A Bella Vista‚ Arkansas‚ man was arrested and held on $1 million bond after he was allegedly found to be in possession of six live bombs and planned to flee the country to avoid trial in Texas‚ according…

Colorado is generally regarded as a blue state‚ but it is home  to many Republicans. In the last presidential election‚ nearly 1.4 million voters cast ballots for then-President Trump. Yet the state Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that strips them of their right to do so again. Four of the court’s seven Democrat-appointed justices found that Trump’s role in the fabled Jan. 6 “insurrection” disqualifies him from appearing on Colorado’s ballot. This ruling earned them the wrath of the former President’s supporters and the derision of all but a few hyper-partisan constitutional scholars. Nor will it survive the inevitable appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. [I]t’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Biden campaign fears it can’t win a fair election. Meanwhile‚ the decision has added credibility to Trump’s claim that he is the target of a corrupt campaign by far left Democrats to destroy him politically and personally. It does indeed follow a pattern of persecution that began with the Russia collusion hoax‚ two meritless impeachments‚ and continues with several legally dubious prosecutions. Moreover‚ because the ruling disfranchises about 42 percent of Colorado’s voters‚ it also confirms another refrain to which Trump often returns when addressing his supporters: “They’re coming after you. I’m just in the way.” It seems that even the corporate media grasp that the ruling was ill-conceived. The editors of the Washington Post‚ for example‚ have misgivings: Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it. Tellingly‚ Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has brought an aggressive case against the former president for conspiracy to defraud the United States‚ obstruction of an official proceeding and more — but not for violating the federal law against insurrection … Disqualifying a candidate based on an accusation‚ albeit one blessed by a state court judge as in the Colorado case — but not an actual conviction — is dangerous. And the editors of the Post are by no means alone in this assessment. Mark Barabak writes in the Los Angeles Times‚ “Assuming Trump is the GOP nominee‚ Democrats will have to beat him at the ballot box‚ as they should. A courtroom is no place to decide a presidential election.” Jonathan Chait echoes this point in New York Magazine: “To deny the voters the chance to elect the candidate of their choice is a Rubicon-crossing event for the judiciary. It would be seen forever by tens of millions of Americans as a negation of democracy.” Even the editors of the Guardian‚ not exactly a MAGA stronghold‚ understand that Trump’s fate must be decided by voters rather than state courts: “He must be beaten at the ballot box again.” (READ MORE from David Catron: Can Trump Really Win in 2024?) Nonetheless‚ the Colorado court insisted on stuffing a new issue into Trump’s Christmas stocking. As former Obama advisor David Axelrod put it on X (née Twitter)‚ “All the legal challenges that have been thrown at Trump have so far helped strengthen him … CO will be the same.” Moreover‚ the ruling destroys a key Biden talking point. He can hardly claim that Trump must be defeated to save democracy when his own party is actively disfranchising voters. A database maintained by Lawfare shows 16 more states in which Democrat surrogates are trying to remove Trump from the ballot. Thus‚ Yale law professor Samuel Moyn argues in the New York Times that the Supreme Court should reverse the Colorado ruling: When Donald Trump appeals the Colorado decision disqualifying him from the ballot in that state’s Republican primary‚ the Supreme Court should overturn the ruling unanimously … There may well be some instances in which the very survival of a democratic regime is at stake if noxious candidates or parties are not banned‚ as in West Germany after World War II. But in this case‚ what Section 3 requires is far from straightforward. Keeping Mr. Trump off the ballot could put democracy at more risk rather than less … The Supreme Court must act‚ but only to place the burden on Trump’s political opponents to make their case in the political arena. This is‚ of course‚ what Biden and the Democrats are desperately trying to avoid with legal gimmicks like disqualifying Trump from appearing on state ballots. They know that‚ if they are forced to campaign on real issues rather than the ridiculous “Trump is Hitler” narrative‚ Biden will lose. According to RealClearPolitics‚ Biden’s average approval ratings are under water by double digits on every major issue‚ including the economy‚ foreign policy‚ immigration‚ inflation‚ crime‚ ad infinitum. On the general direction of the country more than two-thirds of the voters believe we are on the wrong path. Finally‚ when asked how Biden’s policies have affected them personally‚ a majority of voters say they have been hurt by them. (READ MORE: Dictatorship Is as Dictatorship Does) This is the political backdrop against which Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s name will not appear on the state’s ballot. Considering that similar attempts to disfranchise voters are underway in numerous additional states‚ it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Biden campaign fears it can’t win a fair election. It’s even harder to see how the U.S. Supreme Court can allow the Colorado ruling to stand or permit other states to follow its dangerous example. In the end‚ this ruling will be seen as a Christmas gift to Trump. It is already generating a lot of earned media coverage and a spike in campaign contributions. In addition‚  he will soon be able to claim a major victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. The post Colorado’s Christmas Gift to Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When Adolf Hitler started to turn Europe into his German empire‚ he faced military vulnerability. The newly minted country of Czechoslovakia thrust into the southeast of Germany. Its border with Germany was mountainous and‚ heavily fortified‚ posed a formidable obstacle to a German invasion. The Czech army was significant in size and in training‚ and its Skoda arms factory was the second largest in the world. Military historians estimate it could have held out for months against Germany in the years before the war.One cannot fight and win in urban warfare under such rules as the progressives insist upon. But it wasn’t going to be standing alone. France pledged by treaty to intervene if the Czechs were attacked. Czechoslovakia acted faithfully with its treaty partner‚ always supporting French interests in international affairs and trusting France’s good faith as it of all countries had good reason to see any future German aggression checked. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Bidenpolitik: A Foreign Policy Without Coherence) In 1938‚ Hitler felt ready to threaten war to get the Czechs to cede its border fortresses and its arms works to Germany. The Czechs thought they were secure with France treaty-bound to come to their aid. If Germany were to attack them‚ France would attack Germany from the west‚ making an unwinnable two-front war for Germany.  