump in and continue to fan flames of divisiveness that frankly target Black and brown women. It’s not okay.” It would be an understatement to describe racial hostility as an “undertone” in the coverage of Clark; more often than not, it is both explicit and overt. The View’s Sunny Hostin, who is black, attributed the rookie’s stardom to “white privilege.” (As well as “pretty privilege” and “tall privilege”). Jemele Hill, a black sports journalist, called Clark’s success “problematic” due to her “race” (white) and “sexuality” (straight). “Women’s basketball needs faces of future to be Black,” declared a USA Today headline. The LA Times published its own report detailing how Clark’s “marketing boom is celebrated but also draws questions of race and equity.” After her own tirade against Clark, former WNBA player Sheryl Swoopes — wearing a “Female, Fearless and Black” t-shirt — declared: “Black people can’t be racist.” Clark’s defenders, too, are now the subject of official suspicion. A long Vox piece earlier this month noted that Carter’s flagrant foul of Clark “sparked a debate that taps into racist and sexist tropes.” The “tropes” in question, Vox wrote, were coming from “male pundits who do not have a history of covering women’s basketball,” and who had made the mistake of noticing the obviously targeted harassment of Clark from her black female counterparts. “Because of her record-breaking successes in college, Clark — who is white — has been touted by some as the new face of the league, a framing that’s raised questions of equity given how many WNBA stars are women of color who haven’t gotten the same due,” the outlet reported. “A growing narrative about Clark needing protection from other players echoes concerning tropes of white women as victims and Black women as aggressors, too.” Clark, for her part, has taken the stream of abuse and scrutiny on the chin. “Sometimes it stinks how much the conversation is outside of basketball and not the product on the floor and the amazing players that are on the floor and…how great this season has been for women’s basketball,” she told a courtside reporter earlier this month. It was an admirable response, by any measure. But it also betrayed a tragic naiveté — a naiveté that is less an indictment of Clark than it is of the WNBA, and the system that created it. Of the precious few ardent WNBA fans that exist, a substantial number follow the sport as a political statement, rather than out of any authentic enthusiasm for women’s basketball. (If you genuinely loved watching basketball, why would you devote your time to following a league in which the players were weaker, slower, and less physically capable than those in the NBA?) Those fans, and the journalists and WNBA pundits who latched onto the league as a vehicle for left-wing activism, have always seen the organization as yet another tool to shame and scold America for its sexism, racism, and homophobia. In 2020, the New York Times dubbed the WNBA the “most socially progressive pro league,” praising the association as a “hotbed of activism” that wielded its influence to pressure the “higher-profile” (i.e., male) leagues to embrace “social action”: Today, challenging the status quo is a hallmark of the league’s players. They pushed the envelope long before it came into vogue among modern-day professional athletes, and led the way in protesting social injustice and racism. The breadth of action among W.N.B.A. players is unparalleled among professional sports leagues.… players see it as the natural outgrowth of who they are, a drive borne of necessity in a league dominated by Black women, many of them lesbians. Clark’s error was believing the WNBA was ever really about basketball. As a white, well-spoken, nice-looking Catholic girl with a boyfriend and a loving, healthy family, she was under the impression that being really good at basketball was all that was required for success in the league and a positive reception in its orbiting media appendages. But the WNBA is not fundamentally about basketball. It is about being black, lesbian, left-wing, and hostile to the broader society that sustains it — a platform for hard-left activism and social resentment, subsidized by NBA ticket sales. A nice Catholic white girl with no obvious social pathologies has no place in such an institution, as the institution itself wasted little time in making clear to her. The post Oh, You Thought This Was About Basketball? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Last week wasn’t a great one for Joe Biden and his handlers, including the main handler I wrote about in the perpetually relevant book Racism, Revenge and Ruin: It’s All Obama. Biden went from one public appearance disaster to another — freezing up during a Juneteenth celebration, wandering away during a G7 photo op which forced Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni to rush after him and drag him back to the group, head-butting the Pope for some reason and then freezing again on the stage at a star-studded $28 million Democratic fundraiser in Hollywood, which led to the most descriptive and telling piece of video you’ll see all year: The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) are working overtime trying to debunk this- claiming that Obama didn’t lead Biden off stage. Unfortunately for them, it’s literally on video. Would be a shame if this went viral again! pic.twitter.com/1kGNMNqV4n — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 17, 2024 We have Baghdad Bob propagandists like the Super Simp Joe Scarborough howling about how poorly Biden was treated