The dirty secret of Hollywood’s subservience to wokeness is that even the minorities it depicts are sick of it. Any group would rather be entertained like they once were — regardless of the racial representation on screen — than preached about by warped reflection. New proof of this came from one of my few remaining film-industry friends‚ Randy. “I was walking down the street in Hollywood yesterday‚ and overheard two black guys talking‚” Randy said. “One said‚ ‘Man‚ we need to make a film.’ The other said‚ ‘Yeah‚ but no oppression movie. I’m tired of seeing movies about being oppressed because I’m black‚ and all this pandering sh_t.’” According to The Hollywood Reporter‚ domestic box-office revenue is running 43 percent behind the 2016-19 average. For Hollywoke lemmings‚ virtue signaling is not just their raison d’etre‚ it’s all they know how to do and have been hired to do over the last decade. If they can’t keep doing it‚ then everyone will see how utterly untalented they are. They’re already finding out. Saturday Night Live‚ Colbert‚ Kimmel‚ and the rest may play to their liberal audiences‚ but they won’t get a genuine laugh out of them. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: The Woke of Zorro) Because comedy requires skill and guts‚ both of which modern screen writers lack‚ and a Trump mock is easier than a funny joke. Though the latter would attract more viewers from both ideological camps‚ as SNL‚ Carson‚ Leno‚ and Conan once did‚ the writers simply can’t rise to that level even if they wanted to‚ which they certainly do not. And the good writing deficiency extends to every aspect of the screen trade. The headline of a Red State article last week identifies the trouble: Hollywood Doesn’t Have a ‘Toxic Fan’ Problem‚ It Has a Bad Writing Problem. Columnist Brandon Morse jabs Marvel Comics Eternals actor Kumail Nanjiani‚ who said he had to go to counseling after his lousy movie bombed. (What a contrast to 1941 Hollywood‚ when practically every combat-age male star enlisted in the military following Pearl Harbor.) Nanjiani blamed “a weird soup in the atmosphere” for the picture’s failure‚ but Morse correctly faults the writers and the politics that spawned them. “Today‚ many studios hire writers based on two really bad criteria‚” Morse wrote. “First‚ do their ideological beliefs fit with the ‘modern’ direction the company is trying to go with? … Secondly‚ does the person fit the right identity for being at the head of the project?” Just imagine if the classic studios had subscribed to this insane philosophy. There would be no Wilder‚ Mankiewicz‚ Brooks‚ Chayefsky‚ Serling‚ Rodenberry‚ Chase‚ and a hundred other geniuses‚ consequently no Double Indemnity‚ All About Eve‚ The Producers‚ Network‚ The Twilight Zone‚ Star Trek‚ The Sopranos and a thousand other screen treasures. What film or series in the past 10 years has come close to any of them? Perhaps one of the Best Picture Oscar winners of the past decade? (READ MORE: Look What They’ve Done to My Song) Take your pick: Twelve Years a Slave (2014)‚ Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2015)‚ Spotlight (2016)‚ Moonlight (2017)‚ The Shape of Water (2018)‚ Green Book (2019)‚ Parasite (2020)‚ Nomadland (2021)‚ CODA (2022)‚ Everything Everywhere All at Once (2023). Few of these films will even be remembered‚ let alone ever watched again‚ unlike every Best Picture loser of 1940: Dark Victory‚ Goodbye‚ Mr. Chips‚ Love Affair‚ Mr. Smith Goes to Washington‚ Ninotchka‚ Of Mice and Men‚ Stagecoach‚ The Wizard of Oz‚ not to mention the winner‚ Gone with the Wind. But they sure had diversity and liberal messaging. Hollywood went woke and is going broke‚ despite deceptive exceptions like Barbie. According to The Hollywood Reporter‚ domestic box-office revenue is running 43 percent behind the 2016-19 average‚ when movie ticket sales topped one billion dollars in January. Last month’s ticket sales totaled just $513.6 million‚ the lowest other than during the COVID period. And the rest of the year looks even bleaker. But that hasn’t stopped the masterminds at Disney. Undeterred by a continuous slew of woke-driven disasters‚ including three from its Marvel Comics leaden goose (The Marvels‚ Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania‚ and the forementioned Eternals)‚ the Mouse House is all in on more diversity behind and in front of the camera. The studio is considering a female-led (read‚ feminist) new installment in The Pirates of the Caribbean series to star black starlet Ayo Edebiri‚ supposedly inspired by Irish pirate girl Anne Bonny. The suicidal idiocy was not lost on powerful new Disney nemesis Elon Musk. “Disney sucks‚” Musk said about the idea. But Musk did more than lambast Disney. He posted the corporation’s lunatic Inclusion Standards with the comment‚ “An anonymous source just sent me this from Disney. It is mandatory‚ institutionalized racism and sexism.” The document makes unbelievable demands on casting‚ producing‚ crewing‚ and training‚ such as‚ “Characters: 50 percent or more of regular and recurring written characters come from Underrepresented Groups.” “Actors: 50 percent or more of regular and recurring actors come from Underrepresented Groups.” “Series Premise: Meaningful integration of Underrepresented Groups in overall themes and narratives.” I‘d hate to be a writer bound by that last stipulation. But whoever complies with it‚ the movie will suck‚ and bomb. (READ MORE: Beauty Survives the Left) Musk also put his money where his mouth is. He’s backing actress Gina Carano’s lawsuit against Disney for her unwarranted firing from The Mandalorian over her non-racist conservative views. Disney sure knows how to pick its enemies. Last month‚ Florida governor Ron DeSantis totally thrashed it in court. Now it’s Elon Musk’s turn. Maybe someday it will make a movie that two creative black guys in Hollywood will enjoy‚ and not feel victimized. The post The Decline and Fall of Hollywoke appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Just whose side is President Biden on? That’s the question that has to be asked after President Biden’s conduct over the past week. Biden and his minions have been pressuring the Israelis for weeks now‚ seeking their consent to a deal that would grant Hamas terrorists an extended cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and possibly — only possibly — lead to the release of the more than one hundred hostages Hamas holds‚ among them several Americans. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden’s Random Bombings) Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected all of Biden’s peace plans because‚ among other things‚ they would guarantee that Hamas would still control Gaza and the proposed deals wouldn’t guarantee the hostages’ release. After Netanyahu said he planned to penetrate Rafah city‚ near the Egyptian border‚ National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that the U.S. would oppose any Israeli operations in Rafah city. Then‚ in an angry statement at an impromptu press conference Biden said‚ “The conduct of the response in the Gaza Strip has been over the top.” Biden would do better by demanding the release of Hamas’s hostages and the cessation of its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. On Thursday night‚ Biden issued a memorandum that requires all countries receiving U.S. military aid to prove‚ within 45 days‚ that they are following international humanitarian and human rights laws‚ threatening that they would lose all U.S. military assistance if they didn’t do so. It was Biden’s most serious shot at Israel to date. Israel is both the recipient of the most U.S. military aid and the most dependent on it. As a dysphemist of long standing‚ I would rather be accurate than polite. Biden has all of the brainpower of an Idaho potato. Within the past ten days‚ he has claimed he met with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (who died in 2017; Biden’s supposed meeting with him was in 2021) and to have met recently with French President Francois Mitterand (who died in 1996). He also said that Egyptian President el-Sisi was president of Mexico. Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report said that Biden couldn’t be indicted for his retention and disclosure of classified documents because — based on his poor memory — he couldn’t remember what he had said or done. According to Hur’s report‚ Biden would come across as a well-meaning elderly guy with a poor memory. To state the obvious‚ anyone who lacks the mental capacity to stand trial for his federal crimes is incapable of serving as president. But he won’t be removed from the presidency under the 25th Amendment because the Dems would be stuck with Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsome or — a thought devoutly to be wished — Hillary Clinton. (READ MORE: Biden Wants Hamas To Win) Together with all that‚ there’s one more set of facts that comprise the context for Biden’s 45-day ultimatum to Israel. Israeli air strikes have devastated Gaza. There are‚ I’m sure‚ many innocent civilians who have been killed. Have the Israelis abided by every part of U.S. humanitarian and human rights laws? Probably not. Could they have killed fewer civilians in Gaza? Probably. But they are fighting a war for their national existence and wars against an enemy that routinely targets civilians‚ engages in indiscriminate attacks and commits war crimes as a matter of policy. No one‚ especially Biden‚ is willing to even talk about those facts. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions‚ Article 51 confirms the longstanding rule that civilians must be kept safe from hostilities as much as possible. And there are limits to the expectations that military action can prevent civilian deaths. Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime and indiscriminate attacks can be. Indiscriminate attacks are defined as those not directed at a specific military objective and (or) employing a means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Which means that in Israel’s attacks on Hamas strongholds they are excused from killing civilians who are killed in pursuing a specific military objective by legitimate means of combat. Such as the ground troops and the precision-guided munitions Israel uses. Israel will point this out in its response to Biden’s memorandum which‚ we can only hope‚ will have a considerable effect on Biden’s decision on whether to stop military aid. Stopping U.S. military aid to Israel is a way to help Israel’s adversaries‚ including Iran and its Lebanese proxy‚ Hizballah‚ which is attacking Israel regularly. But what of Hamas? Hamas intentionally killed hundreds of civilians on October 7 and took many of them hostage. Random Hamas rockets are still — at a lesser rate —  raining down on Israeli civilians. Biden’s possible punishment of Israel by cutting off U.S. military aid is his purely political response to a letter sent to him and the Government Accountability Office by Rashida Tlaib (D-Mi) — the only Palestinian member of Congress — and several other “progressives.” They demand that the State Department assess U.S. compliance with the laws governing arms transfers to Israel. Their letter said‚ “We write today regarding your administration’s ongoing weapons transfers to the Israeli government despite considerable evidence that these transfers are flagrantly violating American and international law and being used in the commission of war crimes.” (READ MORE: Israel’s Implacable Court) But what comprises the “considerable evidence” Tlaib and the others cite? The media reports and Hamas propaganda they rely on isn’t evidence of anything. By demanding Israel respond to his memorandum‚ Biden is only adding pressure to the Israelis to consent to his idiotic “peace” deals. Biden would do better by demanding the release of Hamas’s hostages and the cessation of its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. But he won’t do that because it is politically inconvenient for him to do so. It’s much easier to blackmail Israel by saying that we might cut off military aid unless they justify all of their actions. Israel‚ as Biden’s staff must know‚ is all too dependent on the U.S. to do things such as supply rockets for its “Iron Dome” system. It cannot fight for long without our aid. Israel will not be able to justify each and every one of its actions in Gaza in accordance with our laws and the Geneva Conventions. The Monday morning quarterbacks and the Hamas propaganda machine will ensure against that. It would be far wiser for Biden to put all the pressure he is putting on the Israelis on Hamas. The post Biden Blackmails Israel appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In the last eight or nine years‚ it’s felt to many Americans as if the country has changed very dramatically‚ if not irreversibly. A century ago‚ our forebears had a similar feeling. In 2016‚ Donald Trump was elected president and managed to get through a full term without dragging us into another war; in 1916‚ Woodrow Wilson was reelected on the promise to keep us out of war and a month after his inauguration took us into World War I. During these last years‚ woke ideology has poisoned American culture; a hundred years ago‚ the phenomenon that was shaking up American culture‚ although not (for the most part) in a toxic way‚ was modernism. The year 1922‚ for example‚ saw the publication of both James Joyce’s novel Ulysses and T.S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land‚ two works that represented striking departures from literary tradition.  All I need to know is that … it’s as stirring as ever‚ an American classic and a modern milestone. American popular song also underwent a sea change. Before World War I‚ the hit parade had been dominated by tunes like “A Bird in a Gilded Cage” (1900)‚ “Meet Me in St. Louis‚ Louis” (1904)‚ and “Down by the Old Mill Stream” (1910)‚ which today conjure quaint images of Midwestern homes with antimacassars and Tiffany lamps. Just a few years later — on the other side of the war and in a time when Americans were highly conscious of living in a new world‚ defined and dominated not by old Europe but by their own young country — the popular songs were‚ thanks to the influence of black New Orleans jazz and the genius of New York songwriters‚ most of them Jewish and from poor immigrant families‚ quite different. Many of those songs‚ indeed‚ became standards. The year 1924 alone — exactly one century before our own current year — gave us Irving Berlin’s “What’ll I Do‚” Gus Kahn and Isham Jones’s “The One I Love Belongs to Somebody Else‚” and the Gershwins’ “Oh Lady‚ Be Good.” (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Biting the (Left) Hand That Feeds Him) In that same year‚ there was another little Gershwin ditty. The story goes that on January 3‚ 1924‚ the Gershwin brothers‚ composer George and lyricist Ira‚ were hanging out at a pool hall in New York with their then collaborator Buddy DeSylva — later to become one-third of the songwriting team DeSylva‚ Henderson‚ and Brown (“The Best Things in Life Are Free”) — when Ira read in the New York Tribune that the centerpiece of an important event on February 12‚ entitled “An Experiment in Modern Music‚” taking place at New York’s Aeolian Hall‚ and featuring Paul Whiteman and his orchestra‚ was to be a new “jazz concerto” by George. Whiteman‚ who dubbed himself “The King of Jazz‚” was putting the program together‚ and his principal goal was to demonstrate that jazz had come to stay and deserved to be taken seriously.  