A little more than 40 years ago, the esteemed editor-in-chief of this journal, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., penned an instant classic titled The Liberal Crack-Up. It was the most accurate and most devastating critique of liberalism since James Burnham’s Suicide of the West. And it was a lot funnier. It began with a chapter on the hapless Jimmy Carter, who Tyrrell dubbed “the Wonderboy” and “the worst president of the twentieth century,” and ended with identifying liberals’ “one sublime goal that unites all the diverse enthusiasts: … to disturb their neighbors.” Yet, Tyrrell presciently warned that, despite their idiocy, if the liberals’ “dominance of the cultural and intellectual life of the Republic is not broken,” we would share the fate of the Greeks and Romans, i.e., civilizational decline. (RELATED: The Liberal Crack-Up) In the book, Tyrrell examined in a serious but sometimes hilarious way Liberalism’s devolution from the Age of Roosevelt to “New Age” Liberalism, which sought an escape from the normal. He described the liberals’ journey as beginning with a “concern for society and progress” and ending “with petty personal indulgences,” “diminished freedoms,” and “expanded absurdities.” Our government, he wrote, “became a hectored, driven nanny, ministering to a host of louts, all of whom were ingrates and some of whom were obvious morons.” The liberals “botched” civil rights and welfare as part of what they called the Great Society, Tyrrell explained. Our government, he wrote, “became a hectored, driven nanny, ministering to a host of louts, all of whom were ingrates and some of whom were obvious morons.” (I told you it was funny). Affirmative action quotas replaced equal rights. Feminism disdained motherhood and male masculinity. Victimhood became all the rage, usually followed by a demand for federal dollars and special preferences. The federal government assumed the duties of fatherhood for generations of the underclass. The liberals’ foreign policy was no better. The Vietnam War, Tyrrell noted, was the liberals’ war deliberately fought to indecision by Robert McNamara and his whiz kids. Tyrrell characterized liberal foreign policy as a “combination of Wilsonian fustian and he-man bellicosity.” And then the liberals blamed it on Nixon. And when Nixon, who understood the world, was chased from office, we ended up with the insufferable and amateurish Carter administration, and the “correlation of forces” shifted in the Soviets’ favor until Ronald Reagan put an end to that. The Liberal Crack-Up described in Tyrrell’s book included environmental extremism, anti-nuclear apocalypticism, extreme feminism, enthusiasm for the Third World, the so-called “peace movement” that always, to borrow Jeane Kirkpatrick’s phrase, blamed America first, economic illiteracy, and egalitarianism. Tyrrell’s book was a damning indictment of 60s, 70s, and early 80s liberalism. But compared to the liberalism, or should I say, the progressivism, of today, the first Liberal Crack-Up seems almost quaint. Today’s Liberal Crack-Up includes enthusiasms that Bob Tyrrell would never have imagined 40 years ago. The Liberal Crack-Up 2.0 includes a preference for illegal aliens over American citizens; the promotion of transgender lifestyles; the proliferation of previously unimagined genders; drag queen shows for kids; the widespread use of he/she, they/them pronouns; the redefinition of marriage; the hatred of American nationalism and traditional Christianity; the promotion of political violence against conservatives and actual political violence against conservatives; Trump Derangement Syndrome; politicized science; institutionalized Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; and worshipping wokeness. (RELATED: A Passionate Defense of Christian Nationalism ) The first Liberal Crack-Up reached its nadir with the presidency of Jimmy Carter and resulted in the corrective Reagan presidency. Liberal Crack-Up 2.0 manifested itself in the Obama–Biden presidencies and resulted in the corrective Trump presidency. But, as Bob Tyrrell warned more than 40 years ago, the liberal/progressive dominance of our cultural and intellectual life still threatens civilizational decline. Conservative political restorations will only be episodic until the liberal/progressive cultural/intellectual dominance is brought to an end. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: National Review Turns 70 Trump Revives the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine Armistice Day on the Western Front and in Russia

Sacramento — California officials are adamant about regulating the emerging Artificial Intelligence industry even though most of the world’s top AI companies are based here. A heavy-handed approach toward this burgeoning industry will not only harm the state’s economy, but the national one as well given that California’s huge market makes our regulations the de facto national standard. That’s why it’s refreshing to see the Trump administration, which is hardly a bastion of laissez-faire thinking, take a hands-off stance on this important issue. My point: When it comes to technology, the state has a long track record of failure. As CalMatters reported this week, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have angered California officials by circulating a draft executive order that attempts to limit the ability of states to pass their own AI rules. The president proposes creating a litigation task force with the sole responsibility of challenging state regulations. “American AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the draft EO explained. “But state legislatures have introduced over 1,000 AI bills that threaten to undermine that innovative culture. California, for example, recently enacted a complex and burdensome disclosure and reporting law premised on the purely speculative suspicion that AI might ‘pose significant catastrophic risk.’” That’s a correct read on what’s going on. It’s awfully hard for a company to innovate if it faces an avalanche of proposed rules in 50 legislatures. This is a good sign given that the Republican-controlled Senate last year killed a measure that would have passed a 10-year moratorium on state AI controls. So far, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken a moderate course on such bills. Last session, he vetoed the most noxious one: Assembly Bill 1064 would have prohibited companies “from making a companion chatbot available to a child unless the companion chatbot is not foreseeably capable of doing certain things that could harm a child.” Heaven knows how a company or government agency could determine whether an algorithm is “foreseeably capable” of doing “certain things” that could lead to a child’s “harm.” That’s insanely broad and imprecise language that would lead to endless