I keep saying it, and I keep getting proven correct. This is not the constitutional republic you grew up in, and it’s not what you bargained for as an American citizen. This is more like Bizarro World America. It has been for at least the last 16 years, and really it’s been longer than that. So many things happen over the daily course of events in this country that  not long ago would have been seen as utterly beyond the pale, unacceptable, a national scandal, and reason for a wholesale reexamination of who we are as a country. A few columns ago, I noted the Iranian hostage crisis, which strangled to death the Carter presidency. Now, we have Iranian proxies holding Americans hostage in Gaza in the middle of a war there, and not only do we make no effort to save them, but Jimmy Carter’s political descendant actively works on behalf of the hostage-takers in attempting to give them a ceasefire and hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian-aid swag. And nobody seems overly upset about it. Of course, what seems to be true may or may not be true, because what is reported in the media is only what fits the agenda. An Iranian hostage crisis in 2024 instead of 1979 would never, ever lead the national news. We’re gaslit by a legacy corporate media that is all but monolithic in political orientation and comfort with serving as a mouthpiece for a failed presidential administration and administrative state. Everyone is uncomfortable with the current state of affairs; no one seems willing to do much about it. That’s “Our Democracy,” and the few people who profit from the aggressive incompetence and radical iconoclasm leading to the swift decline in the culture, politics, and economics of our society will howl at all of those who they see as a threat to it. Be careful if you’re not part of the elite. The purveyors of “Our Democracy” are growing ever more vicious. 1. Ask Bryan Malinowski. Oh, Wait, You Can’t. Malinowski was a relatively nondescript American, which isn’t offered as a way to belittle him. In fact, he was an accomplished and respectable citizen of Little Rock, Arkansas, who served as the executive director of the city’s airport. He also, as a hobby, bought and sold guns. Which is a relatively nondescript pursuit for a straight white man from Arkansas. Well, the nondescript in America under “Our Democracy” are no longer protected by their normality. Bryan Malinowski would probably tell you that if he could. It seems his paperwork as a private collector and seller of guns may have been deficient, so instead of contacting him via phone or email and working through the problem with his lawyer, this happened: According to Mr. Jones, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, the video showed that at 6:02 a.m., a patrol officer turned on his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren “to announce the presence of law enforcement.” At that time, A.T.F. agents standing outside Mr. Malinowski’s door “began a series of knocking” and announced their presence, Mr. Jones said, citing the recording. Twenty-eight seconds after knocking, agents used a ram to breach the door, he said. Mr. Malinowski’s wife, Maer, told The New York Times in an interview that the couple had heard loud noises outside their bedroom door that morning. Mr. Malinowski told his wife to “stay back,” and reached into a drawer for a gun, she said, before walking out into the hallway. She walked behind him, and they saw figures in the darkness, Ms. Malinowski said. […] […] Cummins, a lawyer for Mr. Malinowski’s family, said in a statement that the new details from the prosecutor’s office raised a question: “How long is it reasonable to wait for someone to answer their front door at 6 a.m. in response to unexplained loud pounding in a 3,000 square foot, fully insulated home?” “Let’s pray the answer isn’t 28 seconds,” he said, adding: “This is far from over.” Mr. Malinowski had served as the executive director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport since 2019. His friends say that he viewed selling guns as a hobby, and that he sincerely believed that as a private seller, he was in compliance with federal law. Rep. Clay Higgins was precisely correct in expressing outrage for this dastardly exposition of “Our Democracy…”: I will not support one dime of funding for the ATF until constitutional policy is fully restored. Please wake up America, We the People are living in a police state. These Federal agencies DOJ/FBI/ATF are WAY OUT OF CONTROL. This American had a perfect record, he was squared away… pic.twitter.com/ynEcsW0hhT — Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) June 15, 2024 In a sane country, Higgins’ position would be the virtually unanimous one. A sane Congress would begin holding Watergate-style hearings to hold the ATF to account, criminal referrals of its leadership for building an agency culture violative of individual Americans’ civil rights would be issued, and