One of this writer's favorite Trump picks so far has been Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and mainly because of how it has sparked epic meltdowns among the left, and glorious memes from the rest. This Thanksgiving,…

Now that Thanksgiving is winding down, it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas and there really is no better time for yours truly to tell you dear readers about Krampus! Watch this video from Austria,…

[unable to retrieve full-text content]This is a Jewish-owned business in Montreal, Canada. ?? An Arab man walks inside and threatens to kill the owners, then all of the Jews “one by one.”…

You're looking at it.

"It's about marketing youth to youth." The post “It wouldn’t get played”: Why Don Henley doesn’t care to release new music first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

On Monday, Nov. 25, United Arab Emirates officials released the names and photographs of three Uzbek nationals arrested for the murder of Chabad Lubavitch emissary Rabbi Zvi Kogan. The Israel intelligence agency Mossad had been working with UAE security authorities since Thursday, Nov. 21, after Kogan — a duel Israeli-Moldovan citizen who lived in Abu Dhabi — was reported missing in Dubai. His abandoned car and body were later found on Sunday, 93 miles away in the Emirati city of Al Ain near the Omani border. Initial investigations pinned the abduction and murder on three Uzbek nationals operating on orders from Iran. They were suspected to have fled to Turkey following the discovery of Kogan’s body. UAE Ministry of Interior officials have not yet released information on their arrests or possible motives for the murder. Israeli news reported on Nov. 25 that the operation to find and arrest the suspects involved several countries in the region and that they were likely extradited from Turkey to the UAE without Israeli involvement. The 28-year-old rabbi had been living in Abu Dhabi since 2020 after Israel and the UAE normalized diplomatic relations as part of President Trump’s Abraham Accords. This partnership saw Dubai and Abu Dhabi flourish as popular destinations for Israeli tourists. Chabad Lubavitch is a movement and organization within the Hasidic branch of Orthodox Judaism that works to support Jewish life around the world and evangelize to secular Jews. Kogan — one of several emissaries to the Abu Dhabi Chabad branch — worked to establish a safe and comfortable life for Jewish residents and tourists in the UAE, managed the kosher grocery store Rimon Market on Dubai’s bustling Al Wasl Road, and opened the first Jewish education center in the UAE. “Everybody loved him,” an Israeli expat in the Abu Dhabi Chabad community said of Kogan. “No matter what background you had, if you were religious, not-religious, everyone had a connection to Zvi.” His disappearance and suspected murder by Iranian operatives over the weekend sparked reactions from Israeli and Chabad officials. “We trust that the UAE will work with the countries in the region to bring the perpetrators to justice and hold all those involved accountable for this act of sheer evil,” Chabad chairman Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky said. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the incident “a vile, antisemitic attack” and thanked UAE for taking “swift action” in their investigations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office called the murder “a criminal antisemitic terrorist incident” and pledged that the State of Israel “will act in all of its abilities to bring to justice the criminals responsible for his death.” “None of them will be spared,” Netanyahu declared at a cabinet meeting on Nov. 25. Emirati authorities told Israeli news outlets that the country’s leadership was angry and shocked: “It happened after years when there wasn’t an unusual security or nationalistic incident.” Kogan is survived by his wife Rivky, an American citizen and niece of the murdered rabbi in the 2008 terrorist attack at the Nariman Chabad House in Mumbai, India. The plane carrying Kogan’s body touched down at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport on the evening of Nov. 25, and he was laid to rest later that night among other deceased rabbis on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. The murder tops off a month of increased threats and violence against Israelis abroad. The unpopularity of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has made Israeli nationals and people of the Jewish faith targets of assaults, violence, and antisemitism by pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli protestors across the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. On Nov. 8, Israeli fans were attacked by a mob in Amsterdam after a soccer match between the Dutch team Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv. Witnesses reported a mob of young people tracking down the Israeli fans after leaving the stadium and violently assaulting them on the street. Videos showed people being thrown into the canals and a taxi jumping the sidewalk to run over an Israeli. Commentators have labeled the incident a “pogrom” after reports surfaced that the Amsterdam police ignored early warnings of potential violence and were complicit in allowing the mob to carry out the attack. (READ MORE: ‘Pogrom’ in Amsterdam) A flood of social media posts hinted at similar attacks on upcoming Israeli sports events in Europe and prompted the Israeli National Security Council (NSC) to issue travel warnings as scores of Israeli fans were gearing up to support their teams. Particular caution was advised for upcoming soccer matches in France where strong anti-Israeli sentiment stems from President Macron’s fierce condemnation of Israel’s war in Gaza. On Nov. 12, the NSC also urged citizens to maintain increased vigilance while traveling to Thailand as local police reportedly cautioned of a terror threat on Israeli tourists attending the Full Moon party on the island of Ko Pha-ngan. Thailand is one of the most popular tourist destinations for Israelis, and thousands often vacation during the Full Moon festival. Over the weekend, travel warnings to southeast Asia were raised to Level 2 — recommending travelers to take increased precautionary measures — based on “the persistence of the threat.” In the early morning hours of Sunday, Nov. 24, a gunman opened fire near the heavily fortified Israeli Embassy in Ammon, Jordan. Three Jordanian police officers were injured while taking down the gunman, and Jordanian Communications Minister Mohamed Momani called the shooting a terror attack on security patrols near the embassy. Although the Israeli embassy in Ammon has been the flashpoint for some of the largest anti-Israel protests in the region since the outbreak of war, the two countries continue to maintain good relations. Equally, officials in Jerusalem were quick to acknowledge the close ties and cooperation established between Israel and the UAE that facilitated bringing Kogan’s perpetrators to justice. In the aftermath, Netanyahu pledged to “strengthen our ties [with the UAE] in the face of the attempts from the axis of evil to damage the peaceful relations between us.” The Amsterdam pogroms and Kogan’s murder opened a new theater in Israel’s multi-front war as Iranian operatives and anti-Israeli mobs expanded the battlefield to include tourists and foreign nationals. The resiliency of the Abraham Accords and strong relations with strategic partners may be Israel’s best defense in combating attacks on its nationals abroad. READ MORE from Bennett Tucker: The UN’s Failure in Lebanon Israelis Choose to Limit Attack on Iran … For Now Israel Eliminates the ‘Butcher of Khan Younis’ The post Rabbi Kogan’s Murder, European Pogroms Challenge Israeli Foreign Relations appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In an era where traditional norms are under scrutiny, and the landscape of American defense policy is evolving, the integration of women into combat roles within the U.S. military presents both an opportunity and a challenge. As conservatives, we advocate for a strong national defense, personal responsibility, and the principles of equality and merit. It’s within this framework that the question of women serving in combat should be addressed, not through the lens of progressive agendas but through the conservative values of duty, capability, and national strength. Merit Over Gender First and foremost, the military must be a meritocracy. If a woman can pass the same rigorous physical and psychological tests as her male counterparts, why should she not have the right to serve in any capacity, including combat? The conservative ethos champions individual achievement. We must extend this principle to all who wish to serve, focusing on capability, not chromosomes. This isn’t about changing the military to fit a social agenda; it’s about ensuring we have the strongest, most capable defense force. Historical Precedents and National Security History is replete with examples of women stepping into combat roles when the need arose, from the Revolutionary War to WWII. These instances weren’t driven by social experiments but by necessity. Today, with warfare evolving — incorporating cyber warfare, drone operations, and asymmetric threats — the traditional need for brute strength is less paramount. Intellectual acumen, strategic thinking, and adaptability are increasingly vital. Women, no less than men, can offer these attributes, thereby enhancