A year of painstaking micro-excavations of soil blocks recovered from the 7th century bed burial unearthed near the village of Harpole‚ Northamptonshire‚ in April 2022‚ has revealed new details about the burial and its exceptional furnishings. The gold‚ glass and gemstone necklace with its 30 pendants has been cleaned‚ uncovering the intricacy of the goldsmithing and the brilliant colors of the glass and gems. The central pendant is a large square inlaid garnet and gold spirals‚ reminiscent of many of the pieces in the Staffordshire Hoard. Here are photographs of the necklace before and after cleaning: Comparing the after photograph to the digital reconstruction made in 2022‚ I’d say they were pretty much dead-on. The unique silver pectoral cross is still in the process of being liberated from its soil enclosure. Archaeologists are excavating it extremely slowly because of its complexity and fragility. A central cross is decorated with a smaller gold cross‚ which has a large garnet and four smaller garnets. At the end of each arm are smaller circular crosses made of silver‚ with garnet and gold centres. These are very similar to the pectoral crosses found in other high status female burials from this time‚ including the Trumpington burial. The use of these crosses within one larger cross‚ however‚ is unique and suggests the individual may have held a very special position within the Christian community. Through micro-excavating the feature‚ our conservators have revealed it is mostly made of extremely thin sheets of silver attached to wood‚ its corroded surface barely distinguishable from the surrounding soil. We hope to identify the type of wood used‚ and better understand how the cross was constructed. The laboratory excavation has also found more skeletal remains of the high-status woman buried in the grave. In the initial in situ excavation‚ only a few partial teeth were discovered‚ but one of the soil blocks recovered from the dig turned out to contain more parts of the skeleton: an upper femur‚ a piece of the pelvic bone‚ vertebrae‚ part of a hand and wrist. The bones were pinned under a crushed copper dish that had been buried with the deceased. The copper prevented the usual decomposition process of the organic remains. Our specialists are continuing to analyse and piece together the story of the Harpole Burial. As well as getting a better understanding of the items recovered and individual buried‚ it is hoped that scientific techniques may reveal more about funerary rituals at the time. This potentially includes studying tiny fragments of organic matter‚ which may hold clues as to what the person was wearing and the types of materials they were lying on.

It comes as a surprise to most Americans that the federal government owns nearly one-third of the nation’s land mass‚ in excess of 640 million acres. (It also owns 1.7 billion acres of the Outer…

We are shook.

Another reason to keep your cat inside.

It just... vanished.

On Tuesday‚ Volodymyr Zelensky was in Washington with his hand out‚ and specifically he’s interested in another $60 billion of your money on top of the $100 billion he and his people already have. So far‚ Zelensky’s asks haven’t received much in the way of answers. It’s almost like Uncle Sam isn’t interested in playing Uncle Santa — or worse‚ Uncle Santa has checked his list and found Zelensky naughty this Christmas. The real problem Ukraine has in getting that $60 billion in military and intragovernmental aid from the U.S. Congress isn’t Zelensky’s pitch‚ and it isn’t the weariness of the American people over an inconclusive war nearly two years in duration at this point. The problem Zelensky has is Joe Biden — to the extent that Joe Biden even truly exists anymore. The kind of money we’re talking about here is over the top‚ after all. Spending $160 billion in less than two years on Ukraine would be more lavish than even the money we spent on allies in World War II. For example‚ the massive aid we gave to the Soviet Union from 1941–45 under the Lend-Lease program totaled $11.3 billion‚ or about $180 billion in today’s money. All of Lend-Lease‚ which included aid to 30 different countries‚ was $50 billion over four years. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Western Europe for $13.2 billion‚ or close to $200 billion in today’s money‚ and that was over four years from 1948–52. And what do we have to show for the $100 billion we’ve already spent? Well‚ we’ve attrited the Russian Army to a significant extent‚ though the Russians have rearmed and might be better equipped now than they previously were because of the new gear they’re supplying their forces. They’ve suffered massive personnel losses‚ which is something. Meanwhile‚ Ukraine has been decimated both militarily and with respect to its civilian population. Millions of Ukrainians are refugees all over Europe and elsewhere in the world‚ and many of that country’s cities have been pummeled into dust. And we have a stalemate‚ with the Russians holding much of the Donbas region‚ which was disputed territory in the first place‚ plus a chunk of southwestern Ukraine and Crimea‚ which Russia had already taken from Ukraine nearly a decade ago. This past spring‚ the Ukrainians were supposed to clear the Russians out of their territory with a major offensive. That didn’t happen. It now seems largely impossible for Ukraine to gain back those territories without the war escalating into World War III. Which is something in the interest neither of the United States nor anyone else in NATO. It’s also not in Russia’s interest‚ but we’re two years into listening to the fantastical promises of our ruling class that Vladimir Putin will suddenly lose his taste for blood and scurry back within his own borders due to threats from Washington or Brussels. Everybody knows those are the contours of the situation. Everybody also knows this is going to be settled at the peace table. Now‚ you might believe that we should continue bankrolling the Ukrainian side of the conflict until the Russians are driven out of that country. At this point‚ what you have to articulate is how exactly that will happen. Not specifically. Generally. Is it going to happen as a function of military victories that push the Russian army out? Or will it happen through peace negotiations? If it’s the former‚ are you suggesting that we send in American forces? You’re going to have to recognize that American boots on the ground in Ukraine is a nonstarter with both the American people and Congress‚ so that suggestion isn’t realistic‚ and regardless of the dumb statements of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last week‚ deploying Americans for combat in Ukraine is not a viable threat