George was all of 25 years old. At age 15‚ he’d gone to work as a “song plugger” on Tin Pan Alley — demonstrating new songs on a piano for prospective purchasers of sheet music. He’d started composing his own songs at age 17‚ and in 1920‚ when he was 21‚ the biggest singer of the era‚ Al Jolson‚ made his song “Swanee” (with lyrics by Irving Caesar) a megahit. Two years later‚ when Whiteman’s band introduced “I’ll Build a Stairway to Paradise” (music by George‚ lyrics by Ira and DeSylva) in the show George White’s Scandals of 1922‚ George mentioned to Whiteman his desire to someday write a piece that combined jazz and classical elements. The next year‚ George and Whiteman took part — Whiteman as conductor‚ George as piano accompanist — in a concert of jazz tunes‚ and afterwards‚ according to at least some accounts‚ Whiteman asked George “for a serious piece to be performed during a concert Whiteman was planning to present with his band in Aeolian Hall.” (By the way‚ Aeolian Hall‚ which in its day was a major performance space and which closed its doors in 1927‚ was located on the first and second floors of the still extant Aeolian Building‚ across 42nd Street from Bryant Park.) George‚ if these accounts are to be credited‚ “promised a piece‚ and promptly forgot about it.” Even Gershwin’s friend and fellow songwriter Arthur Schwartz … would later say that the piece’s structural elements were reflective more of “intuition than tuition.” Now the Tribune had joggged his memory. Contacting Whiteman‚ he agreed to write something. But a concerto? He didn’t have time for that. Nor‚ he claimed at the time‚ was he capable — as he most assuredly would be a few years later — of contriving the kind of orchestration that such a piece would require. (Biographer William G. Hyland challenges this assertion‚ noting that manuscripts discovered in a Warner Brothers warehouse in the 1980s indicate that Gershwin‚ by that point in his career‚ was much more skilled at orchestration than he let on.) In any event‚ George set about writing a rhapsody with a piano solo part‚ and another piano part that Whiteman’s sturdy arranger‚ Ferde Grofé‚ would whip up into a score for jazz band.  George threw himself into the task. As he later recounted‚ he got started while taking a train to Boston for the out-of-town opening of his musical Sweet Little Devil.  His account exists in multiple versions‚ of which the following is‚ like his rhapsody itself‚ something of a pastiche:  It was on the train‚ with its steely rhythms‚ its rattle-ty bang that is often so stimulating to a composer (I frequently hear music in the very heart of noise) that I suddenly heard — and even saw on paper — the complete construction of the Rhapsody from beginning to end.  No new themes came to me‚ but I worked on the thematic material already in my mind‚ and tried to conceive the composition as a whole. I heard it as a sort of musical kaleidoscope of America — of our vast melting pot‚ of our unduplicated national pep‚ of our blues‚ of our metropolitan madness. By the time I reached Boston I had the definite plot of the piece‚ as distinguished from its actual substance. As for the middle theme‚ it came upon me suddenly‚ as my music sometimes does. It was at the home of a friend‚ just after I got back to Gotham … Well‚ there I was‚ rattling away [at the piano] without a thought of rhapsodies in blue or any other color. All at once I heard myself playing a theme that must have been haunting me inside‚ seeking an outlet. No sooner had it oozed out of my fingers than I knew I had found it…. A week after my return from Boston I completed the Rhapsody in Blue.” Well‚ that’s one version of how it came to be written. Other versions say that Gershwin began composing the piece on January 7‚ at the upright piano in the apartment on Amsterdam Avenue and 100th Street where he and Ira lived with their immigrant parents. According to some sources‚ the composition took a week‚ with Grofé turning up every day to pick up the newest pages; according to other sources‚ it took three weeks‚ with George handing his completed work to Grofé on February 3. Hyland writes that Grofé‚ the scale of whose contribution to the Rhapsody is immense‚ finished his orchestration the next day. (READ MORE: Nordic Musicians Want to Ban Israel From This Year’s Eurovision) As for the “theme” that had been “seeking an outlet‚” Hyland records that in fact George had originally used another melody in that place‚ but that when Grofé disapproved‚ Ira urged George to use instead another one that he’d written earlier. “Grofé was enthusiastic‚” writes Hyland. This account is consistent with the statement in other sources that it was Ira’s idea to incorporate in the piece “an expressive romantic theme” that George had “previously improvised at a party.” (“George objected that it was too sweet‚” writes Hyland‚ “but finally gave in.”)  It was Ira‚ later George’s regular lyricist‚ who came up with the piece’s title — Rhapsody in Blue‚ which was purportedly inspired by James McNeill Whistler’s practice of giving his paintings titles like “Symphony in White.” A couple of the sources I consulted for this article state that the famous glissando with which Rhapsody in Blue begins was actually improvised in rehearsal — “as a joke‚” one account suggests — by clarinetist Ross Gorman‚ but Hyland adduces evidence to the effect that this tale is “nonsense.” Hyland does note‚ however‚ that the songwriter Victor Herbert (“Ah! Sweet Mystery of Life”)‚ then 85 years old‚ who had ruled over the prewar era of operettas‚ “made one suggestion to Gershwin to precede the opening passage of the slow theme‚ and it was incorporated by Gershwin.”     Many of the specifics surrounding the creation of Rhapsody in Blue‚ then‚ are in dispute. But “[w]hatever the details‚” writes Hyland‚ “the composition was a remarkable achievement. With no particular background or experience in writing longer forms‚ Gershwin assembled a masterpiece in a very short time.” Partly for this reason‚ and partly because its “popularity made it suspect‚” it “faded” for a while “from the classical repertory of the major orchestras. As planned‚ Rhapsody in Blue had its premiere at New York’s Aeolian Hall on the afternoon of February 12‚ 1924‚ and was performed with George himself at the piano‚ actually improvising (or playing from memory: accounts differ) the piano solos‚ which he hadn’t yet had time to get down on paper. The Rhapsody was just the penultimate item in a long — by all accounts‚ overlong — program of twenty-six jazz compositions‚ beginning with what Whiteman described as the very earliest jazz tune‚ “Livery Stable Blues” (1917); the audience included a blue-ribbon committee of judges (including composer Sergei Rachmaninoff‚ violinist Jascha Heifetz‚ conductor Efrem Zimbalist‚ and soprano Alma Gluck) who were supposedly tasked with answering the question “What Is American Music?‚” although it appears that no official answers to the query were ever forthcoming.  