Joe Biden’s effort to buy the votes of young Americans by ‘forgiving’ student loan debt – something the U.S. Supreme Court told him he couldn’t do – is benefiting wealthy families‚ not the…

How one New York band helped create another. The post “I was there”: Ezra Koenig on first hearing ‘The Rat’ by The Walkmen first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

To recognize appeasement‚ it’s best to learn from a master. One must not mistake Neville Chamberlain for a Nazi. He wasn’t. His antisemitism was that of T. S. Eliot — an offended sensibility‚ a mild disgust at there always being some untidy trouble attending them. He was a prim Englishman who dressed the part of the aristocracy‚ but who was more of an accountant than a man of leisure and noblesse oblige. He was secretive and manipulative when in power; he was easily threatened by brilliance and outspokenness‚ separately‚ and doubly threatened when both qualities were combined‚ to excess‚ in Winston Churchill. If civilization doesn’t bring forward those personalities who can read the psychopath and respond adequately‚ it will fall. Though he is famous for appeasement‚ he did draw a line‚ unexpectedly‚ and held to it. In the fall of 1938‚ he fervently believed that he and Hitler had saved the peace of Europe at Munich‚ and that Hitler could be trusted when he said that the Sudeten territory the Allies had carved off of Czechoslovakia and given him was the last of Germany’s territorial ambitions in Europe.  Then when less then six months later‚ Hitler gobbled up the rest of the country‚ after a slight delay‚ Chamberlain declared himself as having been bamboozled‚ and he drew a red line in front of where Hitler was heading next — Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland that September‚ Chamberlain did not pull an Obama and just pretend he had never made a commitment. He sent Germany an ultimatum‚ and by September 3‚ Britain was at war. But even at war‚ Chamberlain‚ along with his French ally‚ continued to behave as if he was still conducting a negotiation‚ and it affected the British war effort. Churchill had been brought into the government the moment the war started‚ and he was full of ideas on how to put the Nazis on their heels. Churchill oversaw the water aspect of the war‚ and the Germans began in his department‚ by striking at where Britain was most vulnerable – its sea lifeline. The Germans dropped mines all over the shipping lanes and their submarines started the terrible work. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: No‚ Red Cows Won’t Spark War in Israel) Churchill sought to take away the momentum from the Nazis‚ and his thinking ran inventively‚ as was his wont. He put forth the plan of fluvial mines — launching hundreds of floating mines into the Rhine River to disrupt the river traffic that carried so much of Germany’s goods. It was a fine idea‚ but Chamberlain dithered for months‚ and when his government okayed it‚ the French dithered further‚ worried that such an escalation would unnecessarily provoke Hitler into the kind of serious fighting that the Allies dreaded.  Churchill proposed seizing the initiative in the air. Again‚ Chamberlain and the French demurred — Hitler might respond by bombing them‚ and there would be casualties. Churchill soon turned his eyes to another area. Germany imported its iron from Sweden. Some of the ore was shipped from Sweden‚ but British submarines operated in the international waters of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The ore could also be shipped from neutral Norway’s port‚ Narvik. There‚ bands of small islands sheltered the coast for hundreds of miles‚ and the German cargo traffic could be safely routed through the sovereign Norwegian waters‚ immune from British interference. Churchill chafed at having to allow Hitler the iron his war effort needed. He urged Chamberlain to risk the confrontation with Norway and use the British fleet to interdict the supply. Chamberlain delayed for a long time‚ wanted to do it right‚ asked the Norwegian government‚ and accepted their no for an answer. By the spring of 1940‚ though‚ Chamberlain was at last convinced‚ but the Germans used that inter island passageway to send an invading fleet which swiftly put Norway under the Nazi thumb and gave the German navy many fine advanced bases on the Atlantic. The urge to appease is strong. If one is not dealing with a psychopathic nation‚ it is a healthy urge‚ Restraint runs deep in civilization; it is almost definitional. But the psychopath knows how to coax restraint from others while disguising his own aggressive aims until he has operational