the agency would find its funding slashed and a plan for dividing up its functions among state governments and other federal agencies would move through the legislative process. Almost everything ATF does would be done better at the state level. But in “Our Democracy,” it’s impossible to consider reorganizing this rogue Gestapo, for the very reason that it is a rogue Gestapo. Joe Biden’s ATF’s mission is to terrorize the public into losing its zeal for gun ownership. What happened to Malinowski isn’t an accident. A proper and thorough investigation — one best undertaken by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, who might consider prosecuting the agency’s leadership under the state’s RICO Act for conspiracy to deny Malinowski his civil rights — will undoubtedly uncover that fact. None of the purveyors of “Our Democracy” should get the benefit of the doubt. This is anything but the first case where a regular American has been murdered by federal agents actively seeking to suppress legal, protected activity, and despite the fact that it’s been more than a week since this killing, nobody in our ruling class has bothered to comment on what happened to Bryan Malinowski. 2. At Least Ethan Haim Has His Health (For Now) When they aren’t sending shooters into homes in pre-dawn raids, the Biden Gestapo is engaging in lawfare to “peacefully” incarcerate the undesirables. You might remember Ethan Haim’s name. Melissa Mackenzie interviewed him for an episode of The Spectacle Podcast earlier this year. Haim, a young doctor in Houston doing a residency at Baylor College of Medicine and who had previously done rotations at Texas Children’s Hospital, uncovered that the hospital was doing sex-change operations on kids that have now been made illegal in Texas, and he blew the whistle on the practice while including the receipts. But just like intrepid journalist David Daleiden, who exposed Planned Parenthood’s monstrous cottage industry of selling body parts of aborted babies and was prosecuted for telling the truth, Haim has found that the “Our Democracy” crowd isn’t all that friendly to the idea of transparency: A Houston doctor has been indicted on charges of unlawfully obtaining protected health information for patients not under his care at Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH). Alamdar S. Hamdani announced the unsealing of the indictment, which outlines 34-year-old Ethan Haim’s alleged actions and his upcoming initial court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho in Houston. The indictment, which includes four counts, accuses Haim of accessing sensitive patient data, such as names, treatment codes, and attending physician details, without authorization from TCH’s electronic system. It is alleged that Haim accessed this information under false pretenses with the intent to cause harm to the hospital. Haim, who was a resident at Baylor College of Medicine with previous rotations at TCH, reportedly sought to reactivate his login credentials at TCH in April 2023 to access information on pediatric patients outside his care. The indictment claims that Haim accessed the data unlawfully and later shared it with a media contact. n a twist to the case, Haim has been active on social media, alleging that he exposed a secret program at Texas Children’s Hospital and criticized the Department of Justice for pursuing him. He tweeted, “I blew the whistle on Texas Children’s secret sex change program and the Department of Justice came after me for exposing the truth. After experiencing DOJ corruption, we’ve decided to fight back. If you want to join the fight, donate below. They wanted to intimidate me into silence using every technique the federal leviathan had at their disposal. But they failed. The only way to lose is to submit to corruption. It’s time to fight back harder than ever!” Haim has also set up a legal defense fund, stating, “GiveSendGo | Legal Defense Fund for Surgeon Whistleblower.” They’re trying to put Haim in prison for 10 years for blowing the whistle on criminals abusing confused kids. Except this is too big for the Biden DOJ to put a lid on it: A nurse at Texas Children’s Hospital claims that doctors in the hospital’s child sex-change program committed Medicaid fraud. “The largest children’s hospital in the country is illegally billing Medicaid for transgender procedures.” A massive scandal. Vanessa Sivadge is a registered nurse at Texas Children’s Hospital who has worked extensively with the hospital’s “transgender” patients. She taught a child how to inject sex-change hormones. Then she realized she was participating in “deeds of evil and darkness.” Sivadge was the anonymous whistleblower who denounced TCH’s child sex-change program in an interview with me last year. After that, she says, the FBI sent two agents to her home to intimidate and threaten her. But there was more. She knew that Texas prohibits state Medicaid funds from being used on “gender-affirming