But France had lost the will to make a stand. Rather than commit to fight‚ it chose instead to seek any way it could to escape its treaty obligations. Britain‚ morally bound to stand against Germany’s aggression and with its ally in the previous war‚ was also ready to make any deal to avoid war. The resulting Munich Pact afforded Hitler an unearned victory‚ immensely increasing his prestige and his own sense of invincibility. Less than half a year later‚ he would gobble up the rest of Czechoslovakia‚ setting the stage for his next conquest‚ Poland‚ and the outbreak of the shooting war that would last until May 1945 in Europe. Writing after the war’s end‚ Winston Churchill reflected on those days and on the capitulation in Munich‚ which he had called back then in the House of Commons “a total and unmitigated defeat.” In addition to the severe criticism of the British and French leaders of those days‚ he also had some words for the choices of the Czechs‚ which surely bear on any other country similarly confronted by aggression and saddled with a half-hearted ally. He wrote: [Czech president Benes] should have defended his fortress line. Once fighting had begun‚ in my opinion at that time‚ France would have moved to his aid in a surge of national passion‚ and Britain would have rallied to France almost immediately. Churchill‚ in fairness‚ gave his readers the French argument in their own defense: If Czechoslovakia had refused to submit and war had resulted‚ France would have fulfilled her obligations; but if the Czechs chose to give in under whatever pressures were administered‚ French honour was saved.  Of this defense‚ Churchill wrote: We must leave this to the judgment of history. Eighty-five years later‚ Israel is being pressured by its defense partner. Biden’s administration gives out a double message: On the one hand‚ Americans support the destruction of the Hamas empire of terror. It’s a fairly simple call‚ much as it was in Europe in the 1930s‚ contested only by simpletons‚ of which there were plenty both then and now. Hamas shows itself the enemy of civilization by its endorsement of war by atrocity for the purpose of extermination. (READ MORE: The Totalitarianism of Cultural Fog) On the other hand‚ the Administration has made itself dependent on the far-left woke ideologues‚ whom they have indiscriminately welcomed into their blue coalition. These folks‚ now nested throughout the deep-state bureaucracy‚ share Hamas aims and‚ in their fundamentalist fury‚ care as little as Hamas does about even the most rudimentary obligations of civilized life. They worship power and power only and are thus apt bedfellows‚ though they ought to be careful: Hamas gets its kicks just as much out of throwing certain folks off of rooftops as the more conventionally unconventional pleasurable preferences of the wokesters. Between the one hand and the other‚ there is no coherence at all‚ only contradiction. And so the Biden folks attempt to square the circle‚ and demand that that impossible be realized immediately by Israel. They demand that somehow Israel avoid any civilian casualties fighting an ununiformed enemy who uses women and children as human shields and who hides in schools‚ mosques‚ churches‚ and private homes. And then they say that Israel can defend itself and who are we to interfere‚ And then they repeat the cycle. One cannot fight and win in urban warfare under such rules as the progressives insist upon — rules that Hamas never commits to observe themselves and doesn’t even pretend to. And the cost of Israel not winning is deadly. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal‚ former Israel Defense Force General Giora Eiland‚ former chairman of Israel’s National Security Council‚ said‚ “If we end the war right now‚ it will be a terrible Israeli defeat.” Consider it in terms of the most appropriate parallel. Imagine that in 1945 we turned away from the ground war in Germany and allowed the Nazis to remain in control‚ as Hamas remains in control of southern Gaza. At the very least‚ we would not have the friendly Germany we have today: a constitutional society with advanced political freedom. Instead‚ we would be just waiting for those motivated by hate to find their next opportunity to break out and tumble the world into unimaginable chaos once again. The connection between Israel and the West was understood well by Churchill. Speaking to an Israeli representative‚ Eliyahu Eilath‚ who was visiting him in London in 1950‚ he said (as Eilath reported to Martin Gilbert) that for her own sake and that of the democracies‚ Israel must lose no time in developing her potential; she must hasten to become a strong political and military factor.  Churchill’s insights on the grave issues at hand stand the test of time. When hate-driven tyrannies try to outbluff their democratic enemies‚ his doctrines remain sound. They are certainly better than anything Obama‚ Rhodes‚ Sullivan‚ Blinken‚ or Austin have to offer. (READ MORE: Hamas Plot to Attack Jews in Europe Foiled. World’s Response?)  May Israel’s coalition government listen politely to the Bidenauts‚ but do what they must. If they quietly stay the course‚ it may just be enough to shame the sorry Biden crew into allowing them to fight on to victory and the possibility of real peace. In his latest article in Tablet‚ Lee Smith lays out clearly the profound cultural battle that is playing out in world affairs. (Yes‚ the culture war affects the entirety of our civilization.) Ruled by the woke culture of nihilism‚ whose cardinal idea is that human powers are so unchecked that they can completely redefine reality‚ the Biden folks believe that they really can square the circle. Any negative consequence‚ they can simply define away. So instead of allowing Hamas to suffer for unleashing a war of torture and extermination‚ Biden’s minions are intervening to save Hamas’ skin‚ because they can magically make them what their actions show they are not — a partner in peaceful civilization. Trapped by their Faustian egos‚ they seek to revive and rehabilitate Hamas’ culture of death — which is just a new‚ more comprehensive version of the Nazi vision — Gotterdammerung without the SS death’s head and with that extra frisson so essential in the West — new modes of protected sexual expression — mass rape and necrophilia. A match made in hell.  Pray that Israel stands strong and that America’s spirit resolves to rid itself at last of this woke insanity gone full-bore Nazi. Our culture is equal to the task. The post A Real Democracy Cannot Protect Hamas appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For decades during the postwar era‚ Leonard Bernstein occupied a unique place at the red-hot center of both America’s high and middlebrow culture. While serving as music director of the New York Philharmonic‚ he conducted major orchestras around the world and composed a number of major classical works‚ including Mass‚ which he wrote‚ on the invitation of Jacqueline Kennedy‚ for the opening of the Kennedy Center of the Performing Arts. In his heyday‚ no orchestra conductor on earth was anywhere near as famous. At the same time‚ his musicals — most famously‚ West Side Story‚ the movie version of which won the Oscar for Best Picture — made him the best-known Broadway songwriter of the day. Even as a schoolboy‚ I was aware of him: every Saturday for years‚ CBS-TV aired his “Young People’s Concerts‚” on which he introduced children to classical music and explained such things as melody‚ mode‚ and orchestration.In almost every serious Woody Allen movie‚ there’s a line or two of dialogue that’s so pretentious and unnatural that it makes you cringe. In this movie‚ there are whole scenes like that. It was a different time — and a colorful career‚ one that offers an embarrassment of riches to anyone who might want to make a movie about it. As it happens‚ that’s something