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.

‘Can liberty survive‚ and how can it survive‚ in a democratic society&;#63;’                                               –Tocqueville Nineteenth century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville in his master work‚ Democracy in America‚ posed this one major question‚ perhaps the central question‚ of political theory. [R]ights become conditional upon what someone else decides he or she is willing to give you. But if one explores the relation between liberty and democracy‚ despite common parlance‚ there is an inevitable tension between the two. Tocqueville understood this. Moreover‚ attempts to resolve this tension by showing that democracy is a good thing in its own right‚ or that it is the inevitable development of liberal aspirations‚ or that it is conceptually connected to fundamental liberal ideas‚ derive from misconstruing the essence of both democracy and liberalism. (READ MORE: Liberals Endanger the Synthesis of Faith and Reason) Is modern liberalism undermining the ” life‚ liberty and pursuit of happiness” Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration and that Madison enshrined in the Constitution&;#63; The purpose of this essay is two-fold. First‚ it will bring into specific relief a critical flaw in the logic of modern American liberalism. At issue is its effusive use of what Isaiah Berlin labeled positive rights. Let us not forget that it is democracy that deals with equality while liberalism affects freedom. Attempting to achieve equality by legislating more freedoms creates new problems for America while trying to solve old ones. Second‚ despite the abundant theoretical and practical evidence for the divergent views concerning the role of government in America‚ I would argue that these views are not‚ themselves‚ the cause for the divergence; rather‚ they are a symptom of something much more fundamental. The division between classical and modern liberal views is strident because the two reflect different conceptualizations concerning the source of human freedom and human rights in America. Classical liberalism in the American tradition held that a divine providence “endowed” humanity with rights that were therefore natural and not a function of human intervention. It held that there was a natural order to the universe and a natural law which operates as an ethical principle from which natural rights are derived and through which humans recognize their freedom. In classical liberalism the natural rights of humans and their freedoms‚ while capable of being discovered through human reason‚ were not of human invention. Hence‚ no one person or government had the right to take away another human’s natural rights to freedom. To the classical liberal in America‚ human freedom was justified through an appeal to that which is the basis for why there is something rather than nothing — for why the universe is rather than is not — and this without recourse to any human or human institution. Modern liberal philosophy‚ on the other hand‚ does not appeal to a standard independent of humankind. Instead‚ the modern call for freedom is an appeal of the emotions‚ the feelings of human being. Rather than individual rights being endowed by that which is unchanging — the natural law — modern liberalism centers its source in human desire for self-referentiality and absolute autonomy. (READ MORE: Liberals Are Today’s Political Outcasts) To claim oneself as a progressive‚ as the modern liberal does‚ one must claim a standard‚ an ideal to which all progress is aimed. Without a standard upon which one can rely‚ the question becomes: to what end are you progressing&;#63; Subservience to such relativism means truth‚ freedom and rights become subjective — purely a function of the vicissitudes of human deliberation. Political decisions concerning rights and freedom cannot be held hostage to human emotions of guilt‚ sympathy or empathy — in other words because of how we may feel about something or someone. Otherwise‚ truth and freedom become subjectively determined and rights become conditional upon what someone else decides he or she is willing to give you. Under such hegemony of human self-referentiality‚ one worships at the feet of Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things.” The post Is ‘Man the Measure’&;#63; From Where Does Our Freedom Come&;#63; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires By Scott Walter (Encounter Books‚ 248 pages‚ $29.00) At first blush‚ Arabella Advisors LLC appears to be a garden-variety D.C. consulting firm. Their website exudes typical K-Street verbiage: “We help changemakers create a better world. Arabella Advisors enables clients across the philanthropic sector to tackle society’s biggest challenges more efficiently‚ effectively‚ and equitably.” Scott Walter is to be commended for writing such an important expos&;eacute;‚ which everyone should read. However‚ Arabella’s sunny clich&;eacute; profile masks a more sinister raison d’&;ecirc;tre as watchdog Capital Research Center President Scott Walter illustrates in his new book Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Secretly Transforming America.  