care.” And yet, she noticed that many patients in the child sex-change program were enrolled in state Medicaid—which, she believed, was a violation of the law. Ethan Haim and Vanessa Sivadge are being persecuted — and they’ll undoubtedly be financially ruined — for trying to save kids. That’s “Our Democracy” for you. The good news is, while DOJ is bent on ruining them, Haim and Sivadge are winning. BREAKING: Texas Children’s Hospital has temporarily closed its pediatric sex-change clinic, per a source on the ground. The pressure is mounting on the hospital’s transgender program, which is now under investigation by the state attorney general for alleged Medicaid fraud. — Christopher F. Rufo (@realchrisrufo) June 20, 2024 3. There Isn’t Actually Much Democracy in “Our Democracy” We could illustrate this in lots of ways, but here’s perhaps the most current example: In a stunning anti-democratic move, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to block an anti-tax initiative from appearing on the ballot. This initiative, known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, was backed by the business community and sought to make it more difficult to increase taxes in California. Among other things, it would have required the legislature to obtain voter approval for any new or increased state taxes. There’s nothing groundbreaking about it, as voters in other states have used the ballot box to approve or deny tax initiatives before. But Gavin Newsom and the Democrat-controlled legislature were having none of it and filed a lawsuit to block the measure last fall, claiming that the initiative represented an illegal effort to amend the California Constitution and would hinder critical government operations. And the California Supreme Court unanimously sided with Newsom. We found out all the way back in 2008 that attempting to amend the California Constitution by use of a voter initiative isn’t possible. You’ll remember when a proposition was passed by the voters banning gay marriage in the state, and this same California Supreme Court dictated to the voters that their wishes were nugatory. Now the voters don’t even get to express themselves before being told by the ruling class they don’t matter. That’s what “Our Democracy” looks like. Pay your taxes, peasants! And don’t bother about the rate; it’s whatever we say it is this year. 4. In “Our Democracy,” You Get Judges Friendlier to Child Molesters Than Political Dissidents We’ll turn this over to Sen. John Kennedy, who just exposed a couple of new Biden judicial nominees as radicals — and especially a woman named Julia Lipez, a judge in Maine who’s up for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but who seems awfully friendly toward pedophiles. There is a very, very strange aroma around “Our Democracy.” Maybe that’s what Joe Biden keeps searching out with his nose when he dives into the hair of other people’s kids in full view of the public. 5. And Then There Is Caitlin Clark Nate Hochman wrote a terrific piece earlier this week on the rampant physical abuse being laid on WNBA rookie superstar Caitlin Clark, a straight white girl from a functional family who has a boyfriend and carries herself as a normal female American despite her exceptional talent. As Nate noted, Clark is busy trying to play basketball while everyone else in the league, including the aggressive black lesbians on teams like the Chicago Sky, are trying to enforce lifestyle hegemony on the sport. Hochman joined Melissa and me on The Spectacle to discuss the issue: I said during the podcast segment that what Caitlin Clark is beginning to represent is the modern Bizarro World/”Our Democracy” analog of Jackie Robinson, the first black player in Major League Baseball who emerged as one of the best players in the game and blazed a trail other black players followed into deserved prominence in the sport. Jackie Robinson faced a lot of the same kind of resistance when he came into the league. But Robinson got support from his Dodgers teammates and particularly from Branch Rickey, the team’s owner, who made it clear he wasn’t going to let racism stop him from featuring one of the best players in the league. And ultimately, baseball absorbed black players because it was stupid not to, and because meritocracy ultimately wins out in sports. If they’re not utterly corrupted, that is. Nate wrote that the WNBA is not an uncorrupted sports league. It isn’t even about basketball. It’s about that lifestyle hegemony. And that’s bad news for Caitlin Clark. She has the potential to bring the league into the mainstream, perhaps make it profitable, or at least not a colossal financial failure subsidized at an eight-figure level by the NBA. But to do that she’ll have to survive the nightly beatings she’s going to get from the Chennedy Carters and Angel Reeses of the world. I hope she does. My guess is it’s a matter of time before she’s seriously injured on purpose. At the end of