that Martin Scorsese wanted to do a few years ago‚ and Steven Spielberg wanted to do some time later. Those plans didn’t work out‚ alas‚ and now both Scorsese and Spielberg are listed as producers on the new Netflix offering‚ Maestro‚ that Bradley Cooper has directed from a script he wrote with Josh Singer and that stars Cooper himself as Bernstein. (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: The Crown’s Surprisingly Touching Finale) It’s a beautiful-looking film — thanks to cinematographer Matthew Libatique — but if you’re looking for a jam-packed account of a jam-packed life‚ look elsewhere. Yes‚ it starts out promisingly enough. After a brief opening scene that shows Bernstein at 70 (he died in 1990 at 72)‚ we jump back to November 14‚ 1943‚ and switch from color to black-and-white. Bernstein‚ 25‚ is in bed with his current main squeeze‚ clarinetist David Oppenheim‚ when he’s awakened by the phone call that changed his life: the New York Philharmonic’s guest conductor‚ Bruno Walter‚ is ill‚ and Bernstein‚ a total unknown‚ must take his place on the podium tonight. The performance — executed without a moment’s rehearsal — is a triumph‚ and makes Bernstein famous‚ at least among the glitterati. Soon he and choreographer Jerry Robbins (Michael Urie) are collaborating on a ballet‚ Fancy Free. At a showbiz party (whose oddball guests bring to mind Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories)‚ Bernstein’s sister‚ Shirley (Sarah Silverman)‚ introduces him to the vivacious Latin American actress Felicia Montealegre (Carey Mulligan). They proceed‚ in an intense tête-à-tête‚ to exchange tons of exposition. Explaining that he can be “many things at once‚” Lenny says that he senses she’s the same way. Meanwhile we start to get a sense of him: already accustomed to being the center of attention in any room he’s in‚ Lenny lives fast‚ loves fast‚ works fast‚ and talks so fast that he doesn’t just talk over other people but somehow manages even to talk over himself. Anyway‚ they start courting. On the stage of an empty theater where she’s been rehearsing a play‚ he reads aloud with her from the script. They kiss. But mostly they talk. And talk and talk. She says she doesn’t fear anything. He insists his success was the result of luck. Later they sit in a field of grass and talk some more. Also‚ they laugh a lot. There’s a lot of laughter in this movie‚ even though nothing in it is remotely funny. He takes her to lunch with veteran conductor Serge Koussevitzky (Yasen Peyankov)‚ who says Lenny “can be the first great American conductor” if only he drops the pop music and changes his name to Burns. Felicia disagrees: at a rehearsal of a dance number from his first Broadway show‚ On the Town (“It’s not serious music‚ is it?” Bernstein grumbles)‚ Felicia asks why he’d want to give up all this fun to be “the first great American conductor”: “Is that what you want?” “I want a lot of things‚” he replies‚ and he’s not just talking about his career. There follows an odd‚ clunky dream dance‚ à la Agnes de Mille‚ dramatizing Lenny’s sexual and career conflicts — as well as Felicia’s own awareness that she might be better off hooking up with actor Dick Hart (Tim Rogan)‚ whom Shirley has pushed on her‚ than with Lenny. But no‚ she picks Lenny. In bed‚ in a painfully arty scene that feels like a detour into the French New Wave‚ he tells her what he used to dream about in childhood‚ which is as interesting as — well — hearing somebody tell you what he used to dream about in childhood. So it goes between them for most of the rest of the movie: long scenes‚ consisting of plenty of aimless dialogue (“I love your smell”)‚ bursts of inexplicable laughter‚ many long silences‚ and intense‚ meaningful close-ups. Oh‚ plus loads of cigarettes and cocktails. (Felicia ended up dying of lung cancer‚ while Lenny developed emphysema.) At times Maestro recalls Woody Allen at his most serious (like many of Allen’s movies‚ it’s a tribute‚ in part‚ to upscale Manhattan life). On other occasions one reflects that‚ if Ingmar Bergman hadn’t already used the title‚ this picture could’ve been called Scenes From a Marriage. (READ MORE: Imperfect Criticism‚ Great TV: Remembering Siskel &; Ebert) In any event‚ they do indeed marry‚ Felicia having made it clear she’s aware of his gay dalliances (“I know exactly who you are”) and is OK with them. Time passes. They do a joint TV interview with Ed Murrow‚ which serves to update us on Lenny’s career — for example‚ Felicia tells Murrow that Lenny’s working on West Side Story with a “brilliant” young lyricist named Stephen Sondheim. But why don’t we see any of that collaboration? Sondheim isn’t even a character here. Why not? More time passes‚ and the film switches from black-and-white back to color. Lenny and Felicia‚ who now have three kids‚ throw a party at their Dakota digs — filmed‚ Woody Allen style‚ with few cuts and a roving camera. When young Tommy Cothran (Gideon Glick) catches his eye‚ Lenny burbles out silly compliments — “Your hair is just glorious!” — then takes him out of the apartment‚ where Felicia catches them by the elevator in mid-kiss. “Fix your hair‚” she orders Lenny coolly. “You’re getting sloppy.” His gay life‚ now apparently less discreet than before‚ is plainly no longer as light a burden to her as it was at the start. What went wrong here? Cooper seems to have decided to eschew conventional plotting and character development as somehow beneath him artistically. Later‚ at the Bernsteins’ Connecticut country house‚ John Gruen (Josh Hamilton)‚ who’s interviewing Lenny‚ kicks off the conversation with yet another update on Lenny’s career: “Fifteen years on television … ten years at the New York Philharmonic…. West Side Story redefined the American musical.” Rarely has any film shoveled in so much exposition so often. Again‚ why not show us at least some of this good stuff? Because for some reason Cooper prefers to focus on lugubrious scenes like this one with Gruen‚ in which Lenny dismisses his own accomplishments (even though his tone is one of monumental self-importance): “It’s a great source of dissatisfaction that I don’t feel I’ve created that much at all…. As we sit here‚ I find it very difficult to think that whether I am a conductor or composer of any note has any bearing on anything.” Gruen professes to understand: “This has marked many artists‚ and you can see it in their work.” Bernstein moves on to the topic of Felicia. “It’s almost as if she can’t enjoy anything anymore‚” he says. “I think she has a keen sense of futility.” “I sense that too about her‚” replies Gruen‚ who notes that the once “vivacious” Felicia now “seems crushed.” In almost every serious Woody Allen movie‚ there’s a line or two of dialogue that’s so pretentious and unnatural that it makes you cringe. In this movie‚ there are whole scenes like that. So it goes. In yet another tiresome‚ phony-sounding heart-to-heart‚ Felicia accuses Lenny of “failing to fulfill his obligations to his talent” and says that it’s “draining to love someone who doesn’t love and accept himself.” Cut to the cathedral in Ely‚ England‚ where Bernstein conducts the last several minutes of Mahler’s Second: he’s supposed to look impassioned‚ possessed by the beauty of the music and by his ardor for his art‚ but instead he comes off as frighteningly manic‚ edging into laughably cartoonish. After the concern‚ he and Felicia find reconciliation. But their good fortune‚ alas‚ is about to dry up. Felicia starts dying of cancer‚ and Lenny embraces her in bed. We should feel for them. But we don’t. We’ve spent more than two hours with them‚ but now we find ourselves asking: who are these people? When‚ after her death‚ Lenny goes into a group hug with their grown kids‚ we realize we haven’t a clue who these kids are: they’re just actors playing the Bernsteins’ offspring. In fact‚ as the movie wears on‚ instead of feeling increasingly that we know Lenny inside and out‚ we’re more and more aware that we’re watching a performance by an actor who’s put on a nasal voice‚ a stage nose‚ an unusually self-important manner‚ and an at least occasionally antic disposition‚ in order to blow us away with his talent for mimicry. Yet Cooper’s depiction of Bernstein — when viewed alongside YouTube videos of the real thing — is exceedingly stylized and absurdly exaggerated. Watching the actual Bernstein on YouTube is‚ frankly‚ a lot more interesting‚ especially over the long haul‚ than watching Cooper pretending to be him. Indeed‚ a single episode of Bernstein’s Young People’s Concerts‚ in which he strives so earnestly to instill in American children his own love of music‚ is more moving than the whole of Cooper’s film put together. (READ MORE: A Spirited Treatise on Classical Music) What went wrong here? Cooper seems to have decided to eschew conventional plotting and character development as somehow beneath him artistically‚ preferring instead to limn — in a distanced and sophisticated way‚ drawing on various sophisticated cinematic antecedents — the story of a sophisticated mid-century marriage between two eminently sophisticated artistes. But Cooper seems to have considered it suitable to observe these eminences from a discreet distance rather than to be so unseemly as to dig too far beneath their surfaces. Discretion‚ indeed‚ is the mot juste here: that brief shot of Bernstein in bed with his boyfriend on the morning of November 14‚ 1943‚ is by far the film’s most risqué moment; for all the allusions to his extramarital indiscretions‚ all that we see of those indiscretions is that fleeting kiss by the elevator with Tommy. This is a movie with multiple party scenes‚ but it pointedly omits the most famous party of Bernstein’s life — indeed‚ perhaps the most famous party of the 1970s. I’m referring‚ of course‚ to the 1970 fundraising bash that Lenny and Felicia threw for the Black Panthers and that was immortalized in Tom Wolfe’s brilliant essay “Radical Chic.” That disgraceful event — which captured for all time the inane eagerness of certain elements of the haute monde to cozy up to savages whose only goal was to destroy them and their ilk —was only one of several occasions on which Bernstein‚ this purported sophisticate and authentic musical genius‚ displayed staggering political naïveté. For example‚ after conducting the New York Philharmonic in Moscow in 1959‚ he remarked that this could be “a thrilling world … if only we knew we would never again have to indulge the brutal sin of war-making. If the Russians could be as hospitable and warm as they were to us‚ why couldn’t such warmth overflow into the totality of our relations?” Including such episodes in Maestro would’ve enriched it immensely. So would a scene or two showing Bernstein at work with Sondheim on West Side Story. But Cooper made other choices‚ so that what we come away from this film with is the knowledge that Bernstein was a bon vivant and closet case and Felicia a glamorous and loving but often unhappy wife — in short‚ yet another couple with lots of money and lots of problems. What’s missing? Only the abundance of rich specifics that make up a life. What a lost opportunity this was to make a captivating — and inspiring — movie about a uniquely colorful and complex man. The post Bradley Cooper Is Leonard Bernstein — And I Am Marie of Romania appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’ll be home for Christmas‚ you can plan on me‚ please have snow‚ and mistletoe‚ and presents by the tree‚ Christmas Eve will find me‚ where the love light gleams‚ I’ll be home for Christmas‚ if only in my dreams. It may not be sung in church‚ nor get as much play on the radio as Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer or Jingle Bells. But one still hears the Christmas classic I’ll Be Home for Christmas with some regularity — and it always prompts at least a moment’s thoughtfulness. Not everyone‚ after all‚ can get home for Christmas‚ even in our travel-friendly times. (READ MORE: The Paradoxical Christmas Nostalgia of Truman Capote) Military families‚ in particular‚ appreciate the pangs of distance as Christmas draws near. Despite the best efforts of unit commanders‚ no amount of special consideration can make Christmas feel the way it should for young men and women on ships or bases halfway around the world. But military or civilian‚ most folks these days have simply forgotten — or more likely never knew — the significance of the song or the heartache that lurked behind the lyrics. A Song In Times of War I’ll Be Home for Christmas was first published just before Dec. 25‚ 1943‚ as the rapidly expanding U.S. military was deeply engaged in combat around the world‚ from Monte Cassino to New Guinea. The young soldiers‚ sailors‚ airmen‚ and Marines scattered across the globe‚ and the families waiting anxiously each day for news of their whereabouts — or their fate — responded powerfully to the song‚ making it an immensely popular hit on radio stations throughout the U.S. and on Armed Forces Radio. As Christmas 1944 approached‚ the song became a massive hit once again‚ particularly its Dec. 7 Bing Crosby performance on the Kraft Music Hall radio show‚ recorded and distributed worldwide by the War and Navy Departments. [E]ven as 6‚000 soldiers died in the Ardennes battle‚ thousands more were dying elsewhere.   For soldiers in the European theater‚ the coming of Christmas was accompanied by disappointment. The post-D-Day slugging match in the Normandy hedgerows‚ the breakout‚ and pursuit across France‚ culminating in the liberation of Paris‚ made optimists of everyone‚ from privates to generals. Operation Market-Garden‚ Field Marshal Montgomery’s daring combined airborne and armored thrust through Holland and across the Rhine‚ was promoted to Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower and the SHAEF staff as an “end the war in the West by Christmas” strategy. But the operation didn’t quite achieve that objective. Market-Garden became a “bridge too far” and General Patton’s Third Army’s dramatic dash across France ended‚ not in the hoped-for leap across the Rhine‚ but in a muddy slogging match in Lorraine. When the Crosby recording of I’ll Be Home for Christmas started reaching the troops‚ “Home for Christmas” had been reduced to the stuff of dreams once again. The war slowed down along the European front as expectations were lowered.  The Battle of the Bulge Nowhere was the war slower than along a roughly 80-mile stretch that guarded the Ardennes forest in Belgium and Luxembourg. Discounting the French experience in 1940‚ when German panzers had plunged through the “impenetrable” forest‚ and stretched thin along a front stretching from the North Sea to Switzerland‚ this front was held by four infantry divisions and a scattering of smaller units. Two of the infantry divisions‚ the 4th and the 28th‚ had been savaged in the Hurtgen Forest and had been assigned to the Ardennes to rest‚ recuperate‚ and absorb thousands of green replacements. Two others‚ the 99th and the 106th‚ lacked even the leavening of veteran survivors of previous combat. They were wholly green and placed alongside the crippled veteran divisions for a gentle “battlefield inoculation” before being assigned to more active sectors. But Hitler had other plans‚ and‚ in the predawn hours of Dec. 16‚ 1944‚ three German armies‚ with 13 infantry divisions and 7 panzer divisions‚ nearly half a million men‚ 2‚000 tanks — including the monstrous 63-ton King Tiger‚ in numbers not yet seen on the Western Front — other armored vehicles‚ and over 4‚000 artillery pieces smashed into the Ardennes front‚ having achieved virtually total surprise in what constituted one of the most profound intelligence failures of the war. Hitler’s plan was based fundamentally on contempt for the American soldier as soft and the American people as too decadent to absorb crushing defeat without coming to the negotiation table. (READ MORE: White House Anti-Christmas Video Has Side Effects) Almost from the beginning‚ Hitler would be proven wrong. The green 99th‚ who would come to call themselves “battle babies‚” fought tooth and nail until the veteran 2nd Infantry could come to their aid. Together with the rapidly responding 1st Infantry Division‚ the northern shoulder of the line would be fixed firmly in place along Elsenborn Ridge. In the south‚ the battered 4th hung tough in northern Luxembourg‚ buying just enough time for General Patton‚ in one of the most remarkable feats of the war‚ to turn the bulk of the Third Army some 90 degrees‚ relieving the 4th in a matter of days‚ and building the southern shoulder. Together these shoulders would squeeze the German offensive into what would come to be called “the bulge‚” from the shape it took on maps of the American lines. In the center‚ famously‚ the 101st Airborne took up the defense of the key road junction at Bastogne‚ where‚ less famously‚ the deeply inexperienced 10th Armored Division had held the line until the airborne could arrive. Other divisions had blocked and slowed the German advance at St. Vith and dozens of other small towns‚ ridgelines‚ and key crossroads. The Germans had countered on bad weather to protect them from intervention by American air power‚ and for a week it did. But even during that week‚ when American generals rushed reinforcements from all along the front‚ the men on the ground were already turning the battle around. When the weather finally broke at Christmas‚ and American air power was unleashed‚ the troops on the ground commenced the grim business of crushing the German attackers. By Jan. 25‚ when the battle was declared over‚ the German army in the West had been reduced to a virtual shambles. While the war would continue until the spring‚ the issue would never again be in doubt. Some Christmas Gratitude for Our Boys The Battle of the Bulge has been rightly described as the greatest battle in the history of the U.S. Army‚ vast in scope‚ vast in numbers — ultimately involving 32 U.S. divisions‚ over a third of the entire U.S. Army in World War II — and vast in casualties. While the tallies vary‚ the best estimates are roughly 80‚000 U.S. soldiers killed‚ wounded‚ missing‚ or captured‚ with a goodly number of the missing still unaccounted for to this very day. It was arguably the most brutal. Brutal in terms of the conditions in which it was fought‚ ice‚ snow‚ and cold‚ where fingers and toes were lost to frostbite and the wounded‚ if not evacuated immediately‚ would often freeze to death where they fell.  Brutal‚ too‚ was the way this battle was fought. In no other battle in U.S. history would American soldiers be subjected to tank attacks of the scale experienced in the Bulge‚ and only rarely would they experience such a pounding by artillery. The face-to-face brutality was also unmatched. Word spread quickly along the “GI grapevine” that 81 American POWs had been murdered by SS troopers at Malmedy‚ followed soon by multiple other similar instances. Wearers of the SS collar runes‚ soon found it almost impossible to surrender. (READ MORE: Keep Pasolini’s Christ in Christmas) Hitler’s assumptions about the softness of the American GI were proven dramatically wrong. Moreover‚ the common soldier of the Battle of the Bulge‚ in large part‚ was not an elite volunteer. There were no Marines and only three divisions of paratroopers. The other 29 divisions were filled with 19 and 20-year-old draftees and officered by 22 and 23-year-old lieutenants and captains — the “90-day wonders” of the Officer Candidate Schools. These were ordinary Americans‚ not warriors by trade or volition‚ but‚ in the moment of greatest trial‚ often cut off‚ outnumbered‚ and outgunned‚ responding with courage and dedication. They paid a terrible price‚ these young soldiers‚ roughly 6‚000 of whom were killed in just over a month of fighting‚ a number that doesn’t include the large numbers of MIAs from this most chaotic of battles. This brings us‚ poignantly‚ to I’ll Be Home for Christmas. On Dec. 15‚ before the onslaught‚ many of these 6‚000 young men were surely dreaming of Christmas with their families‚ if not in the coming Christmas‚ then‚ God willing‚ the Christmas of 1945. And their families‚ just as surely‚ were dreaming of a time when they would return to “where the love light gleams.” The U.S. population in 1944 was scarcely a third of what it is today‚ and even as 6‚000 soldiers died in the Ardennes battle‚ thousands more were dying elsewhere along the Western Front‚ in Italy‚ and across the Pacific‚ where the brutal battle of Peleliu had just concluded and the liberation of the Philippines was hitting its stride. So when you’re standing in the checkout line‚ and I’ll Be Home for Christmas comes up on the store’s piped-in music‚ don’t just zone out while waiting for The Little Drummer Boy or even We Three Kings to play. Pause for a moment to think of the thousands of young men‚ 89 years ago‚ who experienced their last Christmas on earth with only dreams of home to comfort them. And be grateful for their sacrifice. Check out James McGee’s 2022 novel‚ Letter of Reprisal‚ which tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region. You can find it on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions‚ and on Kindle Unlimited. His doctoral dissertation on the early history of the Gestapo can be accessed online by searching “James H. McGee‚ III” and “The Political Police in Bavaria‚ 1919-1936.” The post ‘If Only in My Dreams’: The Poignant Context of a Christmas Classic appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Cultures are held together by the stories they tell about themselves‚ and America is struggling to find a new national story‚ one that can acknowledge past injustices without becoming defined by them.  The old all-or-nothing morality tale of Good America has too often been superseded by an all-or-nothing morality tale of Evil America‚ which proclaims that every apparently positive accomplishment disguises a sadistic reality.”                                    Virginia Postrel‚ New York Post‚ Feb 6‚ 2017 Richard Rorty‚ among the most preeminent of late‚ 20th century left-wing intellectuals called upon his fellow travelers to stop criticizing their country.  He advised National pride is to countries what self-respect is to individuals:  a necessary condition for self-improvement…. [J]ust as too little self-respect makes it difficult for a person to display moral courage‚ so insufficient national pride makes energetic and effective debate about national policy unlikely … Such deliberation will probably not occur unless pride outweighs shame. Clearly‚ today’s progressive woke left wants no part of Rorty’s nostrums.  America’s radical critics take no pride in their country and see her capitalist ethos as worthy of shame and guilt‚ certainly not pride.  