advantage. If civilization doesn’t bring forward those personalities who can read the psychopath and respond adequately‚ it will fall. Look at the urge to appease today. At last Iran has removed all doubt as to its intentions. But the headlines speak of Biden and his gang‚ the ever-appeasing Europeans‚ and of course‚ the Secretary General of the UN all urging restraint on Israel. Clearly‚ that is the key. Always pull your punches. Always seek the one further concession that will make the crazy guy your friend. And today’s virtue signaler has a trait Chamberlain transcended — they export the predictable evil consequence of their pusillanimity onto others. They will not directly suffer the consequences of leaving Hamas intact. Their wives won’t be tortured and raped; their grandchildren won’t be butchered or traumatized; their children won’t have to risk their lives to stop them‚ while all the while being slandered by comfortable‚ spoiled‚ coddled fools as being genocidal criminals. Chamberlain did believe he could escape war. In the end‚ he recognized he was wrong‚ resigned his leadership‚ and spent his waning life-energy in the war effort‚ eaten up by cancer long before victory came. (READ MORE: America’s Foreign Policy Utopians Ignore Culture) Our present -day appeasers have exhibited all the delusory smugness that characterized early Chamberlain. Perhaps they have it in them to realize their inadequacy as leaders‚ as he did‚ and to devote whatever energy and talents they have left to helping defeat the world menace they have themselves nurtured through their woeful‚ blind self-absorption. The post From Chamberlain to Biden‚ Lessons in Appeasement appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Just over two years ago‚ the courageous Australian cardinal George Pell‚ the late outspoken defender of the Catholic Church‚ referred to the pontificate of Pope Francis as “a disaster” and “a catastrophe.” Writing under the pseudonym “Demos” (Greek for “the people”)‚ Pell said that “Roma locuta. Causa finita est” was once the norm: Rome Spoke. The case is closed. Now‚ he said‚ it is much more a matter of “Roma loquitur. Confusio augetur.” Rome speaks. The confusion is increasing. The Pope’s role is not to make Catholic principles seem palatable to an increasingly degenerate world. While the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (DDF) recent publication Dignitas Infinita is a welcome one — condemning such atrocities as abortion‚ surrogacy‚ gender theory‚ and transgenderism — it is arguably a rarity under the pontifical reign of Francis. The Jesuit Pope‚ as his order is wont to do‚ places a high premium on seeking out those on the margins of society‚ ministering to the most disturbed and the most confused. But in their missionary zeal‚ it is not unjust to question whether the Jesuits (including Pope Francis) have perhaps spent a little too much time at the margins of society. Mercy and missionary work are tremendous goods which the Catholic Church has always championed — but mercy must be tempered by justice and missionary work must aim not just to seek lost sheep but to return them to the flock. The Francis pontificate has seemingly immersed itself so completely in reaching out to the lost that it has at least risked losing those who never strayed far in the first place. In short‚ the moral teaching of Pope Francis and his allies and confidantes has been‚ as Pell noted‚ disastrous. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Lessons From the Life of Evelyn Waugh) In a recent synodal synthesis report from the diocese of Owensboro‚ Kentucky‚ Catholic priests and laity expressed their concern over the “lack of clarity regarding Church teaching” emanating (or‚ rather‚ not emanating) from the Vatican. “There is a universal hunger for greater clarity from church leaders on Church teachings‚” the report noted. “[F]rustration was expressed about the lack of clarity from church leadership‚ citing especially Pope Francis.  