to squeeze that $60 billion out of Congress. Further‚ right now‚ it doesn’t seem as though the Ukrainians are capable of much in the way of offensive action that would produce a restoration of the 1991 borders. Does that change with another $60 billion? How does that work? And in the latter case‚ meaning peace negotiations to restore those borders‚ will $60 billion in new aid to Ukraine scare Putin into giving up his current gains at the peace table? Nobody really believes that. Offering up some other guarantee or consideration might do that‚ or it might not‚ but simply committing to fund a stalemate indefinitely wouldn’t seem to change the situation in a positive way. We’re going through this mental exercise‚ some of which you might not agree with‚ and that’s fine‚ because the president of the United States clearly will not. We are getting nothing from Joe Biden or any of his people — not Lloyd Austin‚ not Jake Sullivan‚ not Antony Blinken‚ and not Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries — to indicate they’ve even contemplated what benefit that $60 billion will be to the war effort or what an endgame looks like. Biden certainly didn’t bring any of that to the table on Tuesday. I can’t even say what he offers; the man was utterly insensate during that press conference. To wit: Biden‚ reading directly from a pre-written notecard‚ says if Republicans don't drop their push for border security‚ it'd be "the greatest Christmas gift they could possibly give" Putin pic.twitter.com/yZRn80547t — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 12‚ 2023 What does that mean? If the Ukrainians don’t get the $60 billion‚ their front will collapse before Christmas and Putin will march into Kyiv? If that’s true‚ then why are we just finding out about it now? Maybe the situation really is serious. After all‚ Biden noted that he’s raiding the Pentagon’s munition stockpile for another $200 million in missiles and other hardware to give to Zelensky: Biden tells the press to "hush up‚" announces he "just signed another $200 million drawdown from the Department of Defense for Ukraine‚" then sits and stares as his handlers remove the press from the room pic.twitter.com/pKto8y4KMt — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 12‚ 2023 And if it really is this dire‚ then shouldn’t Biden be willing to give in on border security measures that House Republicans have made clear are far more important to them than more billions to fund a stalemate in Ukraine? If I was Joe Biden‚ I would damned sure be willing to give in to a partisan demand for something the American people overwhelmingly want‚ something that is contributing to my atrocious approval rating‚ in order to prevent presiding over losing not just one war (Afghanistan) but two. It seems like a no-brainer‚ and yet Biden comes off as a no-brainer in his own right. This was not a good moment: Biden says securing our border is an "extreme Republican partisan agenda" pic.twitter.com/PkaxfLzxAO — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 12‚ 2023 That’s gibberish. He’s trying to convince the American people to support $60 billion in funding to restore Ukraine’s eastern border instead of some likely smaller figure to preserve our southern border — which has been invaded by exponentially more people than have invaded Ukraine. Who is this supposed to persuade? And who is this supposed to persuade? Joe Biden says "a host of a Kremlin-run-show" praised Republicans for blocking Ukraine aid. pic.twitter.com/EBcsDGvmwJ — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 12‚ 2023 It’s hard to imagine that our foreign policy priorities have descended to the point that we’re aiming to make Russian talk show hosts sad. Whatever happened to the idea of making a deal with your own countrymen to get a consensus for what you want? Perhaps the real question is whether Biden is capable of making such a deal. Or whether he’s capable of much of anything. This isn’t very encouraging: BIDEN: "We also need Ukraine to make changes to fix the broken immigration system here—" pic.twitter.com/LQh6xJrMS9 — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 12‚ 2023 Nor is this: Biden gets lost reading his pre-written script pic.twitter.com/NLezUCIP3i — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 12‚ 2023 He doesn’t know what he’s talking about‚ and this is with a script he’s reading from. It looks like our Ukraine policy‚ like our Israel policy and our border policy‚ is rudderless. Know why? Because it is. Joe Biden isn’t in charge. That’s obvious. So who is? As I note in Racism‚ Revenge and Ruin: It’s All Obama (which‚ by the way‚ makes a splendiforous holiday gift)‚ the most likely figure is Biden’s old boss Barack Obama. After all‚ virtually everything that happens in the Biden administration is simply the logical extension of things Obama put in place. And that includes Ukraine — whether it’s making an American puppet of the government of that country while agitating the Russians‚ turning Ukraine into a money-laundering outfit for defense contractors and other ruling-class fatcats and presiding over the loss of Ukrainian territory when Putin smelled American weakness behind all of that bluster. Obama never made a case to the American people on behalf of the Ukrainians‚ either. And he never made a case to Republicans for anything. Remember Obamacare‚ and how simply forcing things down the throats of his political enemies was Obama’s brand? That’s the real telltale sign from Tuesday’s abysmal press conference — and some proof that this is an Obama redux administration. Do you really think a Joe Biden of sound mind would have much difficulty agreeing to Republican demands for border security to save his Eastern European laundromat? Biden‚ the most transactional politician in America (that’s not meant as a compliment‚ by the way) over the last half-century? The younger Biden would blow that money out of the treasury to stop up the border in no time flat — in the knowledge that‚ as soon as he was reelected (on the strength of a “successful” Ukraine war effort and “getting control” of the border)‚ he could throw the whole thing open again and let in even more illegals with nobody to stop him for the next four years. You’d think he would be happy as a pig in slop to run that bait-and-switch on the electorate while boasting of his ability to work across the aisle. But he’s not doing that. Instead‚ he’s playing chicken with the Republicans — and they’ve clearly got the better vehicle. That kind of intransigence? It’s pure Obama. It isn’t Biden. In fact‚ as Tuesday showed‚ there isn’t a Biden anymore. He’s just an avatar‚ a shill. And until somebody makes an honest case for what that money for Ukraine buys us and where this thing is going‚ rather than berating us with threats and insults‚ not a dime more should be spent on this war. READ MORE: The Further Ridiculous Lies of Joseph Robinette Biden On Foreign Policy‚ Dirty Joe Piles Up the Ls Biden Is Bankrolling the Ayatollahs The post It’s Joe Biden’s Fault He Can’t Get the Ukraine Funding appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Political polarization in politics is a feature of our political system today‚ but it wasn’t always this way. Conservatives began to dominate the GOP in 1964‚ and in 1968 the historic Democratic establishment began to be discredited and undermined. These gradual forces came to a head in 1972. The culminating clash has been the source of a half-century of competition and conflict. Before 1964‚ there was a broad centrism with liberal and conservative wings. Moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats could find a lot of common ground. Liberal Republicanism was gradually weakening‚ and the conservative Democrats of the South were steadily losing ground and legitimacy. Moderate Republicans were still a real and vital force; they helped pass civil rights legislation in alliance with northern Democrats. Similarly‚ there were a lot of northern big-city ethnic politicians‚ often Catholic‚ who were culturally conservative but economically liberal (in many ways‚ Speaker Tip O’Neill was this faction’s last national leader).  READ MORE from Newt Gingrich: America Faces a Republican Revolution In the election cycles of 1964‚ 1968‚ and 1972‚ this system was gradually destroyed and replaced by two much more polarized political parties. The pattern that has grown and evolved since then is the one in which we operate today. The culminating event of this decisive change was the takeover of the Democratic Party by activists on the left in 1972. That process led to five major shifts that could not have been predicted when Sen. John F. Kennedy ran for president 12 years earlier. First‚ the Left seized control of the Democratic Party and established its ideological dominance‚ which Theodore White brilliantly described as a theology rather than an ideology. Second‚ the American people repudiated the prospect of a genuinely radical Democratic Party by one of the largest election margins in American history. President Richard Nixon was elected with 60.7 percent support over Sen. George McGovern’s 37.5 percent. The Electoral College was an even more one-sided disaster. The Democrats carried only Massachusetts and the District of Colombia for a 96.65 percent to 3.16 percent margin (538 electoral votes to 17). Third‚ the left-wing activist movement succeeded in driving many moderates and conservatives out of the Democratic Party. Beginning in 1976‚ any aspiring Democrat would have to be acceptable to the left‚ or he/she could not be nominated. This had huge consequences and led to 20 years of Republican presidencies interrupted only by Democrat President Jimmy Carter’s failed four-year term.  Fourth‚ the Democratic left-wing activists began a process of radicalism. This eventually led to a hemorrhage of moderate and conservative Democrats who left the party to become independents and‚ eventually‚ Republicans. The Ronald Reagan Democrats of 1980 and 1984 can be traced directly back to this alienation by the McGovern Left in 1972. The rise of the college intellectual-media-activist Democratic Party still drives people who would have been Democrats under FDR‚ Truman‚ and JFK to become Republicans. The old FDR coalition is increasingly the modern Donald Trump coalition. (READ MORE from Newt Gingrich: Leftism Tears Apart the Democrat Party) Fifth‚ the hatred between the increasingly radical and partisan news media and the Nixon team — which had been simmering since the late 1940s when Nixon helped prove that Alger Hiss‚ an establishment darling‚ was an agent of the Soviet Union — boiled over. The anti-Nixon hatred intensified when Nixon ran a hard-hitting campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1950 against Democratic Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas. Douglas was a leftist — her Democratic primary opponent compared her to Vito Marcantonio‚ a New York congressman who had been accused of being a communist. Nixon was criticized for calling Douglas “the Pink Lady” and distributing flyers in pink. The Left portrayed it as a smear by Nixon (even though it was started by Douglas’s Democratic primary opponent). The term “tricky Dick” came out of this campaign. President Dwight Eisenhower also used Vice President Nixon as his bridge to conservatives and partisan attacker for eight years — allowing Eisenhower to function as a positive centrist almost above politics — and so the Left’s dislike of Nixon grew. Nixon’s first term as president included a battle with the media. Vice President Spiro Agnew and speechwriter Pat Buchanan developed direct assaults against the leftwing media and would have perfectly understood the “Fake News” battle cry that emerged from Donald Trump 48 years later. The Coagulation of the Democratic Left It is impossible to overstate the importance of the transition that took place in the Democratic Party in 1972. A nationwide movement with a wide and loose coalition came together across the country. It was anti-war‚ pro-gay‚ feminist‚ pro–Black Power‚ sexually permissive‚ lax on drugs‚ and anti-American middle-class values and was made up of college students and individuals looking for activist roles. The scale of student and youth involvement was beyond anything seen in American politics before. Establishment Democrats found themselves outmaneuvered‚ drowned in primaries and conventions by the sheer energy‚ enthusiasm‚ and determination of their younger opponents. White‚ in his The Making of the President 1972‚ asserted that 1972 was merely the second act of a two-step process:  The closed universe of the old convention had cracked first at Atlantic City in 1964‚ when the blacks of Mississippi’s Freedom Democratic Party forced their way into decision from the streets. It had come entirely apart in Chicago in 1968‚ when the bloody street confrontation of police and youth had cramped all decisions of power brokers in closed rooms. The reform rules of the McGovern Commission had been the consequence of the Chicago cataclysm—and thus the convention of 1972 was to be an effort to include in the convention process‚ at one gulp‚ by untried procedures‚ all the new claimant groups exerting the pressure of all the new ideas of the 1972 was to be a rupture of this two-step unwritten process of power. The radical nature of the new movement became clear when the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection‚ created by the 1968 Democratic National Convention to appease the left-wing activists‚ held its key meeting in 1969. McGovern‚ who had briefly been the stand-in presidential candidate for the Kennedy forces after Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated‚ was named its chair. In the middle of relatively acceptable internal reforms‚ the commission stumbled into an issue that White keenly described: “As the Reform Commission moved on‚ however‚ to consider quotas‚ it was to plunge over a political cliff to disaster. It was to misread the culture of America.” (READ MORE from Newt Gingrich: The Destruction of the Family Was Not Inevitable) The depth and scale of this disastrous decision would alienate much of America and a great part of the Rooseveltian Democratic Party from the emerging social engineering of the Left. Again‚ White’s perception (and remember‚ this was 51 years ago) explains much about how the modern hard-left Democratic Party emerged:  No better episode occurs to me in my political memories to illustrate how a liberating idea changes to become an intellectual prison than the story of how ideas came to lock in the quota controversy within the Democratic Party.… The liberating idea in 1964 had been clear: Blacks must not be excluded from the political process‚ no matter what the pain to tradition. What the Reform Commission was about to do in 1969 was to take this idea and make a prison of it: Certain specific groups must be included‚ must be guaranteed their mathematical proportion of representation and legally‚ while all other groups must fend for themselves. Specifically‚ as the commission interpreted its vague mandate‚ the party must open itself to blacks‚ to women and to youth‚ not by striking at exclusion but by insisting on inclusion. Women‚ of course‚ were not a minority group‚ since they made up 52 percent of the population. Youth was a transitional biological state difficult to define. How were these three groups to be pegged‚ legally‚ into the structure of the party with guarantees to which no others were entitled? As White relates‚ the coauthor of the original resolution almost immediately realized he had made a mistake: RANNEY [who had now changed from his earlier insistence on something strong to force the inclusion of blacks]: I have the feeling‚ with Senator Bayh’s assistance‚ I opened Pandora’s box here…. I think we ought to recognize [that] if we pass this motion now we’re going to a quota system…. How can we … give proportional representation to political views while making sure that there is adequate representation of blacks‚ women‚ youth…? White continued: [T]he symbolism of the idea was too overpowering to ignore. It touched the roots of American culture‚ and the campaign of 1972 was to become one of those events in American history which can be described as cultural watersheds as well as political happenings. For many liberals‚ the experience was to be heartbreaking. The beautiful Liberal Idea of the previous half-century had grown old and hardened into a Liberal Theology which terrified millions of its old clients. From the founding of the country on‚ the central instinct and pride of the American liberal has been to keep opportunity for individuals open. Of the sixties these programs had themselves become values. However much the real world might fear liberal programs‚ it must submit because programs were morality‚ even after programs had gone wrong in visible practice. Imposing quotas inevitably created injustices that drove out large parts of the old Democratic majority coalition. The traditional Democratic constituencies (for example‚ Poles and Italians in Chicago) found themselves ignored‚ run over‚ and excluded by the radicals. Meanwhile‚ there was an overrepresentation of activists of various ethnic backgrounds. In some cases‚ the quota approach meant that the person who had won the primary was replaced by the person they had defeated. For the movement‚ this was the cost of progress in breaking up the old order. For most Americans‚ this was a massive exercise of power forcing injustice and creating new types of discrimination. The consequences were immediate and vivid. In the California delegation‚ 89 of 388 delegates and alternates were on welfare. As White reported (in the language of the time): “George Meany‚ now president of the AFL/CIO‚ but once a plumber in the Bronx‚ where his roots still lay. ‘They’ve got six open fags and only three AFL/CIO people on that delegation! Representative?’” (READ MORE from Newt Gingrich: Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society Cripples America) Mayor John Lindsay‚ having been rejected for the vice-presidential nomination in 1968‚ summarized the disaster he was living through: “This party seems to have an instinct for suicide.” Remember that you are reading this a half-century after it was first initiated. Notice how much it fits the modern Left except that the modern Left has become even more extreme. As White described it in 1972:  [T]he war‚ the Black Revolution‚ the prosperity were the main incubators of change in the Liberal Idea. Their effect could be summed up in three cardinal tenets of the Liberal Theology: (a) War Is Bad—and the American military was almost‚ if not quite‚ a criminal institution‚ wasteful and profligate of life and treasure; patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels‚ and the adventure in Vietnam “immoral.” (b) Black Is Good—and the demands of blacks on the general society must become‚ in the revision of priorities that would follow the end of the war‚ priority number one. And (c) since money comes easily under the modern managed economy‚ the belief that Money Solves All Problems‚ as in the rhetoric of hope‚ “If we can spend the money to reach the moon‚ we can spend the money to save our cities‚ solve cancer‚ purify our streams‚ cope with drugs‚ cleanse our ghettoes … etc.