To the woke activists‚ American culture is filled with racism‚ sexism‚ homophobia‚ xenophobia‚ hate speech‚ rape culture‚ minority voter suppression and rampant police brutality.  The critics look out and see not millions of individuals striving to better their conditions‚ but so many targeted and exploited ethnic‚ racial‚ economic and gendered minority groups tied together by oppressive bonds of “intersectionality.”  (READ MORE from Jerome Huyler: Leaders Lie When They Lose the Narrative) Above all‚ woke activists decry the corrosive effects of capitalism on the social fabric.  No longer do people come together or care for one another‚ so they say.  In the space once occupied by the “common good‚” they bear witness to a dog-eat-dog‚ survival-of-the-fittest‚ look-out-for-#1″ wasteland marred by toxic masculinity and white supremacy. As Robert Reich‚ a former Commerce Secretary and long-time critic‚ concluded‚  “This is not a society‚ it’s not even a civilization‚ because there’s no civility at its core.”  The radicals seek‚ above all‚ to elicit guilt‚ shame and remorse from the general public.  The man or woman who lacks pride and carries a burden of guilt for his (or his country’s) actions is intellectually disarmed and unable to proudly defend himself (or his country).   He will not be able to push back against a withering criticism‚ however lacking in merit it is.   The left agrees with Marx: “the ruling ideas of any epoch are merely the ideas of the ruling class.” Oppressor and oppressed‚ that is all the country’s detractors can see.  They say America’s democratic ideology is nothing more than a slick trick to justify injustice and pacify a gullible populace.  In a land allegedly devoted to “liberty and justice for all‚” critical race theory (CRT) “exposes” the rampant violation of black people’s rights. Americans … are the most generous and caring people to ever people the planet. You’ve heard of “fake news.” This is fraudulent cultural criticism on a mind-numbing scale.  No‚ it isn’t wrong to point out how the nation’s founding principles were compromised and violated from the start. The past was a brutal and cruel place filled with injustice. What the critics fail to notice is (1) how historically unprecedented the founders invocation of equality was‚ (2) the remarkable progress the country has made in realizing the dream of equality and (3) that it was precisely that dream‚ proclaimed over and over by courageous Civil Rights and Women’s Rights leaders‚ that made progress toward real equality possible. (READ MORE: The Limited Government We Don’t Have) Martin Luther King had a dream‚ “that one day this nation would live out the meaning of its creed‚ that all men are created equal.” All he asked is for America to fulfill its founding ideals.  And‚ after launching the women’s rights movement at the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention in upstate New York‚ Elizabeth Cady Stanton also recalled Jefferson’s July 4th Declaration‚ demanding: “We hold these truths to be self-evident‚ that all men and women are created equal‚ that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. ”  Yes‚ it took far too long to achieve the equality that was proclaimed in 1776 and no doubt there are still racists among us – haters will hate. But it was the nation’s first principles that accompanied every mile post of progress the country passed on her journey to fulfill those noblest of all ideals — Liberty and Equality.  Thankfully‚ the major battles are behind‚ us. If men were at last free to live FOR themselves‚ it did not mean they  had to live BY themselves.    If America became a nation of self-interested movers‚ she also became a nation of joiners.  Americans united over a multitude of worthy causes‚ never hesitating to lend a neighbor in need a helping hand. From the earliest years‚ Americans formed deep fraternal bonds to further their shared values and mutual interests.  Only now‚ the friendships‚ partnerships‚ associations‚ righteous crusades‚ and commercial projects would be of voluntary and mutual accord. Alexis de Tocqueville‚ the famous French aristocrat captured and chronicled the American experience in the early 19th century. He found that Americans “have … carried to the highest perfection the art of pursuing in common the object of their common desires‚ and have applied this new science to the greatest number of purposes.” Echoing that very sentiment‚ but writing half a century later‚ James Bryce wrote: Democracy has not only taught the Americans how to use liberty without abusing it‚ and how to secure equality; it has also taught them fraternity . . . [T]here is in the United States a sort of kindliness‚ a sense of human fellowship‚ a recognition of the duty of mutual help owed by man to man‚ stronger than anywhere in the Old World and certainly stronger than in the upper or middle classes of England‚ France of Germany. Writing thirty years later the noted visitor and philosopher George Santayana‚ observed: “Everywhere co-operation is taken for granted‚ as something that no one would be so mean or so short-sighted as to refuse.  Together with the will to work and to prosper‚ it is of the essence of Americanism.” Americans today form or join associations for every imaginable purpose under heaven. There are trade associations‚ labor unions‚ fraternal orders‚ service societies‚ veterans organizations‚ self-help groups‚ medical societies‚ alumni unions‚ campus sororities and fraternities‚ think tanks‚ animal rescue groups‚ and gun‚ fan and auto clubs‚ to name a few. Leisure and ample disposable income made it all possible. But the largest association of all‚ the one to which Americans belongs‚ is the free market‚ itself.  While it is most often associated with the fierce competition it fosters‚ it is really a vast cooperative endeavor allowing millions of voluntary‚ mutually rewarding deals to be struck daily. Only equality of opportunity could never guarantee equality of result. All were not equally inquisitive‚ talented‚ or fixated on self-advancement. The laissez faire economy guaranteed an eventual inequality in the distribution of wealth. For the founders that posed no moral difficulty.  Jefferson expressed it best‚  To take from one‚ because it is thought his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much‚ in order to spare to others‚ who‚ or whose fathers‚ have not exercised equal industry and skill‚ is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association‚ the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and [possession of] the fruits acquired by it. There is something else about the “selfishness” Americans practice.  It leaves millions with the financial means to contribute to public-spirited projects or just partake of charitable good works. Why not share one’s good fortune with those who have less and are in need? That amounts to no great sacrifice. (READ MORE: So Much Thanks to Give as Americans)  A nation is as great as it is free. Prosperity is the material expression of a nation’s greatness‚ and a free people’s greatest practical reward. Rooted in the freedom it affords individuals to strive and succeed‚ that greatness continues to furnish a great deal of goodness. Between 1956 and 2010‚ the annual Jerry Lewis Labor Day telethon for Muscular Dystrophy invited the world’s greatest talents to perform for millions of TV viewers. More than $2 trillion was raised to help “Jerry’s Kids.”  To this day‚ Danny Thomas’ St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital saves the lives of disease-stricken children while assuring their grateful parents‚ “don’t worry‚ we won’t send you a bill.” For more details see The Almanac of American Philanthropy over 1‚300 pages listing the foundations and institutions devoted to doing good works all across America and throughout the world.  