The other items on Whiteman’s program didn’t leave much of an impression; but Rhapsody in Blue was an immediate smash. Over the next three years‚ Whiteman’s recording of it sold a million copies. It marked Gershwin’s transformation from popular tunesmith to serious composer. And it marked a transformation in American music‚ too. It was fitting‚ Milton Cross later wrote‚ that Rhapsody in Blue had its premiere on Lincoln’s Birthday‚ because “it proved to be the emancipation proclamation of American popular music.” Other commentators have since characterized Gershwin’s Rhapsody as “uniquely describ[ing] the American spirit of the 1920s‚” as “manifest[ing] the confidence and nervous energy of the ‘Roaring Twenties‚’” and as being‚ quite simply‚ “modernity’s anthem.” (READ MORE: Bradley Cooper Is Leonard Bernstein — And I Am Marie of Romania) To be sure‚ some of the serious critics of the day felt obliged to carp. While two writers for the New York Sun found the Rhapsody “stunning” and “ingenious‚” Olin Downes of the Times maintained that while it revealed “extraordinary talent” and was most assuredly “fresh and new and full of promise‚” it also exhibited “technical immaturity” and showed that Gershwin had yet to “master” the form that he had ventured to tackle. Other critics were even tougher‚ using words like “grotesque”; writing about the Rhapsody in the Tribune‚ Lawrence Gilman lamented “the lifelessness of its melody and harmony‚ so derivative‚ so stale‚ so inexpressive.” Later‚ the twin towers of American classical music‚ Aaron Copland and Virgil Thompson‚ would both refer dismissively to the Rhapsody. Even Gershwin’s friend and fellow songwriter Arthur Schwartz (“Dancing in the Dark‚” “I See Your Face Before Me”) would later say that the piece’s structural elements were reflective more of “intuition than tuition.” And thirty-one years after its premiere‚ Leonard Bernstein more or less agreed: the Rhapsody is not a composition at all. It’s a string of separate paragraphs stuck together — with a thin paste of flour and water. Composing is a very different thing from writing tunes‚ after all. I find that the themes‚ or tunes‚ or whatever you want to call them‚ in the Rhapsody are terrific — inspired‚ God-given…. But you can’t just put four tunes together‚ God-given though they may be‚ and call them a composition.  Well‚ maybe you’re not supposed to do that‚ but Gershwin did‚ to the delight of generations of music lovers. After George’s untimely death in 1937‚ Grofé’s full orchestral version of Rhapsody in Blue‚ completed in 1926‚ became a staple in the repertoires of symphony orchestras around the world. The line I quoted above from Milton Cross appears in his two-volume 1953 Encyclopedia of the Great Composers and their Music‚ in which the chapter on Gershwin is sandwiched triumphantly between those about the solidly classical César Franck and Christoph Willibald Gluck‚ and in which Cross describes Rhapsody in Blue as “the best loved and most frequently heard serious American work in the entire literature for orchestra.” To be sure‚ as Hyland reports‚ the Rhapsody has had its up and downs over the decades: there were new arrangements‚ some better than others‚ and orchestras that gave it “increasingly sweet treatment” or that‚ alternately‚ delivered “wooden and uninspired” performances; he quotes the musicologist Gunther Schuller as writing in 1997 that “no famous work has been more mishandled‚ bowdlerized‚ dismembered and misinterpreted” than the Rhapsody. (READ MORE: The Crown’s Surprisingly Touching Finale) Partly for this reason‚ and partly because its “popularity made it suspect‚” it “faded” for a while “from the classical repertory of the major orchestras” and became consigned to the “pops” category‚ only to make a major comeback in recent years‚ not only with the best orchestras but with some music critics who decided‚ after years of disparaging it‚ that Rhapsody in Blue was‚ after all‚ a masterwork. All I need to know is that — a century after its creation‚ and decades after I first thrilled to it in my childhood — it’s as stirring as ever‚ an American classic and a modern milestone. George Gershwin had a healthy ego‚ but did even he imagine that the work he began contemplating on that Boston train and raced to complete in a matter of days would still be blowing audiences away a hundred years later?      The post Happy Birthday‚ <;i>;Rhapsody in Blue<;/i>; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As we look back on the events of the early 21st century‚ we can recall with amusement the oft-expressed concerns about “polarization.”  That is‚ the then-popular worry that the deep divisions within the United States were harmful to the American people and to their republic. Those worriers didn’t realize‚ of course‚ that the divisions were the growing pains for a healthier‚ stronger‚ body politic.  Just as an organism‚ or a building‚ can’t grow too large without an internal reorganization (a skeleton for the organism‚ a steel structure for the building)‚ so‚ too‚ a country needs a sound internal arrangement for its continued viability. (READ MORE from James P. Pinkerton: Elon Musk‚ the Red States‚ and the Red Planet: The Future History) By the mid 2020s‚ the population of the U.S. had reached nearly 350 million putting impossible stresses on the idea of a single national big government.  How could one central anything stay close to that many folks?  The original U.S. Constitution had wisely allowed for the compartmentalization of states and states’ rights‚ and yet by the 21st century‚ the Constitution‚ with its organizational nuance‚ was being ignored as the central government trampled local autonomy.  Even worse‚ the centgov was increasingly steered by a “woke” deep state that mocked popular accountability. Some people wondered: Was 2025 going to shape up like 1861?  A civil war blazing?  The answer‚ of course‚ was no. The result‚ as those old enough to remember those days recall‚ was anarcho-tyranny.  The federal government was strong enough to generate inflation and throttle economic growth‚ but too weak‚ or too lazy‚ to concern itself with lawlessness on the border and in the big cities (even‚ amazingly enough‚ in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia). The decisive crisis of the ancien régime came during the 2024 elections.  Those contests proved to be a mess even before the November 5 Election Day; disputes erupted over ballots and ballot security‚ and the struggle continued for months into 2025‚ leaving the eventual winners diminished and the losers outraged.  It was then that the national bonds of affection began to feel like jagged but busted manacles. Yet we mustn’t underestimate the significance of the border crisis in those same years.  Indeed‚ that crisis proved to be an opportunity:  proving that a positive solution could emerge from a negative situation. The events on the border from 2021 to 2024 were‚ for sure‚ clarifying; in the mind of half the country‚ the Great Replacement went from theory to fact. The precise titrating moment came in early 2024‚ in the little town of Eagle Pass‚ Texas.  There‚ Texans boldly declared that no more migrants would pass‚ and the Biden administration said they should pass (and‚ of course‚ get debit cards and other aid).  Texas governor Greg Abbott went eyeball to eyeball with Joe Biden — and the 46th president blinked. The Bidenites were fully committed‚ of course‚ to open borders‚ and to the demographic project of turning Texas into California‚ and yet they feared that the Trumpy rank-and-file in the U.S. Border Patrol — and the other uniformed services of the U.S. — would not follow orders to use force against fellow uniformed Americans.  And it didn’t help the Biden administration that voters supported Abbott by a more than 2:1 margin‚ even as the administration was down 2:1 in approval ratings; it’s hard to wield a whip from a pit. Knowing that the eyes of the nation were upon him‚ the Texas governor was careful and measured as he made his case.  Invoking James Madison‚ Alexander Hamilton‚ and the other Framers‚ he declared The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV‚ § 4 has triggered Article I‚ § 10‚ Clause 3‚ which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons‚ I have already declared an invasion under Article I‚ § 10‚ Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. Abbott’s words might have lacked a Reaganesque ring‚ and yet they got the job done.  Here was a state commander-in-chief who had done his legal homework and spoke with footnoted precision.  Indeed‚ Abbott’s decent respect for the opinions of mankind (and womankind) won many over to his cause.  Politics‚ after all‚ is about adding to coalitions‚ not subtracting from them.  In fact‚ in less than a day‚ Abbott rallied 24 other Republican governors.  So that was 25 states‚ total: half the country.  All the red states realized that they were stronger together.