after the G7 debacle, but nobody believes this stuff anymore. (READ MORE: Is Biden’s Dementia Just Russian Disinformation?) Some 86 percent of the public told pollsters Biden is too old to serve another four years as president — which is a polite way for most respondents to say they know his cognitive decline is unmistakable and disqualifying. That was in February when the “cognitive events” weren’t as notable as they are now. Care to defend this, Karine Jean-Pierre? How about you, Mark Cuban? Is this normal? pic.twitter.com/xnRZn3hWdh — The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 17, 2024 You’ve got a drip-drip-drip of articles in outlets like POLITICO discussing the behind-the-scenes consternation among Democrat insiders that Biden isn’t up to the job anymore, although few of those insiders will go on the record. There’s a sizable mass of discussion about the possibility Biden will be changed out as the nominee, though none of it seems to go anywhere. (READ MORE: Could Hunter’s Troubles Cause Biden to Rethink His Campaign?) What it looks like is chaos. Nobody really knows who’s in charge. Not of the country or of the Democrat Party. The answer is what it’s been for years, of course. Obama is in charge. Joe Biden never has been. And once you remember that, you understand a couple of things. First, for the people behind Joe Biden perpetrating what a burgeoning majority of Americans think is an exercise in elder abuse rather than a political campaign, the pursuit of power is far more important than the preservation of our constitutional republic. They don’t even bother trying to hide that. They tell it to you all the time. There is even a code word for them to do it. Every time you hear one of these Obama acolytes pontificating about the threat Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters pose to “Our Democracy,” it’s an admission that what they’re fighting for is this current Bizarro World reality the vast majority of the public views with disdain but affords the left-elite power and privilege. And second, there are no limits to what might be done in pursuit of that political power. You saw that pretty clearly in 2020, the most irregular presidential election since 1876. Forget about the allegations of a stolen election, which we can do without conceding any of the points included therein. The idea that 50 of the most prominent intelligence officials in America would sign on to a letter accusing the New York Post of spreading Russian disinformation because of its accurate reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop is one nobody would have believed before October 2020. Nobody would have believed Mark Zuckerberg would blow $400 million on corrupting local election offices in Democrat areas into get-out-the-vote centers for the Biden campaign, either. And nobody would have believed the FBI would conduct election interference by pressuring Big Tech to censor right-leaning pundits, media outlets, and ordinary Americans from discussing true information helpful to Trump or hurtful to Biden. All of those things happened. They weren’t accidents. Biden’s handlers bragged about them to TIME Magazine after it was over. And it worked. They managed to install a husk of a man as president based on tactics the country hadn’t seen before. But that’s been a mixed blessing, as you know. As a result of those tactics, the America of 2024 is actually in worse shape than the America of 2020 even without the specter of a deadly virus pandemic hanging over our heads this year. We are leaderless, rudderless, at a nadir of national morale, and awash in a flood of policies destined to bring us to ruin. So can Team Biden pull off a repeat this year? The answer has to be conditional. Because in a conventional election, there is no way Joe Biden can win. That isn’t just a function of the polls showing Trump with a slight lead in a head-to-head with Biden (0.8 percent, as of Monday’s RealClear Politics average) or a bit healthier one in a race including third-party candidates (2.9 percent, per RCP), or in the main battleground states (3.3 percent per RCP, with leads ranging from 0.1 percent in Wisconsin to 5.3 percent in North Carolina in Nevada). It’s more than that. It’s the fact that Joe Biden is losing key elements of his base at a time when mobilizing one’s base is the top, middle, and bottom of electoral politics. President Trump TRIPLES Support Among Black Voters From 7% to 21% Black Voters Over 50: Biden DROPPED 9 points Black Voters Under 50: Biden DROPPED 43 points In Battleground States… H2H: Biden drops to 63% With 3rd Parties: Biden drops to 49% (!) pic.twitter.com/QPRuQpU9S8 — Dylan Johnson (@RealDylanMO) June 17, 2024 The Biden-affiliated chattering class talking heads — not to mention failed New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu, his campaign chairman — are scoffing with joyless abandon at the idea Donald Trump might get 20 percent of the vote, and probably not without justification. It would be a colossal upset for Trump to score that highly with black voters. But they’re intentionally missing something. Which is that Trump doesn’t have to get anywhere near 20 percent of the black vote for Team Biden to lose in a monumental landslide. Fifteen percent would do it. Understand something: Team Biden isn’t interested in persuading regular Americans their border policy is sane or beneficial. Or their economic policy. Or their foreign policy. Or environmental policy, housing, education, energy, or trade policies. They stopped trying to capture the middle on just about anything right around 2009. For