The private-eye hero of my just finished new political thriller‚ The Apocalypse Mask‚ is a 30-something ex-Army Ranger who left the military because of its increased wokeness. Mark Slade didn’t quit out of political conviction but for self-preservation. He just could no longer trust his life to unfit soldiers poorly trained by lowered physical standards‚ such as that for women. “You got a problem with women in the military?” a female character asks him. “Lot more than the Chinese will when they take us on‚” Slade replies. A new report on the dismal caliber of current U.S. military personnel‚ typically found only in a foreign newspaper‚ UK’s Daily Mail‚ makes Slade’s decision all the more believable. But it was the movies that elevated my love for the U.S. military‚ those made by Hollywood during and shortly after World War II. The article headline pretty much describes the problem: “US Army faces ‘TikTok mutiny’ as Gen Z recruits whine about low pay‚ ‘sh***y’ food and FITNESS TESTS while on bases in uniform.”  The story itself describes a total breakdown of military discipline and behavior. It’s full of punk soldiers whining about their service misery on video and social media while still in uniform — a court-martial level offense. One poster with a million followers on TikTok ‚ Anthony Laster‚ blasts his Army existence for its “No Privacy‚ Sh***y Food‚ Disrespectful Leadership‚ NO SLEEP!” (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Advent Versus Evil) Putting aside the fact that all of his complaints have been the military reality forever‚ if not the point‚ TikTok is programmed and controlled by China‚ the enemy these weenies may soon be called upon to fight. And I don’t set much store by our chances. Because the rot starts at the top‚ with simpering brass like General Mark Milley (“I want to understand white rage‚ and I’m white.”) and Secretary of State Lloyd Austin (“The fact that the Afghan army that we and our partners trained simply melted away — in many cases without firing a shot— took us all by surprise.”) No wonder the Army will likely be 15‚000 short of its 65‚000 recruit goal‚ the Navy and the Air Force ten percent short. Last year‚ when my nephew‚ Lucas‚ 21‚ asked for my advice about joining the Marines‚ I gave him the answer I once never thought I would‚ “No way!” Where once I would have pictured the Marine Corps War Memorial and the heroic leathernecks planting the U.S. flag amid the brutal Battle of Iwo Jima‚ a darker image came to my mind. Of Marines bearing the casket of their dead comrade (Lance Corporal Dylan Merola‚ 20)‚ one of 11 Marines (plus two other servicemembers) blown away at Kabul Airport during Joe Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Of the vegetative President‚ clueless First Lady Jill Biden‚ and inept  SecDef Austin standing by with hands on their hearts while wearing those stupid COVID masks. My answer to Lucas saddened me the second I said it. I grew up loving the United States military — patriotically‚ historically‚ and fictionally. The thought of men risking‚ and too often losing‚ their lives and limbs in war to defend our nation always stirred me. And America has been blessed by the best and bravest since its inception. This Christmas Day‚ for instance‚ while you’re feasting in warmth and comfort among family or friends‚ try to imagine General George Washington’s 1776 Christmas. At 4:00 a.m. on December 26th‚ Washington and his men were crossing the Delaware River in pitch darkness‚ snow‚ and frost‚ still ahead‚ a grueling march and the war-changing battle for Trenton. Shortly before this daring operation‚ Washington had his officers read to his men excerpts from Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis. These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will‚ in this crisis‚ shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now‚ deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny‚ like hell‚ is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us‚ that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. I devoured military histories more thrilling than fiction‚ like James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom about the Civil War. Consequently‚ whenever someone asks my opinion on slavery reparations for black people‚ I state that that they already got them — 360‚000 Union dead — and deserve not one cent more. I can’t recommend enough Craig Symonds’ The Battle of Midway (Pivotal Moments in American History) describing the tide-turning battle of World War II‚ and many other stirring chronicles. The same went for the gripping novels about the war‚ like James Jones’ From Here to Eternity and Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War (his Holocaust-focused continuation‚ War and Remembrance‚ is not as good). (READ MORE: All in the Homily: On the Death of Norman Lear) But it was the movies that elevated my love for the U.S. military‚ those made by Hollywood during and shortly after World War II — in which most of the top male stars had fought. Some of the best are Destination Tokyo‚ Battleground‚ Stalag 17 (starring William Holden‚ USAF‚ 1942-1945)‚ Run Silent‚ Run Deep (starring Clark Gable‚ USAF‚ aerial gunner‚ five missions over Nazi Germany)‚ and The Longest Day‚ a magnificent depiction of the Allied Normandy Invasion. Yet I can never forget Fredric March’s wonderful closing speech as a Rear Admiral in The Bridges at Toko-Ri. “Where do we get such men? They leave the ship and they do the job‚ and they must find this speck lost somewhere in the sea. And when they find it‚ they have to land on its pitching deck. Where do we get such men?” The answer is not on TikTok or under the Biden Administration. One week left to order the perfect Christmas gift book – my romantic Yuletide ghost story‚ The Christmas Spirit‚ available at Amazon‚ Barnes &; Noble‚ and other fine bookstores. The post SNAFU in the Woke Military appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It was another bad week for Ukraine and the Western nations seeking to aid it in its fight against the nearly two-year war of conquest Vladimir Putin is waging against it. Biden needs to compromise on border security to get the financial and military aid we need to send to Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington to try to break the deadlock between President Biden and Republicans in the House and Senate who want to block more aid to Ukraine. Zelensky went home almost empty-handed‚ having received only another $200 million in U.S. military supplies that Biden agreed to send. He apparently can send “drawdowns” in U.S. military supplies without congressional approval. He did so‚ again‚ draining our own arsenals of munitions we would need for any fights‚ such as Taiwan‚ in which we could soon be engaged. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Foreseeable Consequences) None of Biden’s actions will break the stalemate that the Russian war on Ukraine has devolved to. Biden is entirely responsible for the congressional blockage. He wants another $60 billion for Ukraine‚ but Ukraine can probably do with less.  