Founded in 2005 by Eric Kessler‚ a scion of a wealthy Chicago family and a former Clinton administration Department of Interior appointee‚ Arabella’s donors include high-profile left-leaning foundations such as George Soros’ Open Society‚ the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation‚  Warren Buffet’s Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation‚  the Rockefeller Family Fund‚  the Ford Foundation and others. These ardent left-wing institutions donate to Arabella via its network of funds‚ which include its flagship the New Venture Fund ( 2006)‚ the Sixteen Thirty Fund ( 2009) the Hopewell Fund (2015)‚ the Windward Fund (2015)‚ and the North Fund (2018). The money channeled through Arabella’s funds and its over 500 grantees is mind-blowing. During the 2020 election cycle‚ Arabella’s non-profits took in $2.4 billion exceeding the combined revenue for the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee for the same period. During the 2022 election‚ Arabella’s revenue hit the $3 billion mark. Arabella strategically uses its portfolio of 501 (c ) (3)  charity funds and (501) (c ) (4)  advocacy funds by creating funding pairs that work in concert to achieve philanthropic and advocacy objectives. For instance‚ Allied Progress Action (a Sixteen Thirty Fund project) is the advocacy arm of the charity Allied Progress (a New Venture Fund project). Arabella’s organizational structure enables it to influence policy and collect substantial lobbying revenue while also cultivating donors who enjoy tax-write-offs and the inherent privacy of donating to a charitable fund. While many legitimate organizations have a charitable/advocacy pairing infrastructure‚ they are usually separated by a Chinese wall. Arabella has routinely moved funding between its various entities to avoid full disclosure. For example‚ in 2018‚ the Sixteen Thirty Fund‚ a 501 (c ) (4 ) paid $4 million in employee and salary benefits but used funds from the New Venture Fund‚ a 501 (C ) (3) to cover the payroll and consequently avoided the 501 (c ) (4) requirement of disclosing the salaries of its highest compensated employees. (READ MORE from Leonora Cravotta: ‘Who You Gonna Call&;#63;’: Ghostbusters Reboot Reaffirms Traditional Values) While Arabella has since corrected this specific reporting anomaly‚ similar efforts at obfuscation persist. Arabella has also enabled its mega-donors to funnel enormous sums of money for leftist agenda efforts via pop-up groups designed to look like grassroots organizations. Like a merchant at a weekend market‚ these organizations can be easily set up and even more easily taken down.  Arabella’s ability to creatively move funds back and forth within its network makes it the perfect pop-up parent. For instance‚ Arabella funneled money to the left-leaning States Newsroom by creating a project within its Hopewell Fund with funding from its North Fund. Walter’s book‚ which builds upon the research that Capital Research Center published in 2019‚  delivers a very detailed portrait of Arabella’s vast tentacles. Walter provides  a comprehensive backstory along with detailed financial information about the organization’s cozy relationship with leftist billionaires. It also delineates Arabella’s enormous influence on political races and the burning public policy issues of our day including abortion‚ healthcare‚ and environmentalism. The book provides extensive coverage of election corruption with case studies including a chapter dedicated to Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg’s funneling of $350 million into the Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life organization to stimulate turnout for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.  The case study on George Soros’s Governing for Impact organization reveals that this entity provided the Biden Administration with 60 policy memos to shape the direction of federal departments including Education‚ Interior‚ HHS‚ Labor‚ Environmental Protection Agency‚ Justice‚ Housing and Urban Development‚ Agriculture‚ Energy‚ Treasury. And of course‚ there is no shortage of coverage of the dark money efforts to undermine former President Donald J. Trump‚ with groups — including Democracy Forward (2017)‚ American Oversight (2017)‚ and Restore Public Trust (2018) — which were created to overwhelm his administration with Freedom of Information Acts‚ lawsuits‚ and media firestorms to push his presidency towards impeachment. As a result of Walter’s tireless efforts at promoting his organization’s findings‚ even the left has noticed‚ evidenced by reporting by Politico‚ The New York Times‚ and The Washington Post.  A November 2021 interview between then Arabella CEO Sampriti Ganguli and Emma Greene for  The Atlantic  was particularly illuminating. Greene: You say you think donors should have the right to choose. Just to zoom out‚ what we are talking about is people with a lot of money‚ who want to channel that money into changing the way our society is structured. Why should people with a lot of money be able to do this anonymously&;#63; Ganguli: There are a lot of actors involved in changing American civic life. I just have to be honest with you: You are zoning in on such a small part of what Arabella Advisors does. I’m struggling with your question. Greene: “Yeah‚ but 530 grants. That’s not nothing.” The Atlantic interview is important because it demonstrates the extent to which Arabella’s senior leadership was publicly denying the organization’s outsized impact on the political process and underplaying its financial and reporting irregularities. However‚ reporting which focus on the leftist billionaires’ influence pale in comparison to those about political powerhouses on the right such as the Koch Brothers‚ which is perhaps the closest analogy to Arabella. According to research published by Capital Research Center in July 2023‚ there were only 47 articles published about Arabella in the previous twelve month period versus 189 about the Koch Brothers. These statistics show that the mainstream media is continuing to downplay the gigantic influence of leftist billionaires while drumbeating a narrative that the mega dollars from the right are trying to hijack policy and steal the 2024 election.  Furthermore‚  on April 9‚ the day Walter’s book was released for publication‚ the Washington Examiner  published  an article announcing that the Democrat D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb  was shutting down his office’s investigation into Arabella that was initiated  in response to allegations that the organization was violating federal laws to benefit Democrats. The D.C. office of the Attorney General  claims that that the investigation was terminated because there was “no evidence of a violation of law.” This development comes in the wake of a March ruling from a D.C. judge that authorized discovery in the lawsuit of a former Arabella employee Sarah Walker who accused the organization of racial and gender bias in hiring and salary decisions and of  retaliatory behavior towards her for raising concerns that the firm’s New Venture Fund was allegedly involved in tax fraud. Where there’s smoke‚ there’s usually fire. Both the terminated investigation and Ms. Walker’s lawsuit are emblematic of the left’s rabid determination to protect their kingmakers from scrutiny. (READ MORE: Let’s Make the Oscars Great Again: Trump Invades the Academy Awards) Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Secretly Transforming America is a copiously researched book about the an organization that has repeatedly pushed the envelope in its quest to propagate the progressive ideology of its cabal of billionaire donors. Scott Walter is to be commended for writing such an important expos&;eacute;‚ which everyone should read as the November 5 election approaches and the possibilities for election corruption and public policy poisoning abound.   The post Arabella Advisors: the Dark Money Incubator for Leftist Billionaires appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

NATO is marking its 75th anniversary. The ever-expanding gang of U.S. military dependents will hold its summit in Washington this July. Being defense dependents might have been demeaning‚ but the financial benefit of Washington’s military subsidies was enormous. It should be a time for celebration. However‚ the specter of another Trump presidency will hang over the gathering. Although the 45th chief executive did not dismantle the transatlantic alliance‚ he was constantly undermined by appointees from America’s past equivalent to the Ancien Regime. That likely would change if he gets a second chance. At the anniversary ceremony in Brussels‚ reported the Washington Post‚ “toasts about unity were in many cases undercut by the conversations on the margins of the party‚ most notably about the possible return to the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump.” (READ MORE from Doug Bandow: Xi Jinping’s Persecution of Chinese Christians) These fears span the Atlantic. Listen to the endless parade of webinars from Washington think tanks‚ and you will witness wailing‚ gnashing of teeth‚ and rending of garments on a Biblical scale. There is little difference between Eurocrats and Washingtonians when it comes to ensuring