the day, even the worst racists in Major League Baseball knew it was futile and stupid to keep black players out. Robinson was the first of a legion of black players legitimately good enough to positively impact Major League teams, and either one could embrace the influx of talent coming into the league or be humiliated by it. Nothing about the character of the WNBA indicates that recognition, and the meritocratic mindset that went with it, is prevalent. Even Clark’s own teammates don’t seem interested in defending her. So Bizarro World Jackie Robinson might not have the same feel-good story to tell as Real World Jackie Robinson. I hope I’m wrong. But in “Our Democracy” there don’t seem to be very many happy endings. Maybe that’s why most of us aren’t shaken by the idea that Donald Trump, or whoever, is a “threat” to it. READ MORE: Five Quick Things: Why Aren’t the Rest With J.D. Vance? America Thrives at the Interstate Exit The post Five Quick Things: ‘Our Democracy’ Turns Deadly appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ya gotta love the bold double standard. Here’s but one headline, this from Fox News:  Freakout: Liberal media pundits, Democratic lawmakers worry Trump will throw them in jail, ‘massive camps’ Fox reports:    Prominent Democrats and liberal media pundits have worried about being thrown in jail, “massive camps” and more if former President Trump wins in November. “For that matter, what convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants? So, yes, I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us,” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said during an interview with CNN’s Oliver Darcy in June. My old CNN colleague Brian Stelter worried:   But think about IRS audits, think about government pressure on media companies, think about other forms of government interference. There are a lot of pressure points. And frankly, Rachel Maddow is not the only member of the media thinking about this. And here is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., saying this: I mean, it sounds nuts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy threw me in jail. Where to start with all this? Let’s go with Brian Stelter. He worries about IRS audits? Gee. Where was Brian during the Obama-era?  Recall this headline in the Washington Post back there in 2013 — the Obama era:  IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election The Post reported:  “I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “An apology won’t put this issue to rest.” One of the nation’s largest tea party groups, the Tea Party Patriots, said it rejected the IRS’s explanation and demanded the resignations of all officials involved. The group also called on President Obama to apologize for ignoring its concerns. “The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.” Not to be forgotten either was this headline from CBS in 2013:  Fox News reporter secretly monitored by Obama administration: court documents The CBS story reported:  (CBS News) Court documents released this week show the Obama administration secretly monitored a Washington journalist. In seeking a search warrant, the FBI called Fox News’ James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator,” even though he isn’t charged with any crime. In short, the Obama administration targeted Fox and conservative groups using both the DOJ and the IRS. To silence from liberal media. Over at MSNBC, there is this from host Nicole Wallace:  MSNBC Host Nicolle Wallace Says Trump Is Preparing ‘A Hostile Takeover’ To Turn DOJ Into ‘Political Weapon’ Any concern about the complete Biden politicization of the Department of Justice now targeting Trump himself and various Trump supporters? Doing this right this minute? Complete silence from Ms. Wallace. Then there is the decidedly current issue as well of the Biden administration and its Democrat allies doing in fact to former President Trump and various Trump supporters exactly what AOC and Maddow say they are concerned could happen to them. In other words, quite vividly the Biden administration and its Democrat allies have gone about arresting former President Trump, not to mention his former staff members Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. Completely politicizing and weaponizing the DOJ and legal bureaucracies in New York. And the response from AOC and Rachel Maddow? Stone cold silence. And speaking of Stone, not to be forgotten is Trump ally and longtime Republican strategist Roger Stone, whose impending prison sentence in 2020 was first commuted, then pardoned, by President Trump.  Silence from AOC and Maddow on the targeting of Roger Stone. And as far as the weaponized legal system targeting President Trump employed by New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg? Not a peep of objection from AOC and Rachel Maddow. Which clearly must mean that as long as the weaponized legal system targets Trump and Trump supporters, AOC and Maddow think that’s fine. No objection from them.  