Americans‚ the freest and most prosperous‚ are the most generous and caring people to ever people the planet.  Tell that to the next woke radical you see.   The post America: The Goodness That Greatness Begot appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Of all Biden’s failings‚ immigration is in a class by itself. While we may disagree with his other blunders and lament his failures of execution‚ these have a subjective element. In contrast‚ Biden’s open border is objectively a deliberate dereliction of duty. It is wrong and dangerous for Biden to make America pay the cost of his political subservience to the extremist left. Nor does the Biden administration have any way of knowing who came across any more than it knows how many came across. Biden has had no shortage of blunders during his less than three years in the White House. Abroad he began with a feckless withdrawal from Afghanistan. Then he tried to placate Iran’s ayatollahs to save a doomed (as now admitted by the Administration) and dumb 2015 nuclear deal with this least trustworthy of nations. Of course‚ his shows of weakness emboldened others; Russia invaded Ukraine and set off a global crisis. More recently‚ he exchanged $6 billion for Iranian-held American hostages; having got all they could have expected to get (and then some)‚ Iran’s client Hamas was freed to launch its terrorist attack on staunch U.S. ally Israel. (READ MORE from J.T. Young: Are Hispanics Next on the Progressive Hate Parade?) At home‚ Biden has been no less “blunderful.” His administration worked to do teacher unions’ bidding to keep COVID school closures going longer. Under his administration‚ America has seen Washington focused more on indoctrination than education; with learning performance plummeting in its wake. His radical environmental policies promise to raise the price on any appliance that uses gas or electricity. He has also presided over rampant crime in cities run by his party’s elected officials who are wedded to defunding their police rather than defending their citizens by locking up criminals. Biden’s economy has been distinguished by tepid growth and torrid inflation — the latter undermining the former and bringing with it generationally high interest rates. His budgets likewise have been marked by excessive spending‚ deficits‚ and debt. As “blunderous” as Biden has been‚ America has had to take it. While Biden’s policies are atrociously bad and his execution of them painful — as his low performance polling shows Americans attest — they are his policies and presidents get to pursue theirs. After all‚ elections have consequences. But Biden’s open border policy is different. America can subjectively say Biden’s other policies are bad; however‚ his failure to exercise his authority to protect America’s southern border is objectively a disaster. It has been ongoing since he took office. Customs and Border Patrol “encounters” in fiscal year 2023 were 2.5 million; this broke the previous record set the year before‚ which had been 2.4 million. In 2021‚ the number was 1.7 million. Of course‚ these are just “encounters;” there is no way of knowing — certainly not by the Biden administration — how many people made it through. And the surge is only rising. Nor does the Biden administration have any way of knowing who came across any more than it knows how many came across. It is certain that criminals were among them. And virtually equally certain that terrorists were as well; after all‚ there are no shortage of people who want to hurt Americans‚ and what could be easier than simply walking across an unenforced border? If terrorists have gone to extraordinary lengths to hijack planes‚ they would certainly resort to the less difficult way of walking.(READ MORE: Biden Is Not the Democrats’ Biggest Problem) But we do know that across Biden’s unenforced border have poured drugs. Fentanyl is a national crisis — one of human‚ criminal‚ economic‚ and societal dimensions — and its route in has been across Biden’s unenforced southern border. The death and devastation caused by these drugs is staggering. According to Dec. 14 Senate testimony by Jim Carroll‚ the Trump administration’s Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)‚ American overdose deaths are at an all-time high of nearly 110‚000 — equivalent to “someone dying every five minutes.” Why this is happening is as clear as how it is happening: Biden is utterly and completely dependent on the radical left‚ which seeks nothing more than a non-white majority to wage its culture war. With rapidly falling support elsewhere in America‚ Biden is retreating to the only enclave that still welcomes him and his policies. Doing their bidding in hopes of saving his failing presidency‚ he is allowing his presidency to fail even more. And to take America down with it. Like Alice in Wonderland’s tea party at the Mad Hatter’s‚ the radicalized leftist elite live in a world apart. Literally. Insulated from the effects of their own failed policies‚ they force on the rest of us. Failing public schools? Their children don’t attend them. Soaring crime from defunded police departments and lackadaisical leftist prosecutors? They live in gated communities. Environmental policies that price working and middle-class consumers out of products? They can afford them. (READ MORE: Biden Is Not the Democrats’ Biggest Problem) Like Alice in Wonderland’s Cheshire Cat‚ Biden is fading — and far faster than Alice’s feline friend. But instead of only his smile remaining‚ Biden is leaving behind an empowered radical left. And nowhere is its imprint more malicious and deliberate than along Biden’s open border. J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987-2000‚ served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004‚ and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004-2023. The post Malice in Blunderland: Biden’s Border appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The year 2023 is now over‚ marking the first year after China ended its Covid lockdown. However‚ the Chinese economy did not experience the robust recovery predicted by many at the beginning of the year for the post-pandemic era; instead‚ it entered a recession. While major economies worldwide are facing inflation‚ China is experiencing deflation. So‚ it is not cyclical.Major world economies have already begun to absorb the slowdown in the Chinese economy‚ and relevant adjustments have already started. Looking at the basic indicators of the Chinese economy‚ the most burdensome factor is real estate. Real estate directly accounts for 11 percent of China’s GDP and indirectly 25 percent‚ dragging down a quarter of the national economy. (VIEW MORE from Shaomin Li: Evil Family Values) So what about the overall data of China’s macroeconomy? First‚ let’s look at debt. China’s indebtedness is not as bad as popular belief. The central government’s debt is about 21 percent of its GDP. Local government debt is roughly between 50 percent and 80 percent of the GDP (including hidden debt). Of course‚ these are estimates based on publicly available data‚ and we know that China’s public data is unreliable. If we use a higher estimate‚ it can be said that these two together account for 110 percent of China’s total output. However‚ this is still relatively low; the federal government debt in the United States is 140 percent of the GDP‚ and Japan’s is 260 percent. Chinese banks are also relatively healthy. Their loans