(READ MORE: Will Blue State Refugees Ruin Red States?) So‚ mindful of past regional alliances that had prevailed in internal struggles‚ those 25 governors formed a Red Bloc for Border and National Security.  One of the Bloc’s first moves was to target Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.  It wasn’t possible to impeach  and convict Mayorkas in Washington‚ DC‚ but red attorneys general put out warrants for his myriad high crimes and misdemeanors.  So even before he accepted a position with the Open Borders Foundation‚ Mayorkas wisely chose not to set foot in Red. Yet the events of 2024 did more than push half the country toward more vigorous border enforcement.  Red now knew that its many frustrations in Washington‚ DC — the town so full of hostile judges and prosecutors — could be counterbalanced by success in its own backyard.  Why should leaders travel to the blue dot‚ risking being carjacked‚ or locked up (the two possibilities with anarcho-tyranny)‚ when they could be appreciated‚ in red zones‚ for doing good things? Abbott’s success showed that red states could win‚ at least for themselves‚ when they organized.  That is‚ bundle themselves into a tough unit within the nation.  To be sure‚ this was a regional strategy‚ not a national strategy — even if the red region was half the nation.  The 2022 elections had demonstrated‚ yet again‚ that the Democrats held a firm grip on their blue states; in Blue‚ unlimited abortion‚ mandated “diversity‚” and subsidized transgenderism were winning issues.  That was a hard truth for conservatives to deal with: The country had plenty of liberals!  But once the right reconciled with that reality‚ it noticed that most leftists lived in blue states.  So the better path for the right glowed with obviousness: Do what you can do in your state — and don’t try to do what you can’t do in their state. If Blue was out of reach‚ Red had‚ after all‚ a mighty nice consolation prize: the other half of the country.  So Americans of divergent hues came together around old wisdom: birds of a feather flock together.  And of course‚ there’s more than one flock.  For practical purposes‚ there were two flocks: the redbirds and the bluebirds.  Both saw the value of flying together as an armada‚ the better to confront the other flock. This was the Divide of ’25.  After all the turmoil‚ the successes and the failures‚ the two battered sides agreed on the need for a truce.  The U.S. Constitution was untouched‚ the union was still formally together.  And yet in their hearts‚ Americans knew the old social contract had been had been sundered‚ and that a new and different one had to be stitched together.  Red no longer trusted Blue‚ and Blue no longer trusted Red.  And in turn‚ neither side trusted the federal government‚ knowing that Republicans and Democrats took turns controlling various branches — and then weaponized them against the Other.  To save the union‚ now brittle from hyper-centralization and weaponization‚ the union had to be loosened — more flexibility and torque permitted.  So e pluribus unum (out of many‚ one) became e pluribus duo. Some people wondered: Was 2025 going to shape up like 1861?  A civil war blazing?  The answer‚ of course‚ was no‚ because for all the feuds in the 21st century‚ there was no issue as heatedly profound as slavery in the 19th century.  The South fought hard to preserve slavery‚ and the North fought just as hard — and more successfully — to end slavery.  But that was then.  Now‚ in this century‚ the feeling‚ on both sides of the red-blue divide‚ was different: “Good riddance!” In the absence of a fierce issue worth fighting for‚ there was no push for secession: the two sides simply drifted apart‚ while still saluting the same stars-and-stripes flag.  Yet in the meantime‚ the Red Bloc filled in more in more mechanisms of intra-bloc cooperation‚ and soon‚ a Blue Bloc did the same.  Blue’s regional capital became Springfield‚ Illinois‚ an obvious geo-compromise between Albany and Sacramento.  As for Red‚ it was a tussle between Austin and Tallahassee‚ and the resulting compromise was … Omaha. (READ MORE: Governor or Showman? ‘Red State vs. Blue State Debate’ Exposes Newsom.) As these sub-nations grouped within the nation‚ there was a happy result: It was now possible to elect a president who was broadly popular‚ because he and then she didn’t have much to do.  Since most actual power had defaulted‚ respectively‚ to Red and Blue‚ the national head of state became more of a figurehead‚ akin to a constitutional monarch — only‚ of course‚ this was still the republic that we had kept. Speaking of republics‚ those with long memories recalled that the Roman Republic had been typically led by two co-consuls.  So the future went back to the past in America; the Founders had revered the Roman Republic‚ and now here it was again: a red consul and a blue consul. For their part‚ the peoples of Red were earnest about making their half work.  They knew that their population‚ some 170 million‚ was larger than the population of the entire U.S. during World War Two.  Which is to say‚ there was plenty of red clay with which to work.  And as there was no point in trying to convince people in Hawaii or Vermont about the virtues of MAGA or anything else right-wing‚ Redsters focused on tending their own cultural and economic gardens. Yet for a while‚ there was a mismatch‚ as Blue was still intent on evangelizing for its many beliefs‚ including late-term abortion‚ electric vehicles‚ and DEI.  When Blue had the federal government as a battering ram‚ it was reasonably successful at pounding Red into submission (even if‚ of course‚ it generated a backlash).  But now‚ Red was ready: Fortified by the Federalist Society storm-lawyers‚ red states swatted down even the sneakiest arguments made by Yale Law bluetroops. For its part‚ in its own way‚ Blue‚ too‚ got better.  Since there was no omnipresent Trump to blame for everything bad. Thus the emergence of Red Consciousness.  It was one part erudite constitutionalism‚ one part regional pride — and one part ass-kicking of anything “librul.” Once Blue realized that the jig was up and it couldn’t tell Red what to do anymore‚ the two sides settled in for a long-term competition.  Happily‚ this red-blue competition was peaceful‚ except for a very few incidents‚ and even they were less bloody than a weekend in Chicago. But then something interesting happened.  Once each side got out from under what it deemed to be the wet-yet-itchy blanket of the other side‚ both Red and Blue were free to experiment — to be “laboratories of democracy.”  For instance‚ Wyoming turned itself into an enterprise zone for cryptocurrency‚ while Illinois became the mecca for transgender surgery. Inevitably‚ plenty of people moved to be closer to their dream — and since when wasn’t that what Americans did?  After ’25‚ it was obvious: Move to Blue for an abortion or a green-energy subsidy‚ move to Red for a tax cut and school choice. Then Red really put on the‚ uh‚ afterburners.  Having withdrawn from all limits on carbon‚ it drilled‚ baby‚ drilled.  The resulting gushers made gasoline so cheap in Texas that people joked that even Elon Musk would have to rethink his Tesla.  (But in the red-blue split‚ Musk more than made up for his EV setbacks: “TwiX” emerged as the dominant paradigm in red media‚ and Texas inscribed unmolested rocket launches into its constitution.) And when Red fully emancipated itself from the dirigiste hand of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‚ medical innovation took off‚ from Boca Raton to Boise.  Boasting new treatments for such dread diseases as cancer and Alzheimer’s‚ big hospitals in red cities were flooded with new patients‚ bringing with them new money‚ inspiring more airports and Four Seasons hotels. For its part‚ in its own way‚ Blue‚ too‚ got better.  