All Biden needs to do is agree to the enactment of real border security measures demanded by the Republicans. That is‚ to him‚ out of the question. Some Republicans have said that the money could better be spent here‚ which begs the question of Biden’s priorities. We can and must help Ukraine‚ but Biden is spending too much on too many other things‚ such as “climate change” that will only damage our economy. Spending cuts must be made but House Republicans cannot bring them about by themselves. It’s never been clear why so many Republicans are opposed to aid for Ukraine. Have too many Republicans given in to the isolationist strain in U.S. politics? Or do they want Putin to win his war? The European Union also denied more Ukraine financial aid. The EU‚ on the objections of Hungary‚ blocked a €50 billion package for Ukraine despite its earlier promises. Hungary’s Viktor Orban‚ Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest ally among the EU nations‚ not only blocked the aid package but also promised to block Ukraine’s application for EU membership. Orban is the only EU leader to have met with Putin this year. Orban and Zelensky have a personal animosity to each other. We can only guess at the reason for it. Orban has been quoted by Russian state television as saying‚ “Hungary never wanted to confront Russia. Hungary always has been eager to expand contacts.” He has apparently forgotten Hungary’s decades of slavery under the Soviet Union. Meanwhile‚ Putin gave some of his reasons for the war in Ukraine‚ answering questions in his annual marathon press conference in which all Russians and international press are supposedly able to ask questions. Putin said‚ “There will be peace when we achieve our goals. As for the goals‚ they are unchanged.” He defined those goals as the “denazification‚ demilitarization of Ukraine‚ and its neutral status.” Putin said in 2005 that‚ “The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russian people‚ it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and countrymen found themselves outside Russian territory. The epidemic of disintegration also spread to Russia itself.” Since then‚ Putin has been trying to revive the old Soviet empire. To understand him‚ it is necessary to understand the mind of Alexander Dugin‚ Putin’s primary ideological influence. Dugin‚ who is still alive and probably speaking with Putin‚ wrote his seminal book‚ Foundations of Geopolitics in 1997. It is not an understatement to say that Dugin’s book is a template for Putin’s thinking. In Foundations‚ Dugin wrote of a “New Empire” dominated by “Eurasians‚” i.e.‚ Russians. Dugin wrote‚ “The New Empire‚ the construction of which would be a global response‚ is the planetary civilizational mission of the Russian people … This New Empire‚ the Eurasian Empire‚ will have completely differentiated structures within which consisting of separate parts of varying degrees of interdependence and integration.” He wrote that the New Empire will not be the Russian empire or the Soviet empire but something greater. (READ MORE: Ukraine Is Stalemated Again) According to Dugin‚ “Greater Russia‚ for example‚ can be considered like a separate people or even ‘country’ within the framework of the Russian Empire together with Ukrainians‚ Belorussians‚ (sic) possibly the Serbs‚ and so on.’” Dugin‚ who can be accurately characterized as neo-fascist and anti-Semitic‚ believes in the Slavic peoples’ superiority. But despite U.S. and other nations’ sanctions‚ the Russian economy shows no signs of slowing down. On Ukraine he wrote in Foundations that‚ “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning‚ no particular cultural import or universal significance‚ no geographic uniqueness‚ no ethnic exclusiveness … Its certain territorial ambitions represent an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and‚ without resolving the Ukrainian problem‚ it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics.” In other words‚ Ukraine is the foundation stone of any new Russian empire and without it‚ Putin may as well not bother with the rest. Hence‚ Putin’s intense desire to conquer Ukraine. In his Thursday remarks‚ Putin said that Russia had over six hundred thousand troops fighting in Ukraine. That’s probably an exaggeration. He added that it meant a further mobilization of troops would be unnecessary‚ in a sop to Russians who are fleeing the country to avoid conscription. According to a Wall Street Journal report 315‚000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded since the invasion began in 2022‚ which amounts to about 87 percent of the pre-invasion Russian force. Ukrainian casualties‚ according to U.S. estimates‚ are about seventy thousand killed. That number is dwarfed by the number of civilians killed in Ukraine which is over 130‚000. Putin has shifted the Russian economy to a wartime status‚ lessening the production of civilian goods. But despite U.S. and other nations’ sanctions‚ the Russian economy shows no signs of slowing down. Ukraine’s economy has slowed greatly. Russia is concentrating its missile and drone attacks on civilian populations and industrial facilities. Ukraine’s population‚ at about 37 million‚ is not comparable to Russia’s more than 147 million. That means Putin can continue to feed troops into his war of attrition. Ukraine cannot. (READ MORE: Wars Raise Two More Critical Issues) Putin won’t end his war on Ukraine. Even if there is a U.S. and EU-forced cease fire‚ Putin is sure to use it to rearm and re-equip his forces. We cannot leave Ukraine to Putin’s conquest. Biden needs to compromise on border security to get the financial and military aid we need to send to Ukraine. Unless he does‚ Putin will win.     The post Zelensky’s Dismal Week appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Wednesday last‚ the Federal Reserve committed an act of raw politics. After admitting that high interest rates had failed to bring inflation down to its target of two percent‚ the Fed announced (albeit through the Delphic fog of bureaucratic pronouncement) its intention to cut rates three times next year. So much for wringing inflation out of the system with a “higher for longer” policy on rates. The problem here is that Ms. Harris‚ the affirmative-action hire‚ must be seen by progressives to be going peacefully. The markets — stocks‚ bonds‚ REITs‚ commodities — soared. As I write these words‚ all three major equity indexes — the Dow‚ the S&;P 500 and Nasdaq — are up six days in a row. Small caps‚ which tend to carry heavy debt loads and are thus rate-sensitive‚ have bounced even higher. (READ MORE from Neal B. Freeman: The Political Superstate Has Emerged) Why did the Fed move now? Why would it seem to give away much of its hard-won independence for nothing? For three reasons‚ I surmise. First‚ the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is‚ relatively speaking‚ a time of low concentration by informed citizens and high absenteeism among media types. From the Fed’s point of view‚ the less scrutiny of this decision the better. The second and more compelling reason is that the market surge will be reflected in year-end brokerage and retirement account statements. The “wealth effect” will radiate its good vibes: With the concomitant increase in Required Minimum Distributions‚ as just one example‚ every senior in the country will get a raise in 2024. All in‚ tens of millions of voters will‚ at least for a time‚ feel more positively inclined toward Bidenomics. The third reason is the rigidities of the political calendar. Time is short and‚ for the Biden campaign‚ desperate measures are called for. (You know