This was generally related to Fiducia Supplicans and the confusion and consternation it caused among the faithful regarding what was perceived to be an approval for the blessing of same sex unions.” “Pope Francis was described as being ambiguous in his teaching and in his casual remarks‚” the report continued. “A plea was made for the Holy Father to ‘be direct and tell us what you actually mean.’” The report cited a priest of the diocese who commented‚ “A lack of clear statements from those in positions of authority in the church leaves people feeling confused and afraid.” This “lack of clarity” may be well-intentioned on the part of Pope Francis‚ a desire to reach out to sinners with love and forgiveness instead of rebukes and condemnation. But ultimately‚ this “lack of clarity‚” no matter how well-intentioned‚ is (quite literally) damning. A failure to proclaim moral truth with clarity and consistency can only ever result in confusion‚ apathy‚ and spiritual decay. There is a reason that bishops carry a crozier: it is not some mere fancy symbol of authority or office‚ it is the tool of their trade‚ for bishops are shepherds. A shepherd who does not guide his flock‚ who does not keep his sheep from wandering into thornbushes and off of cliffs‚ who tries to befriend the ravenous wolf is a poor shepherd. His staff (the bishop’s crozier) is intended to keep his flock from straying and to fight off wolves and jackals when they appear. That is the role of the Pope‚ of the bishops‚ and of priests: to guide faithful souls to Heaven and to strike out when evil rears its ugly head. The Pope’s role is not to make Catholic principles seem palatable to an increasingly degenerate world. His role is not to go to the ends of the earth to preach to remote peoples who have never heard of Christ before. His role is to stand in Rome‚ diligently protecting the doctrines and apostolic traditions of the Catholic Church‚ ensuring that they remain unmolested by heresy or apostasy‚ and boldly proclaiming them to all who might listen. In his 1907 apocalyptic novel Lord of the World‚ Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson wrote of the fictional Pope John XXIV‚ who regularly published letters‚ exhortations‚ and encyclicals to be distributed in parishes throughout the world. While the unified Freemasonic Marxist governments of the Americas and Europe rallied against the Vatican and the repurchased Papal States‚ the fictional pontiff quietly and simply continued his duty to teach the Faith in clear terms to Catholic faithful facing a world of hate. (READ MORE: DC Cardinal Surprisingly Praises Pope Francis on LGBT Issues) Although fictional‚ Benson’s model of Pontiff may be one for Francis‚ surely in the last years (perhaps even months) of his pontificate‚ to emulate. Of the current Pope‚ Pell wrote‚ “The Pope does not need to be the world’s best evangelist‚ nor a political force. The successor of Peter‚ as head of the College of Bishops‚ also successors of the Apostles‚ has a foundational role for unity and doctrine.” Of Francis’s yet-to-be-determined immediate successor‚ Pell counseled‚ “The new pope must understand that the secret of Christian and Catholic vitality comes from fidelity to the teachings of Christ and Catholic practices. It does not come from adapting to the world or from money.” Whether Pope Francis recognizes the cataclysmic damage his lack of clarity has visited upon the Church‚ whether he corrects course‚ whether the next Pope follows in the Jesuit Pope’s footsteps‚ the moral truths preserved and long preached by the Catholic Church will remain. All that is needed for them to dominate in the hearts of men is a Pope bold enough to speak them with clarity. The post Speak Boldly‚ Not Softly: Pope Francis and the Absence of Moral Clarity appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of George Sheetz‚ who was charged a $23‚000 fee to build on his own land in El Dorado County‚ California. The case is bound to affect governments‚ builders‚ and homebuyers across the state and nation. With affordable housing in short supply‚ taxpayers might expect governments to relax taxes and fees that impact housing. In 2016‚ Sheetz and his wife bought 10 acres near Placerville as the site for a manufactured home of 1‚800 square feet. The installation required a building permit and El Dorado County tacked on a fee of  $23‚000 for “traffic impact mitigation.” (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: K-12 Parents Need Same Choices as College Athletes) Sheetz paid the fee under protest and sued El Dorado County on the grounds that the $23‚000 was not tied to any estimate of the actual impact his single-family dwelling would have on local traffic. In effect‚ his home was treated as an entire subdivision or shopping mall. Sheetz lost in trial court and the state appeals court. When the California Supreme Court declined to review the case‚ Sheetz took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 12‚ the high court found in his favor. “Conditions on building permits are not exempt from scrutiny under Nolan and Dolan just because a legislative body imposed them‚” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a unanimous decision for the court. “In fact‚ special deference for legislative takings would have made little sense historically‚ because legislation was the conventional way that governments exercised their eminent domain power.” The Takings Clause‚ wrote Barrett‚ “prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.” Sheetz’s attorney Paul Beard told reporters that “holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion.”  The Court “put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.” El Dorado County administrator Carla Hass countered that the ruling “answers only a narrow question on which the parties already agreed” and does not cancel county government’s ability to impose reasonable permitting conditions. A lower court will determine whether the fee charged Sheetz is proportionate to the impact caused by his single-family dwelling‚ which can’t amount to much. As the parties work it out people across the country might review some realities. Government fees and taxes are essentially a distinction without difference‚ whether or not they proceed from a legislature or unelected administrative body. Taxpayers in all states might total up their local fees and taxes to assess the overall burden the ruling class imposes upon them. Compare that with the conditions the taxes and fees are supposed to fix‚ and the benefits local governments bestow on themselves. With affordable housing in short supply‚ taxpayers might expect governments to relax taxes and fees that impact housing. In San Francisco‚ for the most part‚ precisely the opposite is the case. Soaring office vacancy rates prompted a push for conversion of office space to housing. In 2020‚ San Francisco voters approved Proposition I‚ which doubled the transfer tax rate on real estate sales of at least $10 million. Call it a tax or a fee‚ that hurt the prospects for converting large office buildings to housing‚ in a real-estate market already prohibitively expensive. (READ MORE: To Have and Withhold: The IRS Gets Your Money Before You Do) San Francisco’s high transfer taxes sent housing investors and developers to other markets. As even the city controller warned‚ San Francisco became  “less attractive economically as a place to live.” And as home buyers might note‚ San Francisco is also less attractive for hygienic reasons. El Dorado County‚ not far from Lake Tahoe‚ is a fine place to live‚ but the county government’s $23‚000 traffic mitigation fee made it harder for George Sheetz to live there. Shot down at the local and state level‚ Sheetz bravely took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The high court rendered a victory over the pillage people‚ boosting property rights and liberty all across the land. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ California. The post Supreme Court Hands the ‘Pillage’ People a Loss appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The movie Death Wish‚ which this year celebrates its 50th anniversary‚ opens with a brief sequence establishing that New York architect Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) and his wife‚ Joanna (Hope Lange)‚ although well into middle age‚ are still very much in love with each other. They’re vacationing on an idyllic beach in Hawaii‚ and when she steps out of the surf and stretches out beside him on the sand‚ they kiss. She asks if they should go back to the hotel‚ obviously to take their intimacy to a higher level. He asks‚ “Why not here&;#63;” She replies: “We’re too civilized.” [W]hat ever happened to the frontier ideal of defending one’s hearth and home from savages when the noble lawman seems to have withdrawn from the scene&;#63;   Directed by Michael Winner from a screenplay by Wendell Mayes (based on the novel by Brian Garfield)‚ Death Wish came along at a time when New York was far from its most civilized. After the Kerseys return from Hawaii to their snazzy Riverside Drive digs‚ Paul‚ during his first day back on the job‚ is told by a colleague that during his two weeks in paradise there were no fewer than 36 murders in Fun City. When the coworker says something about the impact of all this mayhem on “decent people‚” Paul demurs‚ leading his coworker to call him a “bleeding-heart liberal.” Their boss‚ for his part‚ refers to New York as a “war zone.” Cut to Joanna and her grown daughter‚ Carol‚ buying groceries in a supermarket where three hoodlums (one of them played by a young Jeff Goldblum) are causing a ruckus; the hoods follow them home and‚ in a sequence that in 1974 was shocking in both its language and its violence‚ kill Joanna and abuse Carol‚ an experience that ends up sending her spiraling into catatonia. The police are sympathetic‚ but hold out little hope of catching the perps in a city gone wild. Sent to Tucson on a professional assignment‚ Paul is taken to a gun club by a friendly client (Stuart Margolin) who explains that in Arizona‚ “unlike your city‚ we can walk our streets and feel safe‚” and who sends him back to the Big Apple with a special gift: a revolver. (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Citizen Bawer: On Acquiring a Second Nationality) In the days that follow‚ Paul stalks Manhattan late at night‚ and continually finds reason to make use of his new present. In Riverside Park‚ a mugger pulls a gun on him and Paul swiftly ends his career. Seeing three gangsters beating up a guy in an alleyway‚ Paul guns the bullies down. In an otherwise empty subway car‚ he’s set upon by a couple of miscreants and takes them both out. Later‚ in a subway station‚ he polishes off two more lowlifes. Along the way he makes bigger and bigger tabloid headlines‚ is the subject of an intense investigation by police inspector Frank Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia)‚ and causes the city’s crime level to drop. Meanwhile his son-in-law (Steven Keats)‚ unaware of Paul’s leisure-time activities‚ laments that they all hadn’t moved out of the city years ago. “Nothing to do but cut and run‚ huh&;#63;” Paul replies sardonically. “What about the old American social custom of self-defense&;#63; If the police don’t defend us‚ maybe we ought to do it ourselves.” When the young man protests that “we aren’t pioneers anymore‚” Paul asks: “Then what have we become&;#63; What do you call people who‚ when faced with a condition of fear‚ do nothing about it but cut and run&;#63;” The son-in-law answers: “Civilized&;#63;” Winner and Mayes go out of their way not to make this movie about race. Joanna’s killers are white. So are most of the criminals whom Paul dispatches. (Several of them come off‚ in fact‚ like Broadway chorus boys desperately trying to look tough: in short‚ not an entirely convincing bunch of outlaws.) Meanwhile‚ a disproportionate number of the cops and victims and other good guys are black. And the musical score is by Herbie Hancock. Nonetheless‚ critics smeared Death Wish as racist. Newsweek dismissed it as a “simplistic urban Western”; Variety called it “poisonous”; in the New York Times‚ Vincent Canby savaged it as “despicable” and “bigoted.” But none of that mattered to most audience members — especially New Yorkers and other big-city folks who‚ sick of being crime victims‚ applauded Paul Kersey’s vigilantism. There were four sequels to Death Wish‚ all of them predictably inferior‚ and a 2018 remake starring Bruce Willis‚ which in many ways was actually an improvement on the original. But it’s the very first picture that’s become iconic. And half a century after its release‚ it feels‚ once again‚ strikingly timely. In today’s Gotham‚ the mayor‚ D.A.‚ and top police brass seem perversely determined to make the city’s streets at least as unsafe as they were in 1974. Subway assaults soar yet again; hooligans sucker-punch women on the street; and marauders vandalize department stores with impunity. Yet the cops appear to be focused on arresting‚ and the prosecutors on punishing‚ the handful of gutsy souls who stick their necks out to protect their fellow citizens from murderous goons. (READ MORE: Feud’s New Miniseries Recycles Old Truman Capote Gossip) Like former Marine Daniel Penny‚ who last May‚ on an F train‚ choked to death a menacing thug who‚ in Penny’s judgment‚ “would have killed somebody” if Penny hadn’t acted. (Penny is now up on manslaughter charges.) Or John Rote‚ who last November fired a round at a vagrant who threatened a subway passenger and tried to steal her bag. Or Younece Obuad‚ who last month shot a brutal assailant on a Brooklyn subway after wrestling the man’s gun away from him. Today‚ as in 1974‚ many elites — most of whom‚ I suspect‚ rarely if ever set foot on a subway train — look down their noses at people like Penny and Rote and Obuad. To them‚ as to Paul Kersey’s son-in-law in Death Wish‚ refusing to stand up for oneself and one’s loved ones in a city turned war zone is a simple matter of being “civilized.” But what does it mean to be civilized in urban environments where‚ in accordance with the nefarious if nebulous designs of the Democratic powers that be‚ civilization itself is crumbling before our eyes&;#63; Far be it for me to defend reckless vigilantism‚ but what ever happened to the frontier ideal of defending one’s hearth and home from savages when the noble lawman seems to have withdrawn from the scene&;#63; The post ‘Death Wish’: A Timely American Classic appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.