‚ etc.” These three tenets of the Theology were‚ in turn‚ harnessed to a political doctrine called Participation: If the people could be brought to participate in the political arena‚ and there freed to express their real needs‚ then politics would become‚ as it should be‚ the instrument of national good. Thus‚ out of such thinking‚ there developed in the years between 1968 and 1972 a formless but very powerful action group within the Democratic Party that can only be called the Movement—a movement whose roots lay in the insurgency of 1968‚ had been strengthened and nursed by the reforms of 1969‚ and whose future‚ as one looked forward to 1972‚ was obscure‚ yet beckoning. Of course‚ what we are seeing today is the metastasizing of this movement into an even more radical system of pro-terrorist‚ anti-American protests. The focus has shifted from the rights of black people to being outwardly anti-white. There is an absolute refusal to reform any of the failing bureaucracies‚ policies‚ and institutions that the Left has imposed on the country starting 90 years ago with FDR’s New Deal. McGovern accelerated the takeover by the Left when‚ in his first campaign planning meeting‚ he asserted: “My one unique position‚ with reference to the potential competition‚ is to be to the left of them all.” (According to White.) McGovern’s Failure to Impress The collapse of the FDR-majority Democratic Party was accelerated by the emergence of Alabama Gov. George Wallace as an attractive presidential candidate for ethnic whites and cultural conservatives outside the South. Wallace had won 45 electoral votes in 1968‚ and one poll showed him with 45 percent of the vote among white steelworkers in Chicago. He was doing remarkably well in the primaries. At the beginning of May‚ the Harris Poll reported that the American people were divided — Nixon 40 percent‚ McGovern 35 percent‚ George Wallace 17 percent. Then Wallace was shot at a rally in Maryland and was out of the race. Most of Wallace’s vote likely went to Nixon. However‚ what ultimately compounded the McGovern collapse was a series of political mistakes that put his character and judgment into question. With a war going on in Vietnam and the continued tension between the United States and the Soviet Union‚ the reliability and strength of a potential commander-in-chief was an important consideration for many American voters. In addition to allowing his party to move too far to the radical left‚ McGovern failed the honesty and judgment test. At the conclusion of the convention that nominated him‚ McGovern announced that Jean Westwood would become the first woman chair of the Democratic National Convention‚ passing over Lawrence O’Brien and Pierre Salinger — famous political operatives who had been vital to the Kennedy machines. Both were men of considerable reputation and had huge networks of friends and allies. Both came to believe that McGovern had misled them. The problem was that both O’Brien and Salinger thought McGovern had promised them the job and then lied to them. Just as that decision was beginning to undermine McGovern’s credibility‚ his choice for vice president became a huge liability. Sen. Tom Eagleton was a well-liked and pleasant man‚ but the campaign discovered too late that Eagleton suffered from depression and had had shock treatments three times to break it. When it came out that he had what was‚ in that generation‚ a high-risk and scary-sounding mental illness‚ his acceptability as a potential commander-in-chief began to collapse. McGovern then compounded the risk by saying that he was “behind [Eagleton] 1‚000 %.” But as pressure built to get Eagleton off the ticket because he threatened to drag down McGovern and other Democrats‚ that 1‚000 percent support vanished and Eagleton left the ticket‚ leaving McGovern looking even less honest than before. By then it was hard to find a new candidate. After a week of public humiliation‚ McGovern finally got Kennedy relative Sargent Shriver (married to Eunice Kennedy)‚ but it was too late. The American people had rendered judgment. McGovern was too radical and too erratic to be trusted as commander-in-chief. A Campaign to Reset the ‘Silent Majority’ McGovern’s collapsing campaign allowed Nixon to shift the focus. Nixon was ahead of McGovern by 57 percent to 34 percent. The man who had lost narrowly in 1960 and won narrowly in a three-way race in 1968 was now moving toward a real mandate for dramatic change. To develop the momentum for that change‚ it was not enough to merely defeat a deeply flawed Democrat. Nixon had to reset the cultural majority — what Nixon had called “the silent majority” — so they would support bold and deep change. To do that Nixon thought he had to take on his real opponent: the media. As White described it at the Republican convention:  Richard Nixon was talking. He was talking‚ as he had for months‚ and as he had designed his convention‚ to the people Out There. Out There‚ they had watched a series of pre-packaged film unroll across screen like a child’s story of a President’s adventures—Richard Nixon in the White House‚ Richard Nixon in Peking‚ Richard Nixon in Moscow. An average of close to 20‚000‚000 American homes‚ or 60‚000‚000 people (29.30 by the Nielsen ratings)‚ had watched these shows‚ and the press corps on its benches at the convention had watched with them. Richard Clurman‚ once news director of the Time/Life news services‚ remembered the hush that fell over the press as the films were shown in the darkened convention hall. Normally‚ the press babbles and is inattentive at canned presentations. This time‚ however‚ Clurman was struck by a difference: “There were 3‚000 guys in the press galleries—and they all fell silent watching the Nixon film. It was cornball. But he wasn’t talking to them‚ he was talking to the people‚ and they ought to be taking notes on it. There was this recognition that Nixon’s world wasn’t our world—we were out of it.” Whether or not the reporters were out of it‚ Mr. Nixon did not propose to let them stay out. For his chief adversary in the next three months was not George McGovern and McGovern’s Democratic Party‚ but the news media of America—and the culture they spoke for‚ which so contradicted the culture for which he spoke‚ and on which he was to found his victory.” No one could have foreseen that Nixon’s massive victory over McGovern‚ the radical left movement that had nominated him‚ and the leftwing media that deeply disapproved of the Nixon-Agnew-Buchanan vision of America‚ would be a temporary blip.  The Left was determined that Nixonism would not dominate and define America’s future.  That set up the first lawyer-news media-engineered coup d’etat in American history. It is toward that complicated‚ startling development we will turn in the next essay. This is the 12th installment in a series by Speaker Gingrich on American despotism. Listen to The American Spectator’s exclusive interview with the Speaker here. Find the first in the series here‚ the second here‚ the third here‚ the fourth here‚ the fifth here‚ the sixth here‚ the seventh here‚ the eighth here‚ the nineth here‚ the 10th here‚ and the 11th here. For more commentary‚ visit Gingrich360.com. The post The 1972 Insurrection: When the Left Took Over appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