that time is short when both David Axelrod‚ speaking for Barack Obama‚ and Albert Hunt‚ speaking for the conventional soft-Left‚ say that Biden looks like a loser and should step aside. And a desperate measure can be defined in this context as the willingness to risk destruction of the nation’s legal tender.) Will it work? Will the Fed be able to levitate the leaden Biden campaign? In the very short term — early January polling‚ say — Biden may get a bump that the media will hail‚ predictably‚ as a surge. But what then? Some of my political friends‚ long in the tooth but deep in experience‚ think the “401K bounce” will be ephemeral and that the “ultimate desperate measure” must then be taken by senior (and notoriously unsentimental) Democrats. It might unfold this way. Biden would say that (his troubled son‚ his troubled domestic economy‚ his troubled global allies – take your pick) require his undivided attention and that he will not be running for re-election. Before he makes that grand sacrifice‚ however‚ he must replace Kamala Harris‚ who has‚ among a broad range of constituencies‚ given affirmative-action hiring a bad name. The replacement candidates have been identified: Gavin Newsom‚ Michelle Obama‚ Gretchen Whitmer‚ in one order or another. The problem here is that Ms. Harris‚ the affirmative-action hire‚ must be seen by progressives to be going peacefully. Which‚ left to her own wits‚ she would doubtless do next Tuesday — to‚ say‚ an endowed chair at UCLA. Gender Studies‚ perhaps. (READ MORE: The Buckley Legacy: Now It’s Controversial on the Right?) Enter Doug Emhoff‚ the second gentleman‚ or whatever he goes by in Washington these days. In real life‚ he’s a Hollywood lawyer‚ a good one‚ which is to say that he’s a dealmaker. What happens next? We can say this much with confidence: Those senior and notoriously unsentimental Democrats will not be negotiating her departure with the ditzy Kamala but‚ rather‚ with the wily Doug. And what would be on the table? Might it be the World Bank? President of the Obama Foundation? Chairman of the Disney board (which‚ quite by chance‚ would make the wily Doug King of Hollywood)? This would be a sticky situation for lots of people. But not for Doug Emhoff. He would be the most powerful man in Washington‚ making the deal of the century. So‚ buy those Emhoff futures. But investors should note: The distinguishing feature of a futures contract is that it carries a rock-hard expiration date. Doug Emhoff can’t afford to wait even a day too long. The clock is ticking. The post Political Markets Signal Buy Emhoff Futures appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On August 12‚ 2022‚ a 24-year-old California-born Islamist named Hadi Matar rushed the stage of the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York where novelist Salman Rushdie was about to speak‚ stabbing Rushdie ten times‚ in the chest‚ neck‚ stomach‚ thigh and eye‚ leaving the author gasping in a pool of blood onstage before the attacker was subdued. Now Matar stands accused of attempted second-degree murder and‚ if convicted‚ could spend the next 25 years in the clink. Rushdie survived but was permanently blinded in his right eye and lost use of his right hand. Iranian media gloried in the attack though denied any involvement. We know Matar visited Lebanon in 2018‚ where Iran has a large presence‚ and his family reported that he seemed to have changed after the trip. He is known to have been an admirer of Khomeini‚ and was vocally anti-Rushdie in online fora. Matar claims he had read only two pages of The Satanic Verses before deciding to mount the attack on its author. He also said he was surprised Rushdie survived the attack‚ making it clear‚ in my view‚ that Matar’s intent was to kill Rushdie. Which begs the question why he wasn’t charged with first-degree murder instead of second. But that’s New York for you. (READ MORE from Erik Lewis: Anne Rice: The Good Witch Cancelled) Matar’s trial begins on January 8 in Chautauqua and‚ whatever its outcome‚ will have reverberations far beyond the courtroom. The Rushdie Affair gallops on. The Rushdie Fatwa In 1988‚ the young‚ award-winning novelist from India named Salman Rushdie‚ a British citizen since his teens‚ published a novel called The Satanic Verses whose parallel stories and uses of “magical realism” reimagined‚ and at times‚ satirized‚ the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Iran’s Supreme Leader was not amused. He claimed Rushdie’s novel had been the brainchild of Jews trying to discredit Islam and‚ on Valentine’s Day 1989‚ put out a fatwa‚ or death order‚ on its author and publishers for blasphemy against Islam. A $6 million bounty was offered to any Muslim who would do the deed. Ironically‚ Khomeini’s son claims his old man never read the book. Rushdie went into hiding and was given police protection by the British government. He would continue to live in full or partial subterfuge for the better part of the next twenty years. The Archbishop of Canterbury‚ a Mr. Carey‚ sided with the Islamists‚ declaring Rushdie’s novel to be “an outrageous slur” against the “Prophet Mohammed‚” The Satanic Verses took on a life of its own‚ its reputation and sales only buoyed by Khomeini’s making it an Official Book Club Selection. There were anti-Rushdie riots in India and Pakistan. People were killed. The book was banned in more than a dozen countries‚ including in Rushdie’s homeland of India‚ and burned in his adopted one‚ Britain‚ where Muslims railed against their fellow Brit who dared use his right of free expression to blaspheme. Some called for his Snuffing Out while Khomeini’s minions claimed that the kill order and bounty were themselves “free speech.” In Muslim countries‚ Rushdie’s novel was used as a rallying cry against so-called Western “racism‚” even though the Indian-born Rushdie was neither white nor Western‚ and used as a diversionary tactic by unpopular‚ unelected regimes in countries where free speech rights do not exist‚ and where — I have to say it — literary matters are generally not a major concern of most people. A report from the American writer Paul Bowles‚ then in his 70s and living in Morocco‚ reveals how the Rushdie Affair was being exploited in the Caliphate. On February 25‚ 1989‚ Bowles reports that his Moroccan driver angrily informed him that Rushdie’s evil novel had arrived for him at the Tangier post office: He came out to the car where I was waiting and in great excitement began to upbraid me. “A book that is killing people all over the world‚ and you want it” … I got out of the car and went into the building‚ where I saw them all fixing me with baleful stares. One of the employees came to me and explained. “You have a book here that’s forbidden.” I asked him if I could see it‚ but he said it had already been repacked‚ and no one could see it. “Can’t you show me the parcel so I’ll know where it came from?” He went behind a counter and held up a package in the dark by its string‚ not wanting to touch it with his hands. By this time I’d guessed that the book was the one that was making all the trouble‚ thanks to the dictator of Iran. Still I had no idea who had sent it. Another official came up frowning. “‘This is contraband goods. You cannot have it.’ ‘I don’t want it‚’” Bowles shot back‚ and walked out. The next day‚ Bowles wrote: “Today at the post office the clerks wanted to know if the police had been to see me. I said they had not. ‘They came here and wanted your name and address‚ and they took away the book to deliver it to the government in Rabat.’” Such is the way books are treated in a dictatorship — as something forbidden‚ talismanic‚ dangerous‚ deadly. Because they are. (READ MORE: Canceling Philip Roth … And His Biographer) While Rushdie had police protection‚ the personal cost to him would be high. There were several foiled attempts on his life. Threatening letters and phone calls haunted his circle. Strangers showed up at his door and tracked his every move. Bookstores and libraries that carried his book were threatened. Appearances and readings were cancelled. Flying commercially became impossible as airlines banned him from flying‚ including some American ones. He could not leave the house or go anywhere‚ do anything‚ without his protectors first scoping it out‚ a situation he quickly tired of. While they hadn’t yet succeeded in assassinating Rushdie‚ his pursuers had succeeded in taking away his freedom. His life‚ much as he wanted it‚ would never be normal again‚ nor those of his publishers. Rushdie’s Japanese translator was stabbed to death in Tokyo. A few days earlier his Italian translator was stabbed and badly injured at his apartment in Milan‚ but survived. Rushdie’s Norwegian translator was shot several times outside his home and nearly died. In Britain‚ reactions to Rushdie’s plight were mixed. The Archbishop of Canterbury‚ a Mr. Carey‚ sided with the Islamists‚ declaring Rushdie’s novel to be “an outrageous slur” against the Prophet Mohammed‚” and held that Muslim rage was understandable. Margaret Thatcher‚ whose government had given Rushdie full-time security‚ kept her distance‚ while stateside‚ the administration of George H.W. Bush lifted not a finger of support to aid the embattled writer. President Clinton would eventually host Rushdie at the White House‚ but refused to be photographed with him‚ as would British PM John Major when he hosted Rushdie after Thatcher’s exit. A Tory politician‚ giving a speech at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies‚ where I would later get a Masters in Middle East Studies with a dissertation on Gaddafi‚ publicly blamed Rushdie for his extant troubles and ordered him to shut up‚ to the delight of Iranian dignitaries in attendance. An editorial ran in the Daily Mail that suggested Rushdie return to his homeland and spare Britain the trouble and expense of his presence. In his memoirs‚ Rushdie looked back on this event‚ saying‚ “If any other Indian immigrant to Britain had been told to go back to where he came from it would be called racism‚ but it was apparently permissible to speak of this particular immigrant any way one chose.” Among the literati‚ writers like Harold Pinter‚ Ian McEwan‚ Paul Auster‚ Susan Sontag‚ Margaret Atwood‚ and others‚ held firm for Rushdie. More than a hundred Arabo-Islamic writers made public statements of support. This included Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz‚ who would himself be stabbed in the neck by an Islamist in 1994 for his “blasphemous” writings‚ and survive. Norman Mailer‚ never one to give up a fight‚ suggested a fatwa be put out on Khomeini. Rushdie’s most vicious literary critic would turn out to be spy novelist John le Carré. “He insulted a great religion‚” le Carré wrote in The Guardian. “There is no law in life or nature that says great religions can be insulted with impunity.” In 2016‚ Iran suddenly increased the kill bounty‚ making clear it had no intention of giving up on getting Rushdie. In one sense‚ he was right. There is no First Amendment in England. Free speech is a tradition there‚ but not a guaranteed right. That’s the problem with not having rights written down. Eventually some John le Carré will come along and remind you that nowhere is it written that you have such a right‚ and you’ll be thrown in the dungeon. Rushie’s reply to le Carré was succinct: “I happen not to feel that priests and mullahs‚ let alone bombers and assassins‚ are the best people to set the limits of what it is possible to think.” Things would not get better anytime soon. In his 2012 memoir Joseph Anton‚ a dark chronicle of the fatwa years‚ Rushdie recounts how British politicians attempted to earn Brownie points with Muslim voters by proposing to revivify an old blasphemy law that would have made it a criminal offense to blaspheme religion — any religion. A most incredible proposition to be made by a Western government‚ and one which Rushdie &; Friends fought hard against. Rushdie recalls comedian Rowan Atkinson going to Whitehall in protest and asking what would happen under the proposed new law‚ were he‚ as a comedian‚ to even lightly satirize‚ say‚ the Ayatollah of Iran? (I’m paraphrasing.) Would such comedy be acceptable under the new law‚ Atkinson asks a panel of government bigwigs who favor the proposal. Oh‚ yes‚ they say‚ we love comedy! But how can I be sure of that‚ Atkinson says. To which they respond‚ “You’d just submit the script to a government department for approval.” Atkinson replies in his famously wry way‚ “Why do I not find that reassuring?” (READ MORE: Anne Rice: The Good Witch Cancelled) The proposed law failed by one vote. That is how close Britain under Tony Blair came to throwing Western civilization under the bus. The Honorable  The 2007 announcement by Buckingham Palace that Rushdie would be knighted by the Queen for Services to Literature did nothing to quell the fires of Rushdie Hate. The decision drew protests in the U.K.‚ and in several Muslim-majority countries. Pakistan and Iran summoned their U.K. ambassadors to protest the decision. The Iranian Speaker of Parliament went on television and promised that the bestowed honor guaranteed that violence that could be expected from “the Muslims of the world. A prominent cleric in Tehran openly said during Friday prayers that Khomeini’s fatwa against the blasphemer Rushdie was still on. In Malaysia and Pakistan‚ Rushdie was burnt in effigy‚ and the Pakistani Parliament unanimously passed a resolution demanding the knighthood be rescinded. Pakistan’s Religious Affairs minister made a speech in his country’s Parliament saying the knighthood decision could be grounds for suicide bombings inside Britain‚ statements for which he was rebuked by Benazir Bhutto‚ who said that calling for a foreigner to be murdered was not just wrong: it hurt the world’s image of both Pakistan and Islam. Six months later‚ Bhutto herself‚ long despised by Islamic fundamentalists in her homeland for her secularist‚ pro-democracy and pro-American positions‚ would be assassinated by radical elements. In Britain‚ protesters gathered outside Regent’s Park‚ chanting “Death to Rushdie! Death to the Queen!” and held signs saying‚ “Rushdie should be punished.” But the government did not backtrack‚ showing laudable courage just two years after homegrown suicide bombers had attacked London. Rushdie was ennobled with the Queen’s Honor. The investiture ceremony went unannounced due to security concerns. Salman Rushdie was now Sir Salman Rushdie. Land of the Free In 2016‚ Iran suddenly increased the kill bounty‚ making clear it had no intention of giving up on getting Rushdie. A statement issued by Iran’s Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance‚ Mr. Abbas Salehi‚ set the tone: “Imam Khomeini’s fatwa is a religious decree and it will never lose its power or fade out.” The announcement prompted Sweden’s Nobel Prize Committee to finally make a public statement of support for Rushdie‚ after all these years‚ affirming that the fatwa was wrong and that the right of free expression is inviolable. A welcome‚ if belated‚ realization on the part of the Swedes. By now‚ Rushdie was living in the United States‚ beneath whose spacious skies he had more freedom to move‚ to create‚ and to be. He began going out in public again‚ without security‚ and lived a more or less normal life in New York‚ that city of great writers. Rushdie’s memoir Joseph Anton ends with him giving a goodbye party in London for his personal protection officers with whom he had existed‚ in whole or in part‚ for some thirteen years (1989-2002). A premature celebration‚ but one altogether necessary for a man who hated living with bodyguards‚ and the limitations it — they — placed on him.  