litigation. AI is arguably the most complex innovation the world has ever seen, so it’s mind boggling to suppose that bureaucrats in some Sacramento office, or judges in the civil court system, could parse out the foreseeability of doing potential harm. Talk about a bill based in hubris. But, as I wrote for The American Spectator last month, “Unfortunately, [Newsom] has signed several AI-related bills (including some problematic ones) and dozens of others will surely make their way to his desk next year. In effect, Newsom and the California Legislature are now making AI policy for the entire nation instead of Congress, which is extremely troubling for the future of the industry.” Other states — and not solely liberal ones — will likewise hobble the industry with their own peculiar concerns. The president is rightly worried this will propel China into the forefront of this technology. In a letter to congressional leadership cited by CalMatters, California Attorney General Rob Bonta made what sounds like a reasonable argument not to pre-empt state AI regulations: “Preemption of state AI laws would undermine these and similar efforts across the country to enact common sense guardrails on AI, and deny all Americans the benefits of state-led experimentation and progress in this rapidly evolving space. Any federal AI law should serve as a floor, not a ceiling, preserving flexibility for states to go further where necessary to protect their residents.” Most Americans have no problem with “common sense guardrails” on this powerful technology, especially to protect children from deception and abuse. Furthermore, states are indeed the laboratories of democracy. As a believer in federalism, I usually defer to the states to come up with their own rules, then the rest of the nation can get out the popcorn and watch how it plays out from afar. Sadly, California’s laboratory usually serves as evidence of what the other 49 states should avoid, but such is life in our decentralized system. Bonta’s argument doesn’t work when it comes to a technology that is national or really international in nature. California is essentially doing with AI as it always does with environmental law and labor policy by trying to write laws for the nation, which isn’t real federalism. As my R Street colleague and AI expert Adam Thierer explained in his congressional testimony in September: The Constitution assigns Congress the lead role in protecting interstate commerce. The Founders wisely provided Congress with this power so that it could facilitate commerce between the states by eliminating barriers that states might otherwise be inclined to erect if left to their own devices. It is essential that Congress exercise that responsibility promptly to ensure the robust development of the national AI marketplace. And allow me two slight detours. First, some San Francisco officials have been pushing for the Legislature to let localities determine their own rules to regulate self-driving taxis such as Waymo after one of those robotaxis ran over a beloved neighborhood cat. As I pointed out in my newspaper column, 5.4 million cats are run over each year, with 5,399,999 from the wheels of human drivers. Autonomous Vehicles are indeed a form of AI, and offer myriad life-saving benefits for critters and, most important, for human beings given that they are better drivers than people. California’s lawmakers understand that the state can’t allow every one of its 483 municipalities and 58 counties to impose their own driving rules or bans if we hope to see this technology take off. The Legislature has killed efforts to let the locals dictate state driving policy, so likewise the feds need to tamp down on state efforts to dictate technology policy. Second, a recent Sacramento Bee investigation revealed that California’s state government spent $450 million since 2019 to revamp its antiquated 911 systems and several years later found the system didn’t work. The state is coming up with yet another new system that will take years and many more millions of dollars to implement. My point: When it comes to technology, the state has a long track record of failure. The 911 system is far less complex than AI. Who would trust the state to know what it’s doing regarding AI systems? The feds should go with their instincts, get the government out of the way and let the AI market evolve. If there’s a need for “common sense” rules, then let Congress do it for the whole country, rather than let California and other states constantly move the goal posts in a haphazard manner. READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: LA Is Destroying Its Housing Market California’s Hypocrisy on Property Rights Post Prop. 50, California GOP Needs Reality Check Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

from The New American: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: No one blinked when Venezuela declared itself at war with the US. President Trump said he would not bother declaring a war against the drug cartels, opting to simply kill any potential smugglers. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was labeled a terrorist by US intelligence agencies this week. The West showed […]

“Riding in Grand Style: Gold Wing – since 1974” The funny t-shirt and the high-grade doormat for all Honda Gold Wing riders and fans The Honda Gold Wing in all its evolutionary stages is a touring bike that has offered comfort and ride quality at its finest even on the longest trips since 1974. GoldWing.us, the online accessories shop for owners and fans of this incomparable legend on two wheels, hits the nail on the head with a fantastic t-shirt: “Riding in Grand Style: Gold Wing – Since 1974.” What slogan would be more apt to describe the fascination these bikes exude? The witty design on the front of the t-shirt was created by none other than French artist BOD, whose caricatures are published by all significant media outlets around the globe. His hilarious design perfectly illustrates the feeling of floating on a cloud at the handlebars of a Honda Gold Wing. The high-quality black t-shirt with white print on the front comes in sizes M to 3XL and sells from 27.50 euro. How does a Gold Wing rider welcome guests to their home or man cave, garage, or workshop in a manner worthy of their status? With a high-quality doormat from GoldWing.us, of course! The anthracite-colored mat welcomes guests with the same humorous cartoon by renowned French cartoonist BOD that decorates the GoldWing.us T-shirt. The rectangular, 40 x 60 cm doormat with rounded corners has a felt surface with a sublimation print and a rubberized, non-slip underside. The accessories presented here are sold exclusively online at www.GoldWing.us. The post Cool Stuff for Honda Gold Wing riders  appeared first on Bikernet.com - Online Biker Magazine.

Wednesday’s Morning Joe brought more of that trademark misinformation MS NOW failed to shake during its rebrand. Co-host Joe Scarborough repeated his mischaracterization of the Catholic on immigration and even labeled himself as a “conservative” on border policy. As if it were an indictment on U.S. immigration policy, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius pitied a bunch of “suffering” Salvadoran prisoners who appeared in a video posted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem: "I hate to say it, but that's a photograph that 30, 40, 50 years from now, people will look at and they'll be shocked. They will look at that and they'll wonder, ‘Who were these people? How could they have done that?’ […]  that's an image, sadly, that will stand for this period that we're living in now.” If you know anything about El Salvador’s strict law enforcement under President Nayib Bukele, you’ll know those incarcerated certainly deserve the treatment they’ve received. For Ignatius to feel sympathy for the worst of the worst would be absurd.   Scarborough concurred with Ignatius’ “brilliant” observation and, once again, invoked Catholic reproach for treatment of immigrants without mentioning their support for the law: And if you wonder why Pope Leo, and if you wonder why the archbishops of the Catholic Church, and you wonder why priests are reading Pope Leo's messages to congregants across America talking about the moral crisis going on right now with harsh immigration policies. Nearly a week prior, Scarborough and his Morning Joe cohort selectively promoted portions of Catholic officials’ positions on U.S. immigration enforcement while leaving out statements that affirmed the need for border security. Scarborough tried cover-up the omission by qualifying his remark: We're not talking about upholding the law. As I've said for 32 years in public service, I think it's a problem when you come to America and the first thing that you do is an illegal action. So, I'm pretty conservative on this stuff, more conservative than a lot of my Republicans I served with in Congress on it. Really? Scarborough’s “pretty conservative” on the border? In 2018, he compared the separation of families to Nazi procedure. In April of 2022, he claimed Trump would treat migrants like a “thug” if Biden wasn’t more humanitarian. In September of 2022, he accused Republican politicians of “political human trafficking.” In November of 2023, he lamented small businesses not having enough immigrant labor. And back in July, Scarborough actually defended the intentions of sanctuary city advocates. Scarborough may not be a total liberal nut on border security, but he’s far from being the conservative he claims to have been. He ended by exaggerating the extent of ICE’s immigration enforcement operations: “And the inhumanity, the un-Christ-like behavior of how these mothers and children and grandparents are being dragged out of school lines, are being dragged out of preschools, are being treated in the worst, most despicable ways.” Pretty sure that just happened once, which, shockingly, Scarborough also misreported. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: MS NOW’s Morning Joe November 26, 2025 6:19:06 a.m. EST DAVID IGNATIUS: Just to say one last thing, that picture that you showed earlier of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, in the, kind of, glamorous outfit standing in front of a prison with these half-naked men suffering. I hate to say it, but that's a photograph that 30, 40, 50 years from now, people will look at — JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. IGNATIUS: — and they'll be shocked. They will look at that and they'll wonder, “Who were these people? How could they have done that?” And I think that's just something we should all — think that's an image, sadly, that will stand for this period that we're living in now. SCARBOROUGH: There's no doubt, David, it's so brilliantly said. 50 years from now, people will be looking at this time period and they will be looking at that video image. And if you wonder why Pope Leo, and if you wonder why the archbishops of the Catholic Church, and you wonder why priests are reading Pope Leo's messages to congregants across America talking about the moral crisis going on right now with harsh immigration policies. We're not talking about upholding the law. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Right. SCARBOROUGH: As I've said for 32 years in public service, I think it's a problem when you come to America and the first thing that you do is an illegal action. So, I'm pretty conservative on this stuff, more conservative than a lot of my Republicans I served with in Congress on it. That said, you can do two things at once. And the inhumanity, the un-Christ-like behavior of how these mothers and children and grandparents are being dragged out of school lines, are being dragged out of preschools, are being treated in the worst, most despicable ways. That will be something, unfortunately, regardless of whether you're like me and you want a strong border, or whether you're more moderate on the issue, it's still — it's going to be — BRZEZINSKI: Stain on our history. SCARBOROUGH: — real blight on this time. And that's why I'm so grateful for Pope Leo and the Catholic Church stepping forward the way it have.