But turn that around? And target AOC and Rachel Maddow? Ohhhhh the sky is falling. How about this?  How about not using the Department of Justice, the New York Attorney General’s office, and the office of the Manhattan District Attorney to target political opponents?  At all? The hard fact here is that AOC and Rachel Maddow and doubtless all kinds of lefties out there think using the legal system to target political opponents is just fine. Or they would be front and center on the floor of Congress or when visiting the set of The View or Rachel’s own MSNBC show — loudly and seriously opposing the treatment of President Trump and the rest of his supporters who have been targeted. But there is, again, not a peep of objection from AOC and Maddow to using a weaponized DOJ and state and local legal offices to target Trump and the others. Now, suddenly a light goes on with AOC and Rachel. If a politically weaponized legal system can be turned on Trump and the others, then it could be turned around by Trump to target them. A suggestion?  Maybe stop using a weaponized legal system to target any political or media opponent.  And maybe, just maybe, AOC and Rachel Maddow will break their silence and support that. But in reality, don’t bet the ranch.  AOC and Rachel Maddow have a double standard on justice — arrests for thee, but not for me. And they apparently intend to stick to it. Their silence is deafening The post AOC and Rachel Maddow: Arrests for Thee, But Not for Me appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Is there anything more liberating in childhood than riding a bike fast and away from the eyes of adults? The based-on-a-true-story Hard Miles, a cross-between Stand and Deliver and Breaking Away, now appears on digital platforms following a limited theatrical release earlier this spring. Therein, Matthew Modine stars as Greg Townsend, a social worker who led thousands of troubled youths on bicycle journeys through the American West as a means of showing them a larger and more beautiful world beyond the small and often cruel one known to them. The film focuses on Greg’s relationship with four teenagers incarcerated at a youth detention center. In metal shop, he asks them if they know upon what they labor. “I’ve always wanted a big metal triangle,” one jokes. Another offers the correction, “It’s a trapeze-a-zoid.” They discover they work on bicycle frames. “You make something yourself, you take pride in it,” Greg informs his charges. “You take care of it.” For what purpose do they make bicycles? Greg convinces the center, and the teens, on the wisdom of embarking on a 752-mile cycling expedition to the Grand Canyon. “Let’s show the state who these kids really are,” Greg exclaims in rationalizing the bicycle adventure. “They’re not their rap sheets.” Fellow social worker Haddie, played by Cynthia McWilliams, offers an analogy to the taskmaster Townsend to help him better understand their charges. Fleas, she notes, can jump extraordinarily high. But when put into a jar, the lid stops them from jumping to the best of their abilities. Once let out of that jar, they continue to operate as though a lid keeps them down. The youngsters resist. The bicycle uniforms make them look like dweebs. Accepting the offered anti-chafing bicycle butter would seem to say something more damaging about them. Quitting periodically feels like the better option than persevering. “You want to get in the van,” Greg Townsend counsels. “Go ahead. It’s right there. You can limp across the road right now, and none of this will have mattered. Or you can set a goal. You can set a goal today and know that nobody told you what you could or couldn’t be, that nobody told you what you can or can’t do. You decide that.” The film peels back layers on the characters, particularly Modine’s Greg, who clearly cares because he clearly looks at a reflection of himself from the past when he looks at the boys. Unknown young men (Jahking Guillory, Jackson Kelly, Damien Diaz, and Zach Robbins) who can act — and crucially look like teenage passersby and not actors — helps the audience buy into the story. Hard Miles features entirely too much male crying and hugging and feelings that all seem, particularly from the uber-masculine world of male juvenile delinquents, only somewhat more realistic than the main characters of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire. The scenery on the road to the Grand Canyon makes up for any shortcomings. So, too, does the self-contained, uplifting story. We rarely see grace, forgiveness, and redemption on 2024 silver screens. We all experience it to some degree outside of theaters. The juxtaposition of these two realities separates Hard Miles from the pack. The post <i>Hard Miles</i>: An Easy Movie to Like appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

During the Constitution ratification debates between the Federalists (who supported ratification) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it), one of the most strident areas of disagreement was the extent to which the proposed position of president of the United States was actually an ersatz king. Leading Anti-Federalists thought the new president would be a thinly veiled monarch. In response, leading Federalists — including those who would eventually hold radically different views of presidential powers — joined forces to assuage Anti-Federalist concerns. Multiple essays of The Federalist Papers, the Federalists’ eponymous effort to publicly promote the ratification of the Constitution, were dedicated to explaining the nature of the office of the presidency. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton — who would in subsequent years take a much stronger view of Article II presidential power than his contemporary and Federalist Papers coauthor James Madison — dedicated an entire essay to arguing that the president is not nearly as powerful as the British king. In making his case, Hamilton noted that the president “can confer no privileges whatever,” whereas the king “can make denizens of aliens” and “noblemen of commoners.” This must be emphasized: During the fledgling nation’s constitutional ratification debates, which assumed existential importance after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, Federalists felt compelled to distinguish the presidency from the Crown on the grounds that the king “can make denizens of aliens” but the president has no such power. Indeed, the Framers cared so much about this that they explicitly accorded to Congress, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The message was clear: The president is not a king. Well, so much for that. This week, President Joe Biden became the second straight Democratic president to unilaterally engage, absent any authorization from the Congress, in the quintessentially kingly act of “mak[ing] denizens of aliens.” In June 2012, former President Barack Obama issued his signature Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive amnesty, notwithstanding the fact that Congress had expressly rejected the DREAM Act amnesty legislation on which DACA was predicated. Two years later, Obama followed it up with Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, another executive amnesty that lacked any congressional authorizing legislation. Former President Donald Trump repealed DAPA in 2017; DACA has consistently been stymied by the federal courts, including the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022. This Tuesday, Biden joined his former boss in unilaterally promulgating a mass amnesty for the ages — this time, for an estimated half million illegal aliens now married to U.S. citizens and who have lived in the U.S. for a decade or more. In a radical departure from extant law, Biden’s amnesty would allow those illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. while they seek a green card — as opposed to forcing them, as the law requires, to return to their home country while applying for permanent residency (and thus eventually citizenship). Biden’s amnesty is blatantly, flagrantly, and offensively unconstitutional. Only Congress, not the president, can “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Prosecutorial discretion, which Biden (like Obama before him) laughably invokes, is only legitimate when applied on an individualized, case-by-case basis. Prosecutorial discretion does not apply to a blanket refusal to enforce large swaths of immigration law — an act which itself violates the president’s Article II, Section 3 prerogative to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The president has plenary statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. 1201 to deport any alien (legal or illegal) at any time for any reason, but he does not have any reciprocal power to naturalize aliens outside of Congress. In addition to its lawlessness, Biden’s amnesty is also profoundly unjust. It rewards lawbreaking by prioritizing those who break the law over those who follow the law. It saps national sovereignty and vitiates the single most consequential decision any self-governing people can ever make: who else is allowed to join the community. It magnetizes illicit mass migration, incentivizing millions to throw in their lot with nefarious criminal cartels, human trafficking rings, and smugglers in the hopes that they too can cross our border in the shadows, plead “asylum” and attain amnesty. The cartels are enriched and emboldened; Americans, by contrast, pay for it in the form of increased crime, drained public sources, lost jobs, and cultural balkanization. Unsurprisingly, recent public polling shows the American people have had enough. A much-discussed CBS/YouGov poll taken earlier this month revealed that a whopping 62 percent of Americans — including 53 percent of Hispanics — support deporting all illegal aliens. Biden’s executive amnesty is thus not merely illegal and immoral. It will also backfire. Biden, like Obama before him, may view himself as a king. But unlike Britain’s king, America’s president must face the voters when he seeks reelection. And therein lies the rub. To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: November Is Coming and Biden Has Another Border Plan A Message From Europe The post Joe Biden’s Executive Amnesty Is Illegal, Unjust, and Self-Defeating appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Willie Mays died the other day at the age of 93. He was the oldest living Hall of Fame major league ballplayer. His first MLB manager, Leo Durocher of the New York Giants, called him simply the greatest five-tool player in history. No one, Durocher said, combined Mays’ excellence at hitting, hitting for power, running, fielding, and throwing. Mays’ baseball statistics bear that out. In 22 seasons with the Giants (both New York and San Francisco) and the Mets, he batted .302 over his 22-year career. He amassed 3,293 hits (13th all-time) including 660 home runs (sixth on the all-time list). He is seventh all-time in total runs with 2,068, and twelfth all-time in runs-batted-in with 1,909. He stole 338 bases. He is the only MLB player to have hit both more than 50 homers and 20 triples in single seasons.  Mays was one of eighteen players to hit four home runs in one game. He won the National League Most Valuable Player Award twice (in 1954 and 1965, eleven years apart) but for 13 straight years he received MVP votes, finishing in the top six in twelve of those years. In those 13 seasons, Mays had at least 70 extra-base hits. And he was incredibly durable. From 1951 (his rookie season) to 1962, Mays played in 1534 of 1555 games.  Mays’ offensive statistics are only part of the story. He was the greatest defensive center fielder ever. He won 12 golden glove awards and his 7,095 outfield putouts is first all-time. In game 1 of the 1954 World Series, Mays made perhaps the most amazing catch in baseball history. Cleveland Indians’ slugger Vic Wertz hit what should have been a game-winning triple to center field in the Polo Grounds. Mays, playing a bit shallow, outran the ball and made an over-the-shoulder catch. Mays later said that the catch was not as impressive as his throw to second base, which prevented Cleveland runners from advancing after the ball was caught. That play has been known ever since as “The Catch.” And Willie Mays’ glove was aptly described as the place “where triples go to die.” Sixteen years later, Mays at the age of 39 robbed Cincinnati Reds’ slugger Bobby Tolan of at least a triple by leaping in right-center field, catching the ball, and slamming into the fence at Candlestick Park. Mays made other great catches, including a bare-handed grab of a ball hit by Pittsburgh Pirate first baseman Rocky Nelson. In center field, greatness for Mays was routine.  Author John Shea noted that Mays seemed to be able to instinctively “visualize the whole game.” This was Mays’ mental approach to baseball, which is often overlooked because of his great athletic abilities. Mays explained it this way: “You’re knowing ahead of time what to do in all situations and making sure to be in the right place when you need to be.” And he played the game with zest. Richard Goldstein described Mays as an “electrifying player of power and grace.” Whether taking an extra base on a single, or scoring from first-base on a routine double, or killing one of those triples in center field, Mays was a joy to watch. As a child, I saw Mays play in person three times, and each time he did not disappoint. In one game at Connie Mack Stadium in Philadelphia, Mays homered over the left field wall. In another game at Connie Mack Stadium, Mays hit two triples off the scoreboard in right center field. In the third game at Shea Stadium in Queens, New York, Mays homered and threw out a runner at home who was trying to score from second base on a single to center field. And that was toward the end of his career. Mays biographer James Hirsch wrote that “The case for Mays as the game’s greatest player is easy to make but impossible to prove.” “Mays beat you,” Hirsch explained, “in more ways than any other player.” Hirsch concluded that Mays was baseball’s “greatest master.” The legendary Giants’ pitcher Carl Hubbell, who famously used his screwball to strike out “murderers row” (Ruth, Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons and Joe Cronin) in the 1934 All-Star Game, scouted Mays for the Giants in 1950, and recalled years later: “That was the day I saw the best goddamn baseball player I have ever seen in my life.” After Mays retired, sportscasters and journalists would occasionally describe a young ballplayer as the “next Willie Mays.” They were always wrong. There was only one Willie Mays. R.I.P.  