that America keeps the defense gravy train going for Europe. Policy elites largely think alike. None of this would shock American policymakers who connected the U.S. and Europe militarily. They were prepared to defend the continent when necessary — to end World War II and forestall more Soviet gains during the onset of the Cold War. However‚ they did not intend to create an enduring defense dole. Observed James McAllister in No Exit: America and the German Problem: “American policymakers from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower strenuously tried to avoid having the future of Europe dependent on a permanent U.S. military presence on the continent.” Columbia’s Mark Sheetz made a similar point: Postwar American statesmen‚ such as Kennan‚ Dulles and Eisenhower‚ did not want European stability to be permanently dependent on the presence of American forces. They did not want to assume the burden of defending Europe permanently against the Soviet Union‚ nor did they want to serve permanently as Europe’s protector against a possible resurgence of German power. U.S. officials recognized the temptation that their support would pose to Europe. Wrote author Marc Trachtenberg: “During the crucial formative period in the early 1950s‚ everyone wanted a permanent American presence in Europe — everyone‚ that is‚ except the Americans themselves.” In particular‚ Eisenhower‚ NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander U.S. president‚ wanted America’s military presence to be temporary. He explained: There is no defense for Western Europe that depends exclusively or even materially upon the existence‚ in Europe‚ of strong American units. The spirit must be here and the strength must be produced here. We cannot be a modern Rome guarding the far frontiers with our legions if for no other reason than that these are not‚ politically‚ our frontiers. What we must do is to assist these people [to] regain their confidence and get on their own military feet. The latter point was critical. Europeans were expected to take over responsibility for their futures. Observed University of Cincinnati’s Brendan Green: “The United States would build Western Europe into an independent pole of power that could balance the Soviet Union by itself. The United States would then pass the buck‚ withdrawing its forces from the continent and positioning itself as the balancer of last resort.” Obviously‚ this never happened. Why seems best explained by human nature. First was caution‚ reluctance to change policy while the Cold War persisted. Although Joseph Stalin’s death eased tensions‚ most notably the end of the Korean War‚ events such as the Hungarian Revolution reminded Americans and Europeans about the Evil Empire to the east. With the Red Army apparently poised for action‚ it seemed risky to weaken the U.S. presence. Second was simple greed. The Europeans did not want to replace American forces. Being defense dependents might have been demeaning‚ but the financial benefit of Washington’s military subsidies was enormous. Only Kremlin allies and a few errant nationalists wanted U.S. forces to withdraw. So European governments would never mount the sort of military build-up that would invite an American military departure. On the other side of the Atlantic ego discouraged change. With Europeans opposed to defense self-sufficiency‚ Washington felt no pressure to transfer responsibility. And with American policymakers reveling in their position atop the “leader of the free world‚” they preferred to keep Europe in an ostentatiously submissive role‚ despite the added cost. After all‚ this was the era of both guns and butter. Although the Vietnam War offered an obvious justification to expand Europe’s role‚ Uncle Sam was determined to do it all. The Nixon administration ended up pushing allies to do more‚ but only in Vietnam did that mean the withdrawal of all U.S. troops. Now decades more have passed‚ and Uncle Sam is still acting as nursemaid to Europe. The shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has spurred many European governments to spend more‚ but they continue to lag badly‚ especially in terms of combat capability. Even the United Kingdom‚ which possesses the continent’s best military‚ remains a major disappointment. The UK’s army is actually shrinking. Reported Sky News: “The chronic erosion has created what defense sources describe as a ‘hollow force‚’ with insufficient personnel‚ not enough money to train and arm those still on the books‚ out-dated weapons and depleted stockpiles of ammunition and spare parts.” More specifically: The armed forces would run out of ammunition “in a few days” if called upon to fight; The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring; It would take five to 10 years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25‚000 