Since there was no omnipresent Trump to blame for everything bad‚ blue cities — most of them at least — bit the ACLU and chomped down on crime.  Meanwhile‚ blue universities realized that diversity was a luxury that could be only be afforded through continued revenue-producing excellence in tech.  So while of course DEI was publicly extolled‚ the engineering and computer sciences departments quietly reverted to meritocracy.  So within the school‚ a win-win.  The treasuries of blue states‚ too‚ were winners.  And as for the few purple states‚ they did very well‚ as arbitrageurs between Red and Blue. (READ MORE: Red States‚ Blue States) Yes‚ ever since the Divide of ’25‚ all 50 states have done better.  Proving that polarization can be advantageous‚ if it leads to competition and specialization.  And proving too: Diversity‚ of the right kind‚ is our strength. Editor’s note: This is the second of The Red Chronicles‚ an occasional series of speculations. The first installment is here. The post The Divide of 2025: Saving the Union By Loosening the Union appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s deeply disconcerting to read the news each morning and find oneself thinking that the true prophet of our current condition is Lewis Carroll‚ the creator of Alice in Wonderland. Each day brings the feeling that we’ve truly passed down the rabbit hole. Here we are‚ in a “Mad Hatter” universe‚ where the voices all around us insist‚ with Humpty Dumpty‚ that words only mean what they want them to mean. We are then expected‚ indeed required‚ to accept even the most blatant falsehoods and the most ludicrous fantasies as simple truth. And‚ this done‚ we are told we must order our political‚ economic‚ and cultural priorities accordingly. If we hope to solve the problems that confront us today‚ we must put an end to the magical thinking that dominates our public discourse. Hard reality looms on every front‚ and the first step to confronting it — before it is too late — is to aggressively challenge these fantasies. We need to start insisting on “truth‚” not “my truth‚” or “your truth‚” or “Humpty Dumpty’s truth‚” but rather an honest and objective representation of things as they are‚ that is‚ “the truth‚” as once upon a time we understood it. At present‚ “the” truth isn’t simply ignored‚ but rather inverted‚ turned upside down‚ divested of all legitimate meaning.Orwell‚ undoubtedly‚ would have a field day with what passes for political discourse in this year of our Lord‚ 2024. Let’s start with “genocide‚” perhaps the single most misused word in current political discourse. The recent — and profoundly ridiculous — South African petition to the International Court of “Justice” and the even more ridiculous ruling by this absurdly misnamed institution represents a perfect illustration of the problem. The suggestion that Israel’s war on Hamas is genocidal represents an almost perfect inversion of the truth. This petition‚ the court’s ruling‚ and the daily drumbeat of left-wing pontification about Israel’s responsibility to “calibrate’ its use of force “proportionally” are inherently dishonest. The only genocidal agenda at play is the one so brutally prefigured on October 7‚ an agenda that would be played out on a massively horrific scale were Hamas‚ Hezbollah‚ and their Iranian backers to actually realize their “from the river to the sea” fever dreams. (READ MORE from James H. McGee: Chinese Threat Looms at the Open Border) And even as street thugs and Harvard faculty (perhaps not always distinguishable) throw the term “genocide” about‚ those of us concerned about the plight of Nigeria’s Christians find it surpassingly difficult to gain a hearing. Yet by any reasonable definition of the term‚ this is one place in the world where genocide is occurring today. But the Biden State Department still insists that this is a resource conflict driven by “climate change‚” even when the perpetrators are always Muslim. “Genocide‚” however‚ is but one among many inversions of the truth that drip so readily from the lips of leftists. “Fascist‚” sometimes “Nazi‚” is another favorite. Once upon a time I wrote a doctoral dissertation chronicling a key element in the emergence of the Nazi system of oppression. I spent a decade professionally engaged with the subject of Nazism. I’m one of only a relative handful of American scholars who’ve actually held and studied Adolf Eichmann’s SS personnel file‚ complete with all his handwritten entries. (And‚ as an aside‚ even when trying to put his best foot forward‚ he came across as a profoundly dull human being‚ a near perfect embodiment of what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil.”) I’ve interviewed real Nazis‚ that is‚ people who once held actual membership in the NSDAP‚ the Nationalsozialististische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. I was schooled at Munich’s “Institute for Contemporary History” by some of the leading German scholars of the history of Nazism. I don’t need to be schooled by the likes of Dean Obeidallah or Joy Reid or Rachel Maddow‚ and I can say‚ with the greatest of confidence‚ that every time they use the epithet “Nazi‚” their usage lacks any meaningful connection to historical reality.  Usage of terms like “Nazi” and “Hitler‚” even “Hitler adjacent” or “fascist” has become both commonplace and intellectually flaccid. They should be returned to their historical context and retired from contemporary political discourse. Heinrich Himmler was “Hitler adjacent‚” so too the spiritual godfather of Hamas‚ the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Locating Hamas within the ideological world of Nazism retains some genuine meaning‚ because it is clearly reflected in their own self-conception). Applying “Nazi” to the actions of the state of Israel ‚ or using “Nazi” to describe a current Republican politician‚ any current Republican politician‚ empties the word of every ounce of meaning. And the suggestion that the likes of “Antifa” are somehow “anti-Fascist” represents yet another inversion of the truth. (READ MORE: ‘Someone’s Been Shot’: A Message of Hope in America’s Strength)  “Genocide” and “Nazi” may be the worst current examples of truth inversion in the service of a leftist political agenda‚ but they are far from the only ones. “Refugee” is yet another‚ a word that once had clear meaning‚ a usage that described an offer of refuge to those fleeing a murderous regime — think the Hungarian refugees fleeing west after the failed anti-Soviet uprising in 1956. But whether in Europe (burdened by an immigration flood similar to our own) or here at home‚ the current waves of “refugees” are mostly seeking economic opportunity‚ not fleeing political persecution. If we dispensed with the notion of “refugee” except in readily documented cases of political persecution‚ we might then begin to have an honest discussion about immigration policy‚ and we might make a beginning to gaining full control of our border once again. Pretending that no crisis exists‚ or pretending that the current administration’s wrongheaded policies haven’t created the current crisis‚ is yet another example of magical thinking. Perhaps the most persistent arena for magical thinking comes with the term “environmentalism” and the morass of associated terms. The real inconvenient truth is that the case for climate change has not yet been convincingly made. The various measures proposed to “de-carbonize” our economy rest on the shakiest of economic foundations‚ ranging from the absurd — ban gas stoves while China and India spew industrial volumes of carbon into the atmosphere — to the monstrous. The very notion of depriving people of warm homes‚ reliable mobility‚ and a reasonable livelihood in order to meet some fantasy-driven and utterly arbitrary policy target reveals something dark and deadly at the heart of the environmental movement. Does