the past 15 years, Democrats have been about one thing and one thing only — returning more of their ballots to the vote-counters than the Republicans. That has worked well for them, at least as a ratio of votes tabulated to measurable success in governance. But those numbers in the black communities of those swing states? Those are a real problem. If Joe Biden can’t count on even so much as 60 percent of the black vote, even if he ultimately manages to get half or a little more of the gettable black vote out there, his entire political business model and that of the Obama machine he’s fronting will fall apart. Democrat politics begins with the black community. It’s historically the most monolithic voting bloc in American elections and it’s the center of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote efforts. If you’re still trying to persuade that community to vote for you when the polls open for early voting, what it means is not only will you bleed votes to Trump and another underrated threat, namely Cornell West, but the effort it will require to turn out the kinds of numbers needed to offset the suburbs, exurbs and small towns full of people you never bothered trying to compete for will be ruinous. (READ MORE: What Robert Kennedy Jr. Held Back From His Counterpunch of the Censorship State) In a conventional election, the softness of Biden’s base after four years would make him unelectable. And those rapidly multiplying disqualifying cognitive events are utterly poisonous as well. Especially since it’s only a matter of time before things get worse than embarrassing bowel movements in public, brain freezes, or the loud mumblings of gibberish in front of a pool of cameras. Who knows what’s next? That campaign has a Sword of Damocles not just dangling, but wildly swinging just above its head. Conventional political analysis indicates this is a candidate you have to hide from the public while you message against Trump. But Team Biden doesn’t think they can do that, so they keep sending him out into the world hoping to dispel the concerns about his cognition, and it just gets worse and worse. You have a president the public believes is a failure — Nate Silver’s 538 measures Biden’s approval rating at just 37.4 percent at present — who’s in the process of losing a sizable chunk of his core supporters, while he consistently demonstrates an inability to charm or persuade the public back into his corner. In a five-way race, the RealClear Politics average has Biden at under 40 percent. As an incumbent! Trump’s poll numbers could be stronger. But Trump consistently underpolls. He under-polled in 2016, and he under-polled in 2020. The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood noted last week, and Fleetwood wasn’t wrong in his analysis, that those polls are an increasingly poor barometer of electoral performance because the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote machine — legal or otherwise — renders them so. And this isn’t lost on the new management of the GOP. Trump’s daughter Lara, the new co-chair of the RNC, has made it clear that election integrity and get-out-the-vote are Jobs 1 and 2 for the party, which is something long overdue. Trump and his party have to make 2024 a conventional election. This has to look like past electoral cycles. If it does, Biden’s personal weakness and that of his relationship with his base could make for a disaster for Democrats. But making this a conventional election will be a very, very difficult task. Team Biden, which is really Team Obama, is a cabal of people who worship political power like nobody else in American history. They have a record going back at least a couple of decades — all the way to the 1996 Illinois state senate election in which Barack Obama first won elected office, in fact — of irregular campaign activities. And they don’t respect any limits when it comes to action in pursuit of power. They will cheat. It’s who they are. And winning honestly is increasingly beyond their grasp — as it seems to have been since 2012. How? Fleetwood offers a few possibilities: On the nongovernmental side, left-wing nonprofits funded by leftist billionaires evade federal law by targeting and registering Democrat-friendly demographics, such as racial minorities, college-educated women, and young people. After these likely-Democrat voters are on the voter rolls, left-wing activists and groups chase and harvest these low-effort votes in the weeks leading up to Election Day…. At the same time, Biden is actively weaponizing the federal government’s taxpayer-funded resources to conduct voter registration drives benefiting Democrats. More commonly known as “Bidenbucks,” the executive order signed by Biden in March 2021 instructed hundreds of federal agencies to increase their voter registration and GOTV activities — which Congress never authorized. In fulfilling this mandate, agencies are tasked with coordinating with so-called “nonpartisan third-party organizations” approved by the White House to supply “voter registration services on agency premises.” Conservative media and good government groups have since discovered these organizations are extremely left-wing, such as the ACLU and Demos. (A lawsuit challenging the legality of this order is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.) Here’s just a little more of what’s in store: LEFT: Today, NBC reports Biden mass-amnesty scheme to be officially announced this week. RIGHT: Yesterday, NYP Story blowing the whistle on how illegals are given voter registration forms in 49 states. It’s happening. Fast. pic.twitter.com/17on3VhUXp — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 16, 2024 This can’t be allowed to happen. Regular Americans can’t let it succeed. We’ve got to force a conventional election by overwhelming those efforts at cheating with honest, conventional ballots. This has to be a wave election. Anything else, and we may not be able to save the republic from the power-mad cheaters leading that demented old man around by the arm. The post They’ll Try To Steal It. They Have To. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In his book on maritime power To Rule the Waves, author Bruce Jones points out that, if the United States is to wage war with anyone other than Canada or Mexico, we need to do it with naval power. Ever since the invasions of Normandy and Okinawa where the Army provided significant amphibious landing forces, the leading edge of the projection of combat power ashore has been the United States Marine Corps. That is no longer the case. Since 2019, the Marine Corps has largely abandoned its amphibious capability in favor of a limited mission of deterring or fighting a war with China in the South China Sea, all to fulfill the vision of the former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. The concept is called Stand-in Forces. To buy the anti-ship missiles required to carry out his vision, Berger divested the Marine Corps of all of its tanks, much of its artillery, all of its heavy engineering and assault bridging and breaching capabilities as well as significant aviation assets, But as Jones points out we still need some way of projecting naval power ashore. The question now is who will do it? There are several possibilities. (READ MORE: Biden Has Allowed the Marine Corps to Become Irrelevant) One candidate would be our special operations forces. They certainly have the combat skills to attack a defended shore. But, there is a problem. If they are to obtain the tanks, engineers, and other heavy assets needed to assault a hostile beach, they will lose the agility that makes them “special” in the first place. Amphibious operations in today’s hostile littoral environment take constant skill and practice. The Marine Corps used to have this because it and the Navy kept amphibious forces deployed in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the Western Pacific. These Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) practiced constantly for amphibious operations. If a crisis popped up, they could be brought together into a brigade-sized landing force and further reinforced quickly to the division or corps level if needed. For example, during Operation Desert Storm, the Marine Corps mustered two combined arms divisions for the ground assault and a brigade off the coast of Kuwait for an amphibious operation if needed. Since then, Gen. Berger has released the Navy from its commitment to maintain the number of ships needed to keep up the constant overseas MEU rotation because he believed that the capability was no longer needed. The army is a second option. Some army units could be targeted for amphibious assault missions, but the army considers itself the nation’s force for fighting big wars on land. It has traditionally left the “lesser contingency” missions such as embassy and civilian evacuations and pop-up humanitarian assistance to the forward-deployed MEUs. Retooling the army to take aboard amphibious operations is not impossible, but it would be painful for the organization and expensive for the country. A third option is to outsource amphibious operations to allies — after all, the British have recently shown interest in expanding their capabilities — however, economy of scale becomes a problem if large operations are needed. The British Army and Royal Marines combined would be hard-pressed to fill a good-sized soccer stadium. The Japanese have shown some interest in expanding their overseas expeditionary capability, but they would have some constitutional problems in developing a serious amphibious capability. In any case, we would have to build a consensus on what wars we would jointly fight. (READ MORE: Elon Musk and OpenAI Are at War. Your Data Is at Stake.) There is a fourth option. That is to rebuild the Marine Corps as a worldwide force constantly ready to take action. One of the mysteries of the Marine Corps’ decision to concentrate on an anti-ship mission in the South China Sea is whether or not the joint force combatant commander responsible for the region even wanted this Marine Corps contribution. The current Indo-Pacific commander has not yet weighed in on the subject. A recent war game conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the Stand-in Force concept to be duplicative and less effective than capabilities already possessed by other services and unable to contribute “heavily” in most scenarios. (READ MORE: A War-Ravaged Sudan Teeters on the Edge of Crisis) There might even be some unanticipated goodness here. The capabilities that Gen. Berger discarded were Reagan-era legacy systems. The Marine Corps could experiment with newer and more capable tanks, artillery, and engineering systems and pick the best. In any case, we will have a dangerous gap in our national power projection capability for a number of years. In the future, we will have to be more careful in the power that we give a single service chief. Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who lectures on Alternative Analysis at the George Washington University’s Elliott Scholl of International Affairs. He served as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2003-5. The post What Will Replace the Marine Corps? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There is so much wrong with the conviction of Hunter Biden on three charges related to his perjuring himself on a federal form to buy a gun. Yes, he does belong in prison. Absolutely. And, just as the Soros district attorneys and Biden prosecutors pile charges upon charges against President Trump, they may as well throw stuff at Hunter for lying on that gun application, denying his drug addictions, and so much more. But the conviction is a sop aimed at Republican conservatives to fabricate a false narrative and fake equivalency posture. The game of perverted justice is to say “You see, MAGA people? Our system of justice is perfectly fair. Trump got convicted on all his counts, and Biden’s son got convicted on all his counts. So it is one tier of justice equal for everybody.” (READ MORE: Hunter Biden Is Guilty. But You Knew That.) Garbage. President Trump was prosecuted by a Soros DA who campaigned on a promise to destroy Trump. It was as if he said: “Vote for me as your district attorney, not because I know the law, am committed to truth and justice, will clean New York City’s crime hell, and clear the streets of every form of social miscreancy and deviancy. No, I won’t focus on that stuff. But, if you vote for me, I promise to get Trump convicted on something or other.” So the lout with a vendetta got elected in an anti-Trump county but could not find any indictable law Trump broke. So he made it up. He took a state misdemeanor whose limitations statutory period had long ago expired, attached it to a federal crime that federal prosecutors never charged, never spelled out the exact crime in the indictment or during the trial, got a biased anti-Trump judge who had donated to Democrats and whose daughter was making a fortune in cash off attacking Trump, used as his two-star witnesses a hooker who owed Trump half a million dollars she promised never to pay and a serial liar and perjurer (i.e., lying even under oath) who embezzled tens of thousands from Trump, got the biased judge to harass and limit Trump’s expert witnesses, and kept Trump on a gag order aimed at preventing him from campaigning fully and even from leaving the state to campaign. The Bragg-Merchan Trump trial will certainly be overturned on appeal. Maybe not by a similarly biased New York appellate court, where Trump may get the same justice that black people got in the 1950s Deep South. But the Supreme Court will throw out Bragg’s case, and both Merchan and Bragg know it. The only reason they teamed up for that charade was that it presumably ensured that Trump’s felony conviction would not be reversed before the November election. (READ MORE: Could Hunter’s Troubles Cause Biden to Rethink His Campaign?) That was not justice. Not even close to it. Justice will come, but only in time for Trump’s biography and his second State of the Union address as America’s 47th president. By then, Maybe Fani Willis will be pregnant with Nathan Wade’s child, maybe not, but that obscene Georgia case either will have been dropped before that, or it will be overturned. Joe Biden’s and Jack Smith’s “January 6” lawsuit will not make it to trial before the election and will be dismissed soon thereafter. Same with the Florida documents case. Justice delayed will not necessarily emerge as having been justice completely denied, but it will be justice perverted. None of this is comparable to Hunter Biden’s criminality. Of course he was a drug addict. He wrote about it in his book. It is on his laptop. Despite the fact that Biden and the “Intelligence Community” swore up and down until the 2020 election that the laptop was a Putin disinformation campaign, now even the federal government uses that laptop under oath as evidence of Hunter’s criminality. (After Hillary’s fake “Trump conspiracy” fraud — replete with a purchased dossier, government corruption, and a paid-off law firm — there was the claim that Hunter’s laptop was another Putin plot. Do you ever wonder what Putin must be thinking as he reads these claims in Pravda and Izvestia? Can you picture him steaming angry in the Kremlin, instituting an investigation of his KGB, asking why he always is the last person in Russia to find out every time he engages in a conspiracy with Trump? In America, heads would roll for botched orchestration. In Russia, windows would open for defenestration.) The troubling things about the three Hunter convictions include but are not limited to this: His criminality was so obvious that even a home-boy jury in Wilmington, Delaware needed just one day to find him guilty of whatever was charged. So how was it that the federal government attempted one year earlier to drop both the entire firearm case and the separate tax evasion case with one single all-encompassing obscene sweetheart deal that entailed no felony crime, but merely copping pleas to two misdemeanors, admitting he owned a firearm while a drug addict, and guaranteeing him complete immunity from prosecution for any and all of his business dealings between 2016-2019? The main paragraph of that obscene proposed plea deal: The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached State of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day. Exhibit 1 attached to that Agreement pertained to Hunter Biden’s salaried position at Burisma and his financial interests at a Chinese private equity fund. It goes on for pages and pages detailing the millions upon millions of dollars he was paid for his foreign dealings in a host of multi-national bodies. For example, in 