to 30‚000 troops backed by tanks‚ artillery‚ and helicopters; Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilize within NATO timelines — “so we’d turn up under strength”; The majority of the army’s fleet of armored vehicles‚ including tanks‚ was built between 30 to 60 years ago and full replacements are not due for years. This should have sparked sustained‚ if not frenzied‚ efforts to restore the UK’s military strength. But there is little urgency even within the ruling Conservative Party: “‘The money needed to fix defense is small when compared to other areas of spending like health‚ welfare and debt interest. So this is a matter of government choices‚ not affordability‚’ [General Sir Richard Barrons] told Sky News.” If the threat is as great as so many Europeans claim‚ shouldn’t London choose to act decisively&;#63;(READ MORE: Leftists Blatantly Celebrate Lenin’s Legacy in New Book) Yet advocates of continued continental dependence have come up with another reason for Americans to continue treating Europeans as children. Cherchez le Boche and the others&;#33; NATO’s first secretary general‚ Lord Hastings Ismay‚ famously opined that the alliance’s purpose was “to keep the Russians out‚ the Americans in‚ and the Germans down.” Aaron MacLean of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies seeks to revive that role for NATO. Never mind eight decades of peace in what Donald Rumsfeld unceremoniously called “Old Europe.” The Europeans‚ and especially Germans‚ just can’t be trusted. (So much for defending their democracies&;#33;) Obviously‚ these populations possess a double or maybe even treble dose of original sin. Explained MacLean: “It isn’t Germany‚ specifically‚ that need preoccupy us — though the contributions of a unified Germany to international security over the past 150 years have been mixed. Ismay’s comment ought to remind us of the possibility of European politics more broadly. Perhaps we forget the vast slaughterhouse into which the Continent transformed on two occasions in the first half of the last century. Its wealth and leadership did little to retard and much to accelerate the industrial and pitiless cruelty‚ the movements of populations‚ the murders of whole peoples‚ and the conscription and sacrifice of millions. Twice‚ reluctantly‚ America sent its own youth‚ many of them victims of the Minotaur of European ‘progress’. Yet there was no reason for the U.S. to intervene in 1917‚ other than Woodrow Wilson’s vainglorious determination to reorder the globe‚ which exploded disastrously a generation later. Had the Americans stayed home‚ most likely was a compromise peace rather than French triumphalism. The result might have been ugly but almost certainly would have been nothing like World War II. Moreover‚ after what was originally known as the Great War most everyone in Europe‚ other than Adolf Hitler‚ was determined not to repeat the past. After World War II truly everyone in Europe had learned that lesson. MacLean worries about Germany’s Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally‚ as well as “plenty of others outside the typical mainstream gaining public favor.” Yet which of these movements is promoting violence internally and aggression externally&;#63; To the contrary‚ they tend to oppose fighting a proxy war with Russia and related calls for rearmament. Marine Le Pen doesn’t look much like a Napoleon in waiting. If anyone in Germany is interested in creating the Fourth Reich‚ it is the Greens‚ who have become Berlin’s new uber-hawks. Still‚ Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is a poor substitute for Hitler. Given how fervently most Europeans‚ including Brits‚ French‚ and Germans‚ continue to resist rearmament‚ a return to fratricidal intra-European conflict looks unlikely‚ to put it politely. Indeed‚ the agenda MacLean complains of looks a lot like that of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Love it or hate it‚ it is less likely to lead to World War III than the Biden administration’s interventionist policies. Indeed‚ President Trump was noticeably reluctant to use force despite his sometimes-truculent rhetoric. Today’s nationalists look tame compared to those currently wielding power. But assume MacLean is right that putting “these countries on their own feet may merely be the prelude to their hands reaching for one another’s throats.” If that is the price of independence‚ so be it. Eight decades of babysitting is enough. U.S. debts are rocketing upward. Annual interest payments already run more than military outlays. Social spending‚ especially Social Security and Medicare‚ is on an inevitable upward trajectory. Americans no longer can afford the cost and risk of patrolling the globe. Europe requires defense. That is the most important lesson of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However‚ almost 80 years have passed since the end of World War II. It is time for Europeans to defend Europe. That could mean a European-led NATO. Or a new defense organization tied to the European Union. Or an entirely new system. Washington should assist in the transition and cooperate with the Europeans on shared interests. However‚ the U.S. should set a time certain for the ultimate withdrawal of its combat forces from the continent. It is well past time to realize the intentions of America’s NATO founders. (READ MORE: A Century Ago‚ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Died) The transatlantic alliance was intended as a temporary shield to allow the Europeans to recover from war‚ overcome hatreds of the past‚ and rebuild militaries. By all accounts‚ they have achieved the first two‚ the rise of nationalist movements notwithstanding. Now they should complete the third. It really is time for the Europeans to do the paying and dying for their own defense. Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan‚ he is author ofForeign Follies: America’s New Global Empire. The post At 75‚ Remember NATO Objective of Rearming Europe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The new film Hard Miles delivers a welcome and much-needed message: Black and Hispanic Americans are not victims subject to the whims of racist “structures” and “systems.” They are victors who control their own destinies‚ no matter how much “Whitey” might root against them. Tight direction‚ an exciting score‚ beautiful outdoor cinematography‚ and an unpredictable script all make this a memorable film. This applies to mild-mannered‚ law-abiding citizens as well as hot-headed young men who are prone to violence and even trouble with the law. Veteran actor Matthew Modine stars in this true story as Greg Townsend‚ a welding teacher at Ridgeway Academy‚ a minimum-security juvenile-detention facility in Colorado. He roots for and leads four incarcerated teens (one white) on a most auspicious journey out of their small‚ scary worlds into the big skies and endless horizons of the Rockies and the desert Southwest. Their 726-mile journey from Denver to the Grand Canyon has its ups and downs‚ which makes for a most entertaining and meaningful road trip. As these four troubled kids conquer steep grades with nothing but leg power‚ their self-confidence grows. The self-doubts pressed upon them by difficult circumstances and people who expect nothing from them evaporate with every gear shift. Matthew Modine in ‘Hard Miles’ (Pense Productions) In a particularly effective way‚ the at-risk youth who pedal the film forward seem not to be actors but‚ instead‚ local amateurs tapped for the task — perhaps young toughs who were “sentenced” essentially to portray themselves on film. Their performances are so relaxed and natural that they seem not to be performances at all. It usually takes seasoned professionals to pull this off. The fact that newcomers Damien Diaz‚ Jahking Guillory‚ Jackson Kelly‚ and Zachary Robbins are so convincing as “the real thing” confirms these young actors’ abundant promise for success on the Silver Screen. Also commendable‚ Cynthia Kay McWilliams as a sort of correctional system “den mother” who drives the team’s supply van and watches over the teens and Townsend‚ who has his own demons. Leslie David Baker provides consistent comic relief as a hybrid high school principal and jail warden who keeps Townsend and the cyclists on a long leash. He also goes the extra mile to steer them out of trouble when assorted speed bumps arise. This long and winding road features multiple plot twists and a surprisingly high number of laughs. Hard Miles is far more engaging than watching wheels go ’round in circles. Tight direction‚ an exciting score‚ beautiful outdoor cinematography‚ and an unpredictable script all make this a memorable film with a simple moral: Yes‚ you can&;#33; Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor. READ MORE from Deroy Murdock: Trump Should Sue Letitia James for Sex and Race Discrimination For Democrats‚ ‘Illegal’ Wasn’t Always Hate Speech The post &;lt;i&;gt;Hard Miles&;lt;/i&;gt; Proves That Positive Thinking Levels Mountains appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The ashes of Mot&;ouml;rhead frontman Lemmy Kilmister were enshrined at the Rainbow Bar &; Grill on Friday (4/19). Fans raised a toast to Lemmy and Mot&;ouml;rhead with the unveiling of Mot&;ouml;rhead Whiskey. Lemmy‚ who passed away on 12/28/15‚ was a longtime regular at the West Hollywood bar. This is not the first time the Rainbow has honored Lemmy.  Previously‚ they renamed their patio “Lemmy’s Lounge” after installing a life-size bronze statue immortalizing the Mot&;ouml;rhead bassist.  The post Lemmy’s Final Resting Spot appeared first on RockinTown.