The end in sight‚ Rushdie strikes a dolorous chord: “He chose to believe in human nature‚ and in the universality of its rights and ethics and freedoms‚ and to stand against the fallacies of relativism that were at the heart of the invective of the armies of the religious (we hate you because we aren’t like you) and of their fellow travelers in the West‚ too‚ many of whom‚ disappointingly‚ were on the left.” (READ MORE: La Dolce Vita: The Moral Dichotomy of the Middle Class) Enter that fateful‚ nearly fatal‚ day in Chautauqua in August 2022‚ when Rushdie took the stage to speak to a packed house at the Chautauqua Institution‚ a venue with no visible security‚ and no bag checks for attendees. The reaction to Rushdie’s knifing was one of shock‚ if not surprise‚ and revealed how uncomfortable people are these days to be thought defending an “Islamophobic” NVNP (Not Very Nice Person) and PB (Possible Bigot). The clumsy news reports from major media made clear the kids in the newsroom had no idea who Salman Rushdie was‚ or of the historical context — The Satanic Verses‚ the ’89 fatwa and the decades-long feud with Islam‚ Inc. Only a handful of prominent writers and celebrities issued any kind of statement of support‚ and those that did offered statements that were‚ for the most part‚ of the thoughts and prayers variation. Even the normally loquacious Stephen King could only bring himself to tweet‚ “I hope Salman Rushdie is okay‚” and “What kind of asshat stabs a writer‚ anyway? Fucker!” Any work of art may be created under our First Amendment‚ no matter how offensive. We know very well what kind‚ Mr. King‚ but who dares say it in the current lynch-mob environment? Who wants to be canceled‚ their lives and livelihoods ruined‚ or worse? These are the consequences now for defending freedom.  J.K. Rowling‚ herself having recently been banished from Nice Personland for daring to say she thought gender was a fact‚ put out a fuller‚ more heartfelt statement wishing Rushdie well. She received death threats.  Perhaps the best‚ most intelligent statement came from Rushdie’s old pal Ian McEwan: “This appalling attack on my dear friend Salman represents an assault on freedom of thought and speech. These are the freedoms that underpin all our rights and liberties.” Writing for the Sunday Times the week after the attack‚ McEwan warned that an anti-freedom spirit is growing and quickly spreading‚ even in the free nations‚ and called on the West to stop playing pussy about its core values and freedoms. He wrote: Sometimes it seems that the world has forgotten how to disagree without resorting to a weapon or‚ in the mildest of cases‚ cultural suppression … The fatwa of 1989 appeared as a last desperate attack on modernity and its secular self-confidence. Now that the illiberal spirit is gathering its full strength‚ the attempt on Salman Rushdie’s life seems sickeningly in keeping with our times. Our defense of the open society has to be even more forceful. Well said. So how did we get here?  Rushdie himself‚ writing years before the attack‚ may have provided an answer: “Respect for Islam‚” he states in his memoir‚ “which was fear of Islamist violence cloaked in Tartuffe-like hypocrisy‚ gained legitimacy in the West …. the cancer of cultural relativism had begun to eat away at the rich multicultures of the modern world.” His late friend Christopher Hitchens‚ an even more indefatigable defender of liberty‚ who quit the U.K.‚ moved to the states and became an American citizen‚ went further‚ writing in his 2010 memoir that multiculturalism was being used as “one of the disguises for a uniculturalism” —  emphasis his — “based on moral relativism and moral blackmail … whereby the Enlightenment has been redefined as ‘white’ and ‘oppressive.’” The same Enlightenment philosophy in which the American Founders‚ and Founding‚ were steeped‚ and which gave us the U.S. Constitution‚ the most liberal document in the history of humankind‚ whose Bill of Rights engraved in marble for all time that certain human freedoms were fundamental and non-negotiable‚ most of all the right of free speech and expression. That today’s left and their Islamist allies find such a right offensive is as telling as it is disturbing. (READ MORE: UK Criminalizing Speech Through Culture‚ Media‚ and Sport) Though Rushdie’s attacker failed in ending his life on that fateful day in Chautauqua last year‚ he did come the closest of anyone yet to fulfilling Khomeini’s orders set out in 1989. Matar’s upcoming trial shows what’s at stake in these strange times‚ and offers an opportunity to reaffirm one of our nation’s core beliefs and founding principles: that any work of art may be created under our First Amendment‚ no matter how offensive‚ and no one has the right to physically harm the artist who created it‚ whatever their feelings or motivations. A good stiff sentence for Salman Rushdie’s would-be assassin will make these points very well.  The post The Trials of Salman Rushdie appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In his new book Deception: The Covid Cover-up‚ Sen. Rand Paul notes that Dr. Anthony Fauci‚ in government for more than 50 years‚ was never once confirmed by the Senate. Other powerful federal officials also evaded Senate confirmation through a partisan process that demands exposure and reform. In 2020‚ the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled that Chad Wolf‚ acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security‚ and Ken Cucinelli‚ senior official performing the duties of the deputy secretary‚ were both “serving illegally‚” according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). GAO officials deferred to the DHS on who should serve and “the consequences of actions” taken by Wolf and Cuccinelli. As California labor commissioner Su supported Assembly Bill 5‚ a frontal assault on workers’ independence. Democrat Reps Bennie Thompson and Carolyn Maloney charged that “GAO’s damning opinion paints a disturbing picture of the Trump administration playing fast and loose by bypassing the Senate confirmation process to install ideologues.” (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Lessons from the EPA’s Agent 007) According to the Constitutional Accountability Center‚ at least 15 Trump officials “do not hold their positions lawfully.” This figure “surely understates the severity of the problem” and “this pervasive evasion of the Senate’s advice-and-consent requirement is deeply troubling — and hugely consequential.” Contrast that with the record of the Biden administration. In February‚ the GAO ruled that appointees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement‚ Office of Management and Budget‚ Office of Violence Against Women‚ the Federal Labor Relations Authority‚ and the Agency for International Development were “serving unlawfully.” The GAO was not concerned whether appointees were performing their duties effectively‚ and it was all a matter of labeling. ICE simply changed “acting director” Tae Johnson to “senior official performing the duties of director‚” and ICE was no longer in violation of the Vacancies Act. By contrast‚ Ken Cuccinelli held a similar “performing the duties” title‚ but the GAO ruled him to be serving unlawfully under the FVRA. Politicians did not complain that Johnson was an ideologue‚ that Biden officials serving unlawfully was deeply troubling and hugely consequential‚ and that the administration was illegally filling an office with an “acting” official. That happened with Julie Su‚ Biden’s pick for Labor Secretary. Several Democrats were dubious and the Senate never held a vote. Then on September 21‚ GAO general counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez ruled that the Vacancies Act’s time limitations did not apply to Su’s service‚ so she could remain atop the labor department without Senate confirmation. This was bad news because Julie Su is an anti-worker ideologue. As California labor commissioner Su supported Assembly Bill 5‚ a frontal assault on workers’ independence. As Californians know all too well‚ she is an administrator of stunning incompetence. (READ MORE: Trans-Forming California) Su headed California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)‚ which oversees the Employment Development Department (EDD) responsible for unemployment claims. On Su’s watch‚ the EDD sent out more than $31 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims‚ many to criminals out of state‚ and out of country. A federal government “accountability” office empowered the most unaccountable person American workers could imagine. Democrats and their media allies did not complain that this particular evasion of the Senate’s advice-and-consent requirement was deeply troubling. For all but the willfully blind‚ it is hugely consequential. Joe Biden is a big fan of California’s AB-5 law‚ and hopes to impose something similar on workers nationwide. By greenlighting Julie Su‚ the GAO helps make that possible. In effect‚ the GAO functions as a supreme court for the federal bureaucracy‚ and the Vacancies Act as an ersatz constitution. GAO attorneys deploy the Act to oppose those they dislike and support those they approve. The Act should be amended to ensure that destructive ideologues such as Julie Su cannot serve without Senate confirmation. Dr. Anthony Fauci did so for decades‚ but his case is different. Dr. Fauci twice declined the offer of President George W. Bush to become head of the National Institutes of Health. In that office‚ Fauci knew he would face confirmation hearings and have a limited term. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which Fauci headed since 1984‚ had no such limitations. The NIAID boss‚ whose bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry‚ came to command public health policy‚ medical research spending‚ and a budget of more than $6 billion. That vast concentration of power enabled Fauci to pay off people to get what he wanted. That includes a cover-up of Covid origins‚ as Sen. Paul‚ a medical doctor‚ shows in Deception. (READ MORE: Senate Confirmation Not Required) Congress must hold Dr. Fauci accountable‚ to the full extent of the law‚ however long it takes. Congress must make the NIAID director subject to Senate confirmation and limit the director to one four-year term. All NIAID and NIH grants should be posted on the internet in real time and in downloadable form. These measures will help prevent a resurgence of white coat supremacy. As the people know from experience‚ that is no basis for a system of government. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ Calif. The post Through the GAO‚ the Deep State Chooses Government Leaders appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

     In my last article‚ I described what I called ignorance to the third degree: ignorance that is proud of itself‚ that boasts of having discarded vast fields of human knowledge.  Since any sane person will be a bit embarrassed when faced with what he knows nothing about‚ this ignorance to the third degree does not come by nature.  You have to be schooled into it.  That is the aim of much of our schooling: to produce the sort of aggressive ignorance that is happy to consign to the garbage heap almost all of the literary‚ artistic‚ philosophical‚ theological‚ and broadly cultural works of people who lived in that universal darkness called the day before yesterday.  Such schools are efficient incinerators.  Tennyson?  Down the trap he goes. But I said that there might be an ignorance to the fourth degree‚ an ignorance that traduces the very means whereby we acquire knowledge. It is one thing to climb down into a sheer pit.  It is another to cut the rungs of the ladder as you go down.  Ignorance to the fourth degree renders you incapable of being anything other than ignorant. This ignorance‚ as I see it‚ is also something that must be schooled into you‚ as unassisted nature cannot produce it; and it must be affirmed again and again‚ lest in some unguarded moment you do some simple and human thing and it revives the mind. Among women‚ if feminist scholars themselves may testify‚ logic itself is to be rejected as “binary‚” in favor of listening to people talk about themselves. Ignorance to the fourth degree assumes three forms‚ which I will describe in order of increasing madness.  The first is the assumption that people of the past have nothing to teach us‚ because all real knowledge is cumulative‚ such as in the physical sciences‚ or as in technological progress.  From this perspective‚ to read Jane Austen to learn about men and women is as silly as hiring a horse and carriage to get from Boston to Hartford.  You may do it as a quaint hobby‚ if you like‚ but it has no meaning or purpose otherwise. (READ MORE: The Modern Phenomenon of Ignorance to the Third Degree) Aside from the inadequacy of this view of how the sciences proceed‚ it is simply not applicable to other fields of knowledge. Transfer the example from the past of our own culture to the present of some other culture.  “Not — English!” said Dickens’ self-satisfied bigot‚ Mr. Podsnap‚ whenever he encountered something other than what fit nicely into his system of prejudices. Imagine someone saying it is moronic to go and live among the most traditional of the reindeer-herding Laplanders‚ to learn something about a tight community and a difficult yet surprisingly cheerful way of life; moronic‚ he says‚ because those Lapps still use reindeer hides to construct their temporary shelters‚ rather than our highly developed pine-sticks and sheets of chalk.  