YouTubers Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams announced the birth of their sons‚ Jet and Max‚ on Sunday. Dawson is the biological father to one of the boys‚ while Adams is the biological father to the other. The mother of the children — whom they called “the egg donor” — is unknown. A separate woman carried and gave birth to the children for payment. To attain the sperm to create the children‚ Dawson and Adams each masturbated alone in a clinical room that offered them pornographic magazines and videos as well as a chair covered in plastic. As part of the process‚ an additional 10 embryos were created and subsequently cast aside — and possibly killed — in favor of the implantation of Jet and Max‚ who were described as “optimal” embryos. The situation highlights the terrible evils of surrogacy and in vitro fertilization. Jet and Max are deprived of knowing their mother and have been birthed by a woman whose care for them begins and ends with her ability to make money off of them. Ten other children were created only to be killed‚ used for research‚ or frozen because they were not considered “optimal.” Further‚ Dawson and Adams presumably paid well over $100‚000 to create these children — a circumstance that treats Jet‚ Max‚ and the 10 other children as paid-for products in the two’s highfalutin lifestyle. Dawson and Adams chronicled the entirely of the surrogacy process on Adams’ YouTube channel. This included everything from filming the room in which they masturbated to create their children to a video titled “WE’RE PREGNANT!!!!!! Seeing Our Twins For The First Time!” In one YouTube video‚ the pair discusses their decision to implant Jet and Max — and not one of the other 10 children — into their “surrogate.” Adams related that Dawson told a fertility clinic representative over the phone‚ “I guess we’ll just do a boy of each.” Dawson then explained that choice to the camera. “It just makes sense‚” he said‚ “because number one‚ they’re not gonna be identical because there’s two different dads‚ but‚ wow‚ drama! Two different baby daddies!” The two explained that they had simply texted their “surrogate” to ask her if she was okay with carrying twins. The use of the children for profit and attention continued after their births. Dawson posted a 10-picture slideshow of the children on Instagram. In one image‚ Adams lies in a hospital bed looking exhausted — imitative of a mother who has just given birth. That particular image was reminiscent of one in which Pete and Chasten Buttigieg held their children — who were also born by a “surrogate” — while lying in a hospital bed.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Shane Dawson (@shanedawson) Dawson wrote in the Instagram post‚ “We probably won’t be showing much of them in the future‚” but the couple’s treatment of the children’s creation and gestation as a form of entertainment for their audiences over the past year suggests they may not follow through on that idea. The use of surrogacy and in vitro fertilization is rapidly gaining traction. In 2022‚ the global surrogacy industry was valued at over $14 billion. The industry is predicted to experience 25 percent compound annual growth over the next decade to make it a $129 billion industry by 2032. In 2021‚ 413‚000 in vitro fertilization cycles took place in the United States‚ from which 97‚128 children were born. However‚ those aren’t the only children involved in the process‚ as 12–15 embryos are typically produced in each in vitro treatment. E. Christian Brugger of the National Catholic Register recently calculated that this conservatively means that “more than two and a half million human beings” were “either killed or frozen in a single year in our country to fuel this sordid industry.” Fertility clinics‚ Brugger concluded‚ “are places of unspeakable evil‚ arguably worse than abortion facilities.” The mass killing of embryos created through this process is‚ without a doubt‚ the worst aspect of in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. But the selling and buying of eggs‚ sperm‚ and women’s bodies — and the commodification of children‚ who are purposefully deprived of their biological parents — ought to awaken even pro-abortion advocates to their evils. In the case of Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams‚ the issue of Dawson’s deeply problematic history also raises concern. He once said on a podcast: “Why is it that when someone Googles ‘naked baby’ on the internet and jerks off to it they can get arrested? I don’t understand that.” He also once posted a video in which he pretended to masturbate while looking at a picture of an 11-year-old. Dawson’s past led many to criticize the two’s newfound fatherhood. “im shocked they allowed him to have a child‚” said one person on X. “Someone call child protective services‚” said another. “I need CPS at their doorsteps IMMEDIATELY‚ like who even allowed this?” added another user. Hopefully‚ public awareness of Dawson’s past will incite people to take a closer look at the evils of surrogacy. READ MORE: Meloni Pushes to Outlaw Italian Participation in Global Surrogacy Industry Celebrity Dysfunction Highlights the Horrors of Surrogacy The post Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams’ Use of Surrogacy Showcases the Practice’s Grotesqueness appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hunter Biden has been indicted in Los Angeles on nine counts of tax charges and faces prison terms of up to 17 years. These are in addition to gun charges filed earlier in Delaware. It is interesting to contrast his situation with that of John Dean‚ both being “bad boys” at the very center of America’s greatest political scandals. Dean was President Richard Nixon’s lawyer who‚ according to lead FBI agent Angelo Lano‚ was responsible for 90–95 percent of the cover-up efforts. Dean had initially assured Nixon and his top aides that no one on the White House staff had any advance knowledge of the Watergate break-in‚ and they built their entire defense around this assurance. The folks at Nixon’s reelection committee were the ones actually at risk. In the course of his cover-up‚ however‚ Dean managed to infect Nixon and his people such that he escaped going to prison by becoming the lead prosecution witness against his former White House colleagues.  READ MORE: The Biden Case: Who Is the Thief and Who Is the Liar? Hunter‚ along with President Joe Biden’s younger brother James‚ is at the center of a decades-long effort to sell access to the “Biden Brand.” Unfortunately for Hunter‚ he does not appear to be in a position to save himself by turning states’ evidence and selling out his family members.  Blood really is thicker than water.  Perhaps that doesn’t really matter‚ since both scandals feature extensive written records that are tough to refute: Nixon was done in by his secret taping system; Hunter‚ by his “laptop from hell” that he negligently left in a local repair shop. The respective backgrounds of these two junior players‚ while clearly different‚ have some eerily similar parallels. Both graduated from law school in their early 20s: Dean from Georgetown in 1965; Hunter from Yale in 1996‚ but only after transferring from Georgetown after completing his first year.  Their first job experiences were startlingly different. Dean was fired from Welch &; Morgan‚ a boutique communications law firm‚ after only six months‚ for unethical conduct. Hunter started working for MBNA‚ a large bank holding company in his home state of Delaware. There he became an executive vice president before leaving in 1998 and soon forming his own lobbying firm. Dean quickly landed on his feet‚ experiencing an extraordinarily rapid rise in GOP politics. He landed a position on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee within a month of his law firm firing‚ where he rose to become minority counsel. From there‚ he went to Nixon’s Department of Justice as associate deputy attorney general‚ before being named counsel to the president in July of 1970. (READ MORE: Hunter Biden Has an Identity Crisis) Hunter’s path through lobbying and investment firms was not nearly as impressive‚ even if‚ perhaps‚ it was more lucrative. It’s wonderfully detailed in a well-researched article by Ben Schreckinger‚ published in 2019 in Politico Magazine. Of course‚ Hunter’s path may have been clouded by his six efforts at rehabilitation for drug and alcohol abuse. Dean burst onto the public scandal scene on March 13‚ 1973‚ when he was 35 years old. In confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee‚ acting FBI Director Patrick Gary admitted sharing some 82 internal FBI documents with Dean — following which the committee voted unanimously to require Dean’s testimony before proceeding further with Gray’s confirmation. One week later‚ on March 21‚ Dean first shared the specifics of the ongoing cover-up with Nixon. Nixon asked him to reduce his report to writing‚ which the president stated he would use as the basis for calling for a renewed investigation into the Watergate matter. Dean quickly concluded that anything he wrote would amount to a confession of his own obstruction of justice. So‚ on April 2‚ he sought out prosecutors in pursuit of personal immunity. The detailed account of Dean’s changing story‚ from originally offering to testify against Nixon’s reelection committee officials to alleging a conspiracy involving Nixon and his top White House aides‚ is detailed in an internal memo never shared with defense counsel‚ as so clearly required by law (the Brady Rule). For his part‚ Hunter’s new-found prominence came as a result of a New York Post article dated Oct. 14‚ 2020‚ describing the contents of his laptop diaries. Even the combined suppression efforts of federal agencies and social media giants have not been able to keep its contents from public disclosure — at least once Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives.  Here‚ again‚ their stories diverge. Dean was unable to convince federal prosecutors to grant him the immunity he so desperately sought‚ but he was able to get it from the newly formed Senate Ervin Committee‚ eager to feature witnesses to testify against Nixon and his people. They treated Dean with kid gloves during his televised appearances‚ which cemented his reputation as an innocent whistleblower who somehow got taken advantage of by his former colleagues. His criminal defense lawyer told a BBC audience in 1994 how they had arranged for Dean to sit alone at the witness table‚ wearing a conservative suit and tortoise shell glasses‚ instead of the mod suits and contact lenses so clearly remembered by his colleagues. Dean was flanked by the lovely Maureen in the row behind him. His testimony had been drafted in conjunction with Majority Counsel Sam Dash‚ who described pleasant afternoons as they worked in Dean’s townhouse in Old Town Alexandria‚ enjoying iced tea served by his spouse. Unlike other committee witnesses‚ Dean did not submit advance copies. Starting his testimony at 2 p.m.‚ Dean was allowed to read its entire 240 pages‚ without interruption‚ ending just as the committee adjourned‚ so that there was no opportunity for questioning. Evening news broadcasts‚ of course‚ reflected this carefully produced performance. For his part‚ Hunter cannot expect to appear before a friendly committee‚ hence his offer to appear‚ but only in a public hearing. One has only to remember how that was handled by Lois Lerner‚ the IRS official who so conveniently held up charitable organization approvals for conservative groups. Sitting alone at the witness table‚ fresh shaven and dressed in a somber-colored suit with a muted tie‚ Hunter will proudly proclaim his innocence‚ before announcing that he is claiming his constitutional protections under the Fifth Amendment — and striding purposefully out of the hearing room‚ flanked by his Secret Service detail. As with Dean’s committee appearance‚ it will make great television for the evening’s news. Dean’s sweetheart plea bargain — pleading to a single felony count — was formalized in court on Oct. 19‚ 1973. Hunter’s equally outrageous agreement‚ in contrast‚ fell apart on June 20‚ 2023‚ under astute judicial questioning. Following an unexpected acquittal in a New York prosecution keying off Dean’s testimony‚ Judge Sirica decided to enhance his witness credibility by sentencing Dean to a prison term of one to four years. Special prosecutors bragged in their book about how astute it was‚ to show jurors that Dean was being punished too. One week following the cover-up convictions‚ Dean was set completely free‚ without probation or parole. He’d been confined only for the four months of the trial’s duration — and‚ even then‚ in a nearby witness holding facility. Dean‚ in point of fact‚ never spent a single night in jail for his many Watergate crimes.  The only indication of the extent of his wrongdoing comes from his Virginia disbarment hearing‚ where the bar association accused him of being guilty of encouraging perjury by other witnesses‚ destroying evidence retrieved from one burglar’s White House safe‚ embezzling $4‚000 of campaign funds to pay for his honeymoon‚ and authorizing payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of “hush money” to Watergate burglars.  Today‚ Dean appears frequently as a political commentator on liberal media networks‚ with nary a mention that he hasn’t been licensed to practice law for almost 50 years.  