for mortgages constitute 40 percent of the total house value. In other words‚ the housing loan market would only be in trouble if house prices dropped by more than 60 percent. More importantly‚ individuals’ liability for mortgages is unlimited. This is different from the United States. In other words‚ in a debt crisis‚ banks are the first to bear the brunt in the United States‚ while in China‚ individuals are the victims. This is the advantage of the Chinese state and the plight of individuals in the Chinese Communist Party system. The debt ratio of Chinese enterprises‚ including the less efficient state-owned and private enterprises‚ is not that high‚ except for real estate enterprises. The market value of Chinese enterprises is approximately 140 percent of China’s GDP‚ offsetting the 110 percent debt of the government and still having positive net assets. Overall‚ the data on the Chinese economy is not that bad. So where is the root cause of the economic decline in China? The main reason is the three-year lockdown and “zero-COVID” policy‚ which caused a significant economic loss and a profound loss of confidence. This can be seen from the extremely high savings rate (45 percent as opposed to 19 percent in the U.S.) and a large number of people paying off their mortgages in advance. All these are signs of reluctance to consume.  The root of China’s economic problems lies politically‚ in one-party rule. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is highly centralized‚ and the General Secretary has immense power‚ making authoritative decisions. If he comes up with the right policies‚ China’s economy can grow rapidly. If the wrong policies are pursued‚ the economy could be severely damaged. There are two main measures the CCP can take to stimulate the economy. First is monetary policy‚ encouraging borrowing and consumption by lowering interest rates. Currently‚ China’s interest rates are low‚ and inflation has turned negative‚ indicating low consumer prices. However‚ people still lack confidence and are hesitant to consume or invest‚ so even lower interest rates are ineffective. (VIEW MORE from Shaomin Li: Shame on the American CEOs Who Dined With Xi) The second measure is fiscal policy‚ where the government directly distribute money or invests. Compared to monetary policy‚ fiscal policy can more effectively stimulate consumption and investment. However‚ the Chinese government has not implemented large-scale money injection or investment so far. Based on the above data‚ the Chinese government’s debt is not too high‚ and banks have sufficient capital‚ so there is policy space for the government to rescue the economy. However‚ why is the Xi Jinping government reluctant to intervene and rescue the economy? This is actually due to the system of one-party rule and high centralization. Under one-party rule‚ the CCP’s primary consideration in the face of an economic downturn is to protect the central government’s interests and maintain a low debt ratio‚ while local governments‚ enterprises‚ and the people are secondary. To protect the central government‚ the CCP adopts a conservative monetary and fiscal policy and is unwilling to release funds. Observers believe that the central government’s idea is to  bank on the resilience of individuals and businesses to weather the storm‚ and wait for the economic recession to go away.  A characteristic of the highly centralized model is that lower-level officials dare not speak freely because saying something displeasing to superiors might lead to losing their positions. Conversely‚ if they say what superiors want to hear‚ they may be promoted. This is why the top leaders are cautious in making statements‚ as any statement will be amplified through layers‚ potentially leading to loss of control at the grassroots level. In a situation where the people and entrepreneurs lack confidence‚ even if the central government hands out money‚ entrepreneurs and people may not invest or consume it‚ or they may save it‚ or transfer it overseas. This may be another consideration for the central government not wanting to intervene. Recently‚ international media have widely noted that Xi Jinping did not fully attend the Central Economic Work Conference. He went on a state visit to Vietnam halfway through the conference‚ contrary to the usual practice of the CCP. Regarding this conference‚ I have the following observations. All important decisions of the CCP are made behind the scenes; attending public meetings is just a formality. This time‚ there were no significant policy resolutions on economic rescue‚ so this conference was even less meaningful for Xi. We should also note that in recent years‚ the CCP has become increasingly indifferent to its international image. The CCP feels that it is already the biggest player‚ and it doesn’t care how the outside world views it. For example‚ Xi Jinping dismissed ministers without explanation‚ thinking that speculation and criticism from the outside are not important. (READ MORE: Why Has the CCP Banned Demonizing America?) To be fair‚ this conference also has substantive content. The CCP admits that effective demand is insufficient‚ there is overcapacity‚ and social expectations are weak. This indicates that the CCP acknowledges that people lack confidence. Additionally‚ the CCP calls for stability — “stabilizing expectations‚ stabilizing growth‚ stabilizing employment” — with a total of six consecutive appearances of the word “stability.” This shows that the CCP’s main strategy for this economic recession is to preserve the CCP regime‚ not to stimulate the economy or help businesses and people. If we liken the health of the Chinese economy to that of a person‚ the person’s various health indicators are okay‚ but their mind is confused‚ and confidence is lost. The central government is confused‚ so the people and private enterprises can only pray and run. Therefore‚ in summary‚ there are two key elements to address this recession: first‚ the CCP needs to implement effective policies‚ and second‚ the people and businesses need to respond and regain confidence. Even if the CCP can accomplish the first point‚ the second point is still uncertain. The CCP has been using the “carrot and stick” approach for many years. Many old private enterprise owners have already been scared off‚ but new‚ younger entrepreneurs are emerging. However‚ most of these new entrepreneurs are small businesses. As for starting large high-tech enterprises‚ the policy risks are too high‚ and the competition is intense‚ resulting in a very low success rate. Therefore‚ it is unlikely that the private sector will be willing to enter‚ and they may not have the conditions to enter. Based on the above analysis‚ I believe that there will not be a significant turning point for the Chinese economy next year.  As for the global economy‚ the decline in China should not have a substantial impact. Major world economies have already begun to absorb the slowdown in the Chinese economy‚ and relevant adjustments have already started. Therefore‚ the spillover effects of China’s economic decline are not significant. Moreover‚ with China’s economy relatively slowing down‚ it should provide an opportunity for countries like the United States to adjust their strategies and reduce dependence on China. Shaomin Li is Professor of International Business at Old Dominion University. The post The Sickness and Outlook of the Chinese Economy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A good romesco sauce is not just full of flavor but also smooth and nutty. Thankfully‚ you can achieve the latter with sliced almonds.