And what can they watch on television‚ when they are out on the tundra? That would be to hang a sign around your neck‚ reading‚ “I am a bigot‚” but we can say exactly the same thing about your attitude toward other cultures far different from yours‚ cultures whose distance is temporal rather than latitudinal. If you can learn from the Lapps‚ you can learn from Jane Austen‚ and for at least one reason (there are more)‚ which is that she and they are not like you.  A still more important reason is this.  What the Lapps do‚ what the people of any culture do‚ is‚ until modern wealth has swept most of the power of sheer necessity aside‚ a function of the distilled wisdom of many generations of people whose most immediate aim was to survive another winter. The penalty for getting fundamental things wrong — such as the distinct characters of the sexes — was that you did not get another chance to get them right.  This wisdom of the ages‚ preserved in proverbs‚ song‚ and folkways‚ is the collective counterpart of the wisdom of a single person who‚ fortified with traditional understanding‚ looks steadily upon human actions and thinks carefully and sensitively about them; a Jane Austen‚ a Walter Scott‚ a Charles Dickens. It is ignorance to the fourth degree to scoff at learning from them. That brings me to the second form that this ignorance takes.  It is to say or to imply that nothing worthy of being called knowledge can be had in any case from observation of human actions‚ unless it can be quantified as the result of some carefully controlled scientific experiment.  In other words‚ physics gives us the form of all true knowledge. Everything else is a sloppy generalization or plain bunk. The truth is almost the reverse.  Suppose you want to get to know John.  Do you measure his bones?  Do you put his hair under a microscope?  Do you analyze his blood?  What does that give you‚ but data about parts of a physical body‚ and those parts too as abstracted from the body?  To get to know John‚ the last thing you need to do is to quantify. You must talk to him‚ walk beside him‚ laugh with him‚ share a meal with him‚ listen to his stories; and you must do so not as a distant analyst desiccating fragments of his reality‚ but as another fully human being. To know John is not like knowing the gravitational pull of the moon.  And‚ as old Aristotle instructed us‚ the means of knowing‚ and the means of demonstrating that you do know‚ depend upon the object of your knowledge. It is worse than silly to demand mathematical proof that John is a good man.  It is like demanding that the moon tell us its dreams. It is not sane. (READ MORE from Anthony Esolen: Let’s Clear the Junk Out From the Colleges) This mad requirement renders us ineducable in human things. Whenever someone asks you for “the study” to show what is obvious to anyone with eyes‚ you should conclude that ignorance to the fourth degree is in play.  As for those sociological studies‚ it has been a long time since Emile Durkheim and Auguste Comte‚ and the results of quasi-scientific sociological inquiry at best have but confirmed‚ at great expense and with much loss of acuity‚ what people of ordinary observation have known from time immemorial. And this brings me to the third and most terrible form of ignorance to the fourth degree: the rejection of reason itself. This rejection‚ as I observe‚ takes forms characteristic of the sexes.  Among men‚ it tends to restrict reason to logical deductions from empirically demonstrated premises; and that abandons to unreason almost everything in human life.  Such people are reduced to saying that if you are independently wealthy and all you want to do is to play video games for twelve hours a day‚ every day‚ that is your choice‚ and reason‚ strictly speaking‚ can have nothing to say about it.  If two consenting adults wish to play Russian roulette‚ each one staking his entire living on the result‚ so long as neither one has any dependents or prior debts‚ reason cannot condemn them‚ no more than it can condemn a young person in the Netherlands from calling upon the death van to come and take away her life‚ merely because she does not feel like living it anymore. Madness‚ then — what the Stoics‚ Confucius‚ the Japanese samurai‚ the Huron warrior‚ the old Roman farmer‚ and the Christian in prayer would all recognize as utterly unreasonable‚ a wastage of human power‚ dereliction of duty‚ numbness to the profundity and the beauty of life.  Such numbness is predictable from masculine abstraction. Among women‚ if feminist scholars themselves may testify‚ logic itself is to be rejected as “binary‚” in favor of listening to people talk about themselves; so that those narratives wherein the narrator is least to be trusted are to be privileged over demonstrable facts and rational deduction. (READ MORE: The University Is Now the Surveillance State) In the event‚ these two prove to be much the same thing.  The suicide in Rotterdam is to be tolerated‚ even celebrated‚ because‚ if we listen to the man‚ the statement that human life is sacred has no meaning and is unreasonable‚ and‚ if we listen to the woman‚ human life is sacred only if it is sacred to you‚ and “sacred” means what you choose it to mean‚ according to your feelings and the story of your life. How to get clear of this mess?  I will have some recommendations.  Stay tuned. The post Ignorance to the Fourth Degree appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Recent polls that showed Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in battleground states has caused a panic among those committed to a Democratic victory in 2024. Rather than reflecting on why the public‚ particularly an increasing share of working-class black‚ Latino‚ and Asian Americans‚ are moving towards the Republican Party‚ they have doubled down on their usual strategy of demonizing the opposition.  Thus‚ we have seen a ramping up of claims that Trump is a threat to democracy‚ including the New York Times‚ which gave its editorial page to an article supporting attempts to keep Trump off the presidential ballot.These five policy goals‚ not some threat to democracy‚ are what progressives want to forestall. This is the same tactic used with respect to race.  What are their solutions to the persistent large black underclass highlighted by the poor scholastic performance of black 10 year-olds‚ particularly in urban schools‚ and the gun violence that is responsible for more than 10‚000 black homicides annually‚ coupled with the growing lawlessness that victimizes many cities? Progressives propose lowering educational standards‚ decriminalizing antisocial behaviors‚ and offering free money: reparations and universal basic income. And as black Americans who are descended from U.S. slavery languish while other groups‚ including black immigrants‚ move forward‚ what is their response? Blacks are no longer the victims of only white privilege‚ but now are under the thumb of structural racism and white supremacy. This demonizing rhetoric is meant to forestall any exploration of how adverse personal behaviors are an important impediment to increased black success. (READ MORE from Anthony Esolen: Demands for Reparations Hide Liberal Failures) This strategy of resorting to demonizing rhetoric when desired outcomes are threatened explains the recent dynamics surrounding Israel.  Despite the efforts of progressives‚ the Trump Administration initiated the Abraham Accords. It became a remarkable success as one Arab country after another began relationships with Israel‚ increasing trade and contact to the advantage of all parties. The problem for progressives: this was going to leave the Palestinian national cause behind.  