2017 alone, he was paid just under $1 million in a company he formed with the CEO of a Chinese business conglomerate; $664,000 from a Chinese infrastructure investment company; $500,000 as a director at Burisma; $70,000 from a Roumanian company; and $48,000 from a multi-national law firm. That’s over $2 million from foreign sources in 2017. The next year, another $2.6 million from Burisma and the company he formed with the CEO of a Chinese business conglomerate. (READ MORE: Who Did It?) In other words, Biden almost completely evaded all justice as the firearms-while-drug-addicted case took center stage in the sweetheart plea bargain. There were real matters needing public investigation in the light of day and probably prosecution — namely, the millions upon millions he scooped up from Chinese, Ukrainian, and other foreign payoffs by leveraging his father’s position as Obama’s $1 billion bagman on Ukraine — that got buried in an “Exhibit 1 to an Attachment A.”  The plan was to sneak all of it past the judge and the American people, just as they had sweet-hearted Hillary Clinton out of any prosecution despite her having perpetrated the federal felony of spoliating evidence (e.g. destroyed 33,000 emails; bleached emails in computer back-up memory; hammered-to-smithereens hard drive) and probably worse (e.g., federal election interference by producing and paying for a mythical Putin-Trump conspiracy backed by a falsified Steele dossier arranged with a morally compromised Fusion GPS hired by a compromised Perkins Coie law firm that provided space for the FBI in their offices). Those are the heavy-duty Hunter Biden prosecutions that America awaits — not a rinky-dink mini-trial over a gun purchase with falsified attestations as to his drug use. Sure, those were crimes — things don’t always go better with coke — but they were peanuts. Honestly, no fair-minded person, no matter what he or she thinks about one Biden or another, really believes that Hunter would ever take his illegally purchased rifle and shoot up a schoolyard or concert. Honestly. Frankly, it is arguably a violation of the Second Amendment even to require a gun buyer to state whether he does drugs. If he is not such a narcissist as to write a book proclaiming to the world that he is a drug addict or was at the time of the sale, who is to say whether he was when he signed the form? His wife? Well, what if he treated his wife with dignity instead of consorting with hookers? How does one prove a person’s drug status beyond a reasonable doubt on the day he signs the form? Let’s say he vowed the night before or a month before to stay off drugs, really meant it, and then went back to drugs the day after buying the gun. Was he a drug addict on that day? Did you ever meet someone who went on a diet and swore to the heavens that he or she would stick to the diet permanently, and the person truly stuck to it for a whole month? If on the day the patient sees his doctor and is asked to fill out the 714 forms he has to fill out at every doctor visit, and says he is on a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, is he lying when he had been so for a month and does not pig-out at Baskin-Robbins until the next day? If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, is that the best case to bring against Hunter? Of course not. That case was a sop to “prove” America has one tier of justice: Identical for Hillary and Biden as it is for Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Allen Weisselberg, Peter Navarro, and President Donald Trump. Before Obama, we did have just one tier. We do not anymore. Trump’s current cases prove what they do; the Hillary sweetheart deal proves what it does; and the Hunter sweetheart deal that was stopped only at the last moment by an honest federal district court judge, the Hon. Maryellen Noreika, proves what it does. The prosecution for the gun buy, while evading investigation and prosecuting the foreign millions, proves what it does. These corruptions in justice paint a picture even more clear than would a $75,000 Hunter Biden original oil painting. To attend any or all of Rav Fischer’s weekly 60-minute live Zoom classes on the Weekly Torah Portion, the Biblical Prophets, the Mishnah, Rambam Mishneh Torah, or Advanced Judaic Texts, send an email to: shulstuff@yioc.org His 10-part exciting and fact-based series of one-hour classes on the Jewish Underground liberation movement (Irgun, Lechi, and Haganah) and the Rise of Modern Israel can be found here. In it, he uses historic video clips of Irgun, Lechi, and Haganah actions, decades of past Arab terrorist atrocities, as well as stirring musical selections from the Underground and video interviews of participants, to augment data, statistics, maps, and additional historical records to create a fascinating, often gripping, and scholarly enriching educational experience about issues that remain deeply relevant today as Israel engages in an existential war in Gaza against Hamas terrorism. His latest deeply moving weekly series of informational and inspirational programs on the Hamas-Gaza war may be found here. His 40-part Bible Study series covering all of I Samuel (First Samuel) intensively with Talmudic and Midrashic commentaries is now up here. The post We Should Throw Hunter in Prison — But for the Right Reasons appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Mike Rowe Gives Us Something to Stand For

From Great Orators to Gobbledygook

Some 40 Years Later: A Nation STILL at Risk

Red Sky Mourning by Jack Carr — A Masterful Blend of Espionage, Action and the Mysteries of AI