reducing the impact of cow farts upon the atmosphere warrant destroying the livelihoods of Dutch and Irish farmers? Is there a better solution than imposing some radical and destructive deadline? Does it make any kind of sense to cripple our ability to export natural gas‚ as the Biden administration seems determined to do‚ with no evidence that this will make a difference to the environment? As the old saying goes‚ “inquiring minds want to know.” (READ MORE: The Lie Behind the ‘Hearts and Minds’ Plea) Perhaps the real agenda is something more narrow-minded and brutal‚ perhaps it’s just yet another chapter in the culture war waged by urban intellectuals against those who toil with their hands. We saw this during the great Covid fiasco‚ where “health and safety” became the rubric under which “know-nothing” health bureaucrats enabled the worst kind of totalitarian lockdowns‚ encouraging in the process a hateful “spite your neighbor” mentality. “Health and safety‚” of course‚ rank with “environmental responsibility” and “social justice” as cloaks for a rampant “busybodiness.” We once made fun of the Miss Grundy’s of the world; now they are lionized by the social justice warriors. I’ve addressed the magical thinking associated with our current foreign policy in a number of my recent Spectator essays. Suffice it for now to say that the further removed from the everyday lives of ordinary Americans‚ the more unhinged the thinking typically becomes. There’s a ready corrective‚ in the form of public outrage‚ when Federal regulators suggest a ban on gas stoves‚ but understanding the outrages associated with‚ say‚ the “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees” requires a higher level of public engagement. One must follow the news every day‚ and rely on reliable news sources such as The American Spectator to understand how these UN criminals have literally been getting away with murder. Only the brazenness of their actions on October 7 has finally force things into light‚ and even now‚ there is little indication that our State Department or their counterparts elsewhere in the West will support the right thing by totally defunding this monstrosity.  The pretense that the murder of three U.S. Army reservists by Iranian-backed terrorists is not an act of war represents a similar species of magical thinking. In addition to those killed‚ many others were wounded‚ and this is far from the first such attack on U.S. military personnel deployed in the region. Nor will it be the last. One can question the need for our troops being there‚ but the mullahs of Iran don’t deserve a vote. Attacking U.S. troops on the ground‚ or U.S. ships in the Red Sea — these are acts of war‚ perpetrated by a regime that our current leadership seems determined to appease. In “Politics and the English Language‚” George Orwell observed that “political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” Orwell‚ undoubtedly‚ would have a field day with what passes for political discourse in this year of our Lord‚ 2024. But as I suggested at the beginning of this essay‚ even Orwell might have been overwhelmed by the ramblings of Joe Biden or the fantasies that pass for news coverage in the Washington Post or the New York Times. We truly seem to have fallen down the rabbit hole‚ or passed through the looking glass. Mr. Lewis Carroll‚ your office is calling. We need you to help us make sense of things. James H. McGee’s 2022 novel‚ Letter of Reprisal‚ 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.  The post Dishonest Language‚ Truth‚ and Failed Policies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There were seven. Seven figures above all‚ with varying influences‚ some more intentional than others‚ who brought down the Berlin Wall‚ freed Eastern Europe from communism‚ took down the Soviet Union‚ and peacefully ended the Cold War. They were Ronald Reagan‚ Pope John Paul II‚ Margaret Thatcher‚ Mikhail Gorbachev‚ Boris Yeltsin‚ Vaclav Havel‚ and Lech Walesa. They’re all gone‚ except for one: Lech Walesa. And yet‚ Walesa could’ve been the first to go‚ if the communists had their way. They certainly wanted him dead. From January 15-19‚ 1981‚ Lech Walesa‚ the brave leader of the Polish Solidarity movement‚ was in Rome. He had a special audience with another anti-communist Pole that the communists badly wanted dead: Pope John Paul II. Walesa visited with the Polish pontiff the morning of January 19‚ which just happened to be the eve of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration as president of the United States. He had no idea that communist agents were watching his every move. They knew every detail of his schedule. They had even made note of the color of the paint on the walls of the Hotel Victoria where he was staying. Their ringleader was a hit man working for a Bulgarian spy ring that reported to the Kremlin. His name was Mehmet Ali Agca. The simple union-leader-turned-president .. ended with a quip: “I always feared God … and a little bit my wife also.” The same Agca who a few months later would try to assassinate the pope. As careful as Agca and gang had planned things‚ their plot didn’t pan out‚ as Agca later noted in testimony to an Italian judge. His minute details were shocking. Some of the details he later recanted‚ for reasons not difficult to understand. After all‚ once caught and imprisoned‚ Agca himself was a wanted man. The Kremlin now wanted him dead. The Soviets had their own plans for Agca‚ namely‚ to assassinate the assassin. Dead men can’t testify against their organizers. Ace reporter Claire Sterling‚ who wrote the book on the plot to kill Pope John Paul II‚ did a front-page piece on the Walesa plot for the October 27‚ 1984 New York Times‚ titled‚ “Agca’s Other Story: the Plot to Kill Walesa.” The world by then knew of Agca’s plot to kill Pope John Paul II‚ but not of the effort against Walesa. (READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Killed by a ‘Silly‚’ Deadly Communist) Sterling detailed a scheme between Agca and three Bulgarian accomplices to literally blow-up Walesa. The Bulgarian element itself was revealing: The Soviet bloc state of Bulgaria was a dutiful stooge to the USSR‚ so much so that it was often referred to as “the sixteenth Soviet republic.” KGB defector Oleg Kalugin described the Bulgarian Interior Ministry as little more than a branch of the KGB. When the Russkies needed a dirty job done‚ they tasked their Bulgarian lackeys. And by mid-January 1981‚ Mehmet Ali Agca and his cronies were ready for business. They had two cars and a bomb‚ both primed to go. “They carried a bomb in a small suitcase‚” Agca later explained. “I was supposed to put it in a small Fiat that [Ivan] Dontchev had parked earlier near the taxi stand‚ then get back in the Peugeot. When Walesa came out‚ we would set off the bomb by radio and‚ since we were about 60 yards away‚ we could drive off tranquilly. The radio looked real‚ set into the dashboard. A turn of the switch would make the bomb explode.” For his deadly fireworks display‚ Agca had been promised 300 million lire‚ the equivalent of about $300‚000‚ plus quick escort out of Rome and protective sanctuary in Bulgaria. But it never got that far. How did it fail? It’s hard to say. In fact‚ Walesa was so fortunate that one wonders if some form of divine protection had been bestowed upon him. That wasn’t out of the realm of possibility. Upon Walesa’s initial arrival on January 15‚ he had been greeted by Pope John Paul II at the Vatican’s Consistory Hall‚ a beautifully sacred place replete with frescoes on the walls and gilded ceiling. The Polish union worker was accorded the reception of a visiting head of state. He joined the Polish pontiff‚ journalists‚ and fellow unionists in singing the patriotic hymn‚ “God Save Poland.” (READ MORE: The Martin Luther King Jr. That Liberals Hate) On his last morning in Rome‚ Walesa and his delegation went to Mass with John Paul II in his private chapel. “I want to gather around this altar all working men‚ and all that their lives contain‚” said the Holy Father. The future saint placed on the altar “all Polish labor.” Perhaps this was the shield that protected Walesa that January 1981. The attempt on his life failed. The Soviets surely were not happy. Nonetheless‚ Agca and his cabal got an opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of their bosses five months later on May 13‚ 1981 — the Feast Day of Our Lady of Fatima. On that occasion‚ the Polish figure in the crosshairs was an even more sensational target. He was the leader of the world’s largest group of Christians. On that day‚ Agca‚ working with his Bulgarian buddies outside the Vatican‚ came extraordinarily close to killing their target. At 5:13 p.m. at St. Peter’s Square‚ Agca pulled from his jacket a 9-mm semiautomatic Browning and planted two bullets in Pope John Paul II. The pope went down‚ and very nearly bled to death. He credited his unlikely survival to a divine hand that deflected the bullet just enough. Pope John Paul II lived on. He survived — to become one of those Cold War heroes who defeated Soviet communism. But that’s another story. As for Lech Walesa‚ he is now 80 years old. And for the first time‚ I had a chance to ask him directly about that assassination attempt in January 1981. This past Friday afternoon‚ February 9‚ Walesa spoke to a small audience at the Victims of Communism Memorial Museum in Washington‚ DC. The 80-year-old Walesa walked into the room almost unnoticeably. In a room of suits‚ he appeared every bit the blue-collar labor leader‚ the electrician from the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk. He wore a denim-colored shirt‚ a workman’s shirt‚ which on the right breast had a patch of Poland’s Black Madonna and on the left a pin of the Ukrainian flag. He had dark-rimmed glasses‚ was short and stocky‚ and looked good for his age. He was energetic‚ speaking and answering questions enthusiastically for an hour. Walesa was introduced by Ambassador Andrew Bremberg‚ president of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation‚ and interviewed by moderator Elizabeth Spalding‚ chair of the foundation and founding director of the Victims of Communism Museum. Dr. Spalding’s introduction nicely captured Walesa’s unique contribution: “He led Poland’s victory against the deadliest ideology the world has ever seen.” Walesa talked about Poland‚ Ukraine‚ Russia‚ the “old order” and “new order‚” about America’s global commitments‚ about Putin’s thuggery‚ about Russia as (in his view) a world menace‚ about his beloved Poland’s “unfortunate historical geographic location” between Germany and Russia. He quipped that Germans and Russians in the past entered Poland as “tourists‚ who like to visit one another‚ and in times past‚ before technology‚ they had to walk through Poland…. We had to learn how to evict them.” (READ MORE: The Weapon That Won the Cold War) Walesa spoke of the advent of Karol Wojtyla becoming pope in October 1978‚ the first Slavic pope ever‚ after 455 years of Italian popes. “The Polish people prayed and prayed until there was a Polish pope‚” said Walesa. And the communists did anything but pray. They dreaded a Polish pope. Walesa remarked on the communist church watchers who spied inside parishes. They were easy to figure out‚ given they didn’t even know how to make the Sign of the Cross. Walesa gestured: “They would count: 1‚ 2‚ 3‚ 4‚ 5. And we said‚ ‘what the hell are they doing?’” But Walesa believes that attending Mass did them some good: “We learned they were like radishes — red only on the outside.” Even these militant Marxist-Leninists were struck by “the inspirational words of the pope.” With the work of the Polish pope in Rome and the Solidarity movement in Poland‚ communism’s days were numbered. “We could see how communism had become devoid of meaning‚” said Walesa. “Their tactics didn’t fit reality…. I knew as a practitioner that communism was ending. The only question was how to accelerate it.” He said that “communism looked in Poland like a horse saddle on a pig‚ and we had to carry that saddle for 50 years.… So‚ we knew it was ending but the key was how to end it peacefully.” Walesa politely answered questions from the audience — about the Western alliance‚ Ukraine‚ and Vladimir Putin’s hideously stupid comments to Tucker Carlson about Poland allegedly teaming up with Hitler to start World War II (it was Stalin and the Soviets who had done that with their August 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact). Time was up‚ but the gracious Dr. Spalding saw my hand in the back of the room and called on me for the final question. I couldn’t resist; I had to go back to 1981. I figured we should finish with some fireworks. I asked: “President Walesa‚ speaking of victims of communism‚ on May 13‚ 1981‚ another victim of communism was a Polish pope named John Paul II. They nearly killed him. A few months before that‚ in January 1981‚ they tried to kill you. Mehmet Agca‚ the pope’s would-be assassin‚ said that he and his accomplices also tried to kill you. Any comment?” There was uneasy commotion in the room‚ as I paused after each sentence to ensure the translator got each line to Walesa. The labor leader didn’t flinch‚ answering with a stoic smile: “Ladies and gentlemen‚ there have been five documented attempts on my life. But I have connections from above. I know some saints.” One of those saints was Pope John Paul II. Another was the Lady of Czestochowa‚ the Black Madonna on Walesa’s right breast. Another — on his way to canonization — was the martyred chaplain of the Solidarity movement‚ Fr. Jerzy Popieluszko. Walesa didn’t name names‚ but those are a few he wouldn’t dispute. “I managed to get out [alive]‚” continued Walesa. “Some of the things that happened to me are incredible‚ but I managed to get out. The finger of God was upon me.” His pope had felt the same. The simple union-leader-turned-president — ultimately the first freely elected president of post-communist Poland — ended with a quip: “I always feared God … and a little bit my wife also.” The audience laughed. I gave Walesa a smile and thumbs up from the back of the room‚ as his security guy gave me an unsettled look. We could all laugh‚ because‚ yes‚ Lech Walesa had gotten out alive that day in January 1981. So had Pope John Paul II four months later. And in fact‚ so had Ronald Reagan — who between those two assassination attempts had survived an assassin’s handgun in Washington on March 30‚ 1981. And you may not know that Margaret Thatcher survived an explosion in October 1984 that had likewise been intended to kill her‚ too. (READ MORE: Henry Kissinger: Eight Decades of Service to American National Security) All those attempts failed. And in the end‚ those figures of the Cold War survived to become heroes of the Cold War‚ while communism — history’s deadliest failure — died in Eastern Europe and its grotesque Evil Empire collapsed. Kudos to Lech Walesa‚ the one Cold War hero who remains with us still.     The post The Last Hero of the Cold War … Lech Walesa Survives appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Taylor Swift is in attendance at Super Bowl LVIII‚ and she's having fun in the stands. Her playful chugging caught on the big screen was seriously impressive.

Dr Pepper's Superbowl commercial made big waves on social media with opinions split between those in the know and those left scratching their heads.

Super Bowl 2024 couldn't be contained in a standard-length game. It went into overtime‚ meaning it was time for Buffalo Wild Wings to offer free wings.

Ben Affleck is now synonymous with Dunkin' and with the DunKings Super Bowl ad you're probably looking to get your hands on some of his drip. You're in luck!