This required ramping up the demonization of Israel. Almost simultaneously in 2020‚ a number of human rights groups determined that Israel was practicing apartheid policies.  This despite virtually no change in West Bank policies.  In particular‚ since 2000 only three new Jewish West Bank settlements had been approved‚ reflecting less than 3 percent of the Jewish population in the territories; and Arab deaths from interactions with Israelis were down. Now the rhetoric has been ramped up to characterize the current Israeli offensive as genocidal despite clear evidence that Israel has tried to limit civilian deaths that are well less than one percent of the Gazan population. Thus‚ rather than looking at Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state‚ progressives have again resorted to demonizing language. Returning to the claim that Trump is a threat to democracy‚ where is his Brown Shirt movement?  Yes‚ somewhat over a thousand of his followers stormed the legislative chambers on January 6th‚ causing remarkably little damage there. However‚ this does not translate into a mass movement to terrorize the country. MAGA followers are overwhelmingly over 50 years old and live in rural areas. If somehow a few hundred would venture into urban areas to make demands‚ they would be overwhelmed by thousands of counter demonstrators.  Indeed‚ the threat to democracy is from those opposed to Trump.  Surely‚ if they can’t keep him off the ballot and he wins the 2024 elections‚ these progressives will be in the streets daily‚ causing mayhem and destruction as they did after George Floyd’s death and now after the Hamas atrocities. (READ MORE: Declining Black Voter Turnout: Apathy‚ Not Voter Suppression) But what is Trump a threat to?  Here are a few policy changes that he or any likely Republican president would initiate: (1) closing the southern border by limiting asylum claims; (2) withholding funds from the Palestinian refugee agency‚ UNHRA‚ until it desists from hiring Hamas members and using their desired hate-filled textbooks‚ as well as from the Palestinian Authority until it offers meaningful conditions for a two-state solution; (3) ending excessive environmental  policies‚ particularly the subsidizing of electric passenger cars which has allowed the professional class to purchase them even though they don’t drive enough to overcome the upfront environmental battery production costs compared to a fuel efficient hybrid; (4) enacting Title IX regulations that give real due process to those accused of being sexual abusers and not enforcing  transgender rights with respect to sports participation; and (5) replacing race and gender policies with a return to merit-based criteria in the furtherance of equal opportunity rather than equity goals. These five policy goals‚ not some threat to democracy‚ are what progressives want to forestall.  But rather than having serious discussions‚ demonizing rhetoric is embraced‚ and now they seek ways to keep Trump seek off the ballot in the name of saving democracy. The progressives are the real threat to democratic processes. It is they who will not accept the results of a 2024 election if any Republican is elected president‚ not simply Trump. This is the outcome of the unwillingness of the Democratic Party to change to policies that serve working Americans. Robert Cherry is an American Enterprise Institute affiliate and author of The State of the Black Family: Sixty Years of Tragedies and Failures: And New Initiatives Offering Hope. The post Trump Is No ‘Threat to Democracy’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Sunday Why do people hate Jews? The Jewish religion and faith is the oldest continuously practiced as such in mankind’s history. Jews — an immeasurably small percentage of the world’s population — have been spectacularly productive in terms of science‚ philosophy‚ literature‚ art‚ and music in the world’s history. Just for one example of great importance‚ Jesus Christ was a Jew. The creators of the atom bomb were almost all Jews. The list is endless. But then why do so many humans hate Jews? Jews took a miserable stretch of donkey manure covered desert and turned it into the second largest producer of biochemistry breakthroughs in history. (READ MORE from Ben Stein: Making Sure Fear Strikes Out) Jews created movies and made them into the most influential art form in human life. Why then‚ do people hate Jews? Why do Germans‚ among the most intelligent persons on earth‚ hate Jews so much that they created the Holocaust? Where does such hatred come from on our earth? Is it all envy? Is it because Jews look different from other people with their black outfits and unusual hats? I just do not understand it. Your humble servant has been the victim of real‚ actual anti-Semitism all of my life. As a child my mother endlessly pointed out to me beautiful neighborhoods that were “restricted” against Jews. She also pointed out that feature of country clubs. It made me wild with anger and frustration. In high school‚ a great girl I had been dating broke our “date” for the senior prom because her father would not permit her to go to that super big event with a Jew. It still rankles me. INFURIATES ME. Makes me crazy. My wife‚ a Presbyterian and the finest woman on the planet‚ says this hatred is genetic. Maybe it is. I don’t know. I just know it hurts and never stops hurting. Even now‚ right now‚ after the worst Jew hating event since the Holocaust‚ the Hamas-caust of October 7‚ 2023‚ the United Nations and other haters blame Israel for defending itself after Jewish women were raped‚ had their abdomens sliced open‚ and had their in-utero infants yanked out of them and decapitated in front of them. (READ MORE: Gaza: What Nixon Would Do) Why? When has any other racial group suffered so horribly for no sin? Please dear God‚ stop. Saturday If the Republican Party stands for anything these days‚ I hope and believe it stands for freedom and the rule of law. That’s what it was founded on and what it still stands for as far as I know. Why then has the GOP abandoned the major moving party fighting and dying for freedom in Europe today: the Ukrainians? We have armed them and supported them for roughly two years now. The brave Ukrainians have fought and died for freedom against mighty Russia. Mighty Russia has been shown to be not quite so mighty. Freedom has a chance in Western Europe. This is good news indeed. Why are we now walking away from them? (READ MORE from Ben Stein: My Life at 79) I understand that it’s a way to exert power against Mr. Biden so he tightens up on border security here in the USA. That’s an extremely important and worthwhile goal. I would even call it vital. But just because we do something that’s good for us‚ why do we then have to do something that’s bad for us? Freedom in Europe is not a small goal. It’s a life or death goal. Anyone who follows the lead up to World War II knows that. Why don’t we Republicans know it? The post Why Are Republicans Ready to Abandon Freedom and Ukraine? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Sorry Israel‚ Elections are More Important to Biden and Pro-Hamas Democrats

Has Biden Already Won Arizona in 2024 Thanks to Lawfare?