The post Willie Mays, the Game’s Greatest, RIP appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The United States Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. Yet, over the past century, we’ve witnessed a disturbing trend of legislators increasingly delegating much of the authority to set the laws that govern the land to the executive branch, which includes unelected officials at administrative agencies. This undermines democratic accountability, contributes to government bloat and abuse of powers, and disrupts the balance of power crafted so carefully by the framers. Reasserting congressional authority is essential for maintaining a balanced government and ensuring that policies reflect voters’ wishes. It’s also the best hope for promoting economic freedom and growth. Unfortunately, getting Congress to stop evading its authority is an uphill battle. After all, we’re talking about an institution that systematically fails to do another of its primary jobs by passing legitimate budgets on a timely basis. Nevertheless, there is some light at the end of the tunnel, as the Supreme Court might soon stop being so deferential to executive branch agencies in interpreting the laws set by Congress. As I understand it, “Chevron deference” is a judicial doctrine created by the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This ruling compels courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous language in statutes that the agency is tasked with administering. In theory, the deference allows agencies to implement complex statutes. In practice, it limits the judiciary’s proper role in holding the other two branches of government responsible for carrying out and sticking to their constitutional duties. One result is too much discretionary power exercised by agencies who were envisioned to enforce, rather than create, the law. Some plausibly argue that the concentration of power placed in the executive branch by Chevron deference leads to excessive, overreaching regulation by agencies with wide latitude to essentially set policy. Another argument against Chevron is that it encourages Congress not to do its job. Because members of Congress understand that courts will defer to agencies, they can write vaguely worded statutes, knowing that the agencies will fill in the details without much judicial oversight. It can also remove the grounds for judiciary recourse on behalf of individuals whose lives and liberties are negatively affected by regulators’ outreaches. This brings us to the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Loper Bright Enterprises, a family-owned herring-fishing company, and other fishing companies challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The rule requires these companies to pay federal observers to collect data on board their vessels to prevent overfishing. The fishermen argued that the MSA did not explicitly authorize the NMFS to impose such costs on the fishing industry. In 2021, the U.S. District Court for D.C. used Chevron deference to rule in favor of the NMFS, stating that even if the statute was ambiguous, the NMFS interpretation was reasonable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, again relying on Chevron’s deference. This case and a similar one involving Relentless, Inc. were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in January. The decision, to be released soon, could be pivotal. If Chevron is overturned, it could significantly impact how courts review and interpret agency regulations. That could in turn curtail the extent to which agencies can interpret ambiguous statutes without direct congressional authorization. One hope is that agencies will exercise more discretion when interpreting their own powers and mandates under existing statutes. A second hope is that Congress responds by drafting statutes with more care and precision, thus being clearer — for agencies and the public — about what it intends and doesn’t intend. Finally, there is also the possibility that we could look back at some regulatory abuses passed under the veil of the Chevron deference and challenge them. The bottom line is that we might be only one Supreme Court decision away from Congress being obliged to write better and more explicit statutes than it usually does. This obligation doesn’t seem like a lot. Some scholars believe that hopes for markedly improved lawmaking post-Chevron are wishful thinking. But considering Congress’s now-routine cowardice at doing its job, I will take even a little hope over despair. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM. READ MORE: The Left’s Never-Ending War to Disqualify Justices The Supreme Court Defends Free Speech The post SCOTUS Takes on Congressional Malaise and Executive Branch Overreach appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Numbers Show Voters Don't Want an Eight-Year Presidency

Joe Biden's Executive Amnesty Is Illegal, Unjust and Self-Defeating

Help Me, Bob Iger. You're My Only Hope

Why the Left Hates It When You Point Out We're 'A Republic, Not A Democracy'