Hunter’s fate remains unknown at this point‚ but he does not appear eligible for heroic whistleblower status. It also may take decades for internal records to emerge that explain the five-year delay in bringing any charges at all. That said‚ Hunter holds one powerful ace in the hole: His dad is president and can pardon him at any time. Forget the bland assurances to the contrary from his Press Office. I can picture it in vivid color: “I love my son‚ who has been unfairly singled out by folks who were really after me. This is not right‚ so I’m granting him a full and unconditional pardon.” Geoff Shepard came to Washington in 1969 as a White House fellow after graduating from Harvard Law School. He served on President Richard Nixon’s White House staff for five years‚ including a year as deputy counsel on the president’s Watergate defense team. He has written three books about the internal prosecutorial documents he’s uncovered‚ many of which are posted on his website‚ www.shepardonwatergate.com. The post The Bad Boys: Hunter Biden vs. John Dean appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The first 24 years of the 21st century have been the era of Woke Supremacy in our institutions of higher learning. Universities have downplayed traditional academic standards and expectations while becoming centers for promoting ideologies centered around combatting perceived injustices‚ especially condemning perceived racist behavior while showing increasing contempt for the post-Enlightenment collegiate ideal of free expression of ideas. “Social justice” seems to be replacing “academic excellence” and the “searching for truth and discovery” on many college campuses. Whole new terms have arisen to describe 21st-century campus life‚ like “trigger warnings‚” “DEI” (diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion)‚ “cancel culture” and “self-censorship.”  A huge problem has arisen with emerging woke supremacy on campus: Public support for colleges is plummeting‚ most obviously manifested by a sustained decline in enrollments. Moreover‚ as anger over campus wokeness rises to a new crescendo in the wake of the Hamas invasion in Israel‚ more ominous things have started happening — most notably‚ multiple billionaire benefactors of the nation’s richest elite universities have announced that they are going to stop donating. A secondary threat came as politicians at the state level‚ previously largely content to leave subsidized universities alone‚ are demanding more supervision of deplorable campus behavior. No wonder we have increasingly pessimistic assessments of the condition of American higher education. Recently‚ Fitch issued its 2024 mostly negative outlook‚ indicating that the flight to quality in college admissions is continuing‚ noting that “some regional public institutions and less-selective private schools…may see continued softness in demand.” (READ MORE: Backlash Against Harvard’s Claudine Gay Is Indictment of ‘Diversity‚ Equity‚ and Inclusion’) Meanwhile‚ some private schools are booming — mostly because they are decidedly anti-woke and are not mired by such despicable behaviors as students rioting and shouting down distinguished campus guests or engaging in anti-Semitic demonstrations. There has been a surge in applications and enrollments at very conservative‚ traditional Catholic schools. I started to notice the trend a year or so ago when‚ in the midst of generally falling church enrollment‚ I began seeing a few college students attending mass in my college town of Athens‚ Ohio. This year the number has grown exponentially‚ and it is not unusual to see a double-digit number of undergraduates at 8:30 a.m. Sunday mass where overall attendance is under 100.  I know one of the group of avid Ohio University churchgoers‚ Henry Taylor‚ and he confirmed that students have bonded closely‚ even traveling long distances to attend more traditional Latin masses. So I was not too surprised to read a story in the Campus Fix on soaring enrollment in the more traditional Catholic colleges‚ schools like Belmont Abbey (North Carolina)‚ the University of Mary (North Dakota)‚ or Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio)‚ where daily masses are so crowded they are standing room only. Faithful Catholics who read of drag shows being held at elite Notre Dame (drawing condemnation from the local Catholic bishop) may be steering their kids to schools maintaining centuries-long traditional values.  It is not just Catholics — evangelical and other conservative Protestant denominations started the trend decades ago (e.g. Liberty or Regent universities). Very conservative Brigham Young‚ the Harvard of Mormon higher education‚ seems to be booming as well despite its condemnations of promiscuous and nonconventional sexual behavior. By contrast‚ my university‚ fairly typically‚ practically drops condoms out of airplanes over campus to facilitate‚ if not explicitly encourage‚ student sexual activity. Traditional Christian schools with a conservative political orientation like Hillsdale College and Grove City College seem to be mostly thriving‚ unlike many other liberal arts schools.  Other factors are at work. Businesses‚ who until recently seemed curiously uninvolved in the training of their future leaders‚ are waking up. They are becoming less rigid about degree requirements for positions‚ something that led to excessive credential inflation. Do you really need a master’s in janitorial science to mop floors or a bachelor’s in chemistry to mix drinks in an upscale bar? Meanwhile‚ prestigious large law firms‚ whose newly hired associates often make upwards of $200‚000 annually‚ are saying‚ “We will not interview or hire students involved in violent anti-Semitic campus demonstrations.” In short‚ after a lag of a decade‚ the Real World of productive Americans is catching on to the antics of academics and installing some discipline. There is more work to be done: For example‚ DEI apparatchiks need to be defanged and defunded. Colleges accepting unqualified students just to collect tuition fees (usually federally funded) should face real consequences when many fail to complete schooling — they should have skin in the game.  In a real-guard action‚ woke extremists will probably try to use accreditation to maintain leftish behavioral norms. “You cannot scale down or eliminate your DEI office because it shows a lack of commitment to equity and inclusion of the disadvantaged” or similar arguments. (The solution: simply end accreditation as we know it today‚ a subject for another epistle.) But the counterrevolution is beginning on American college campuses.  Richard Vedder is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Ohio University and the author of Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America.  The post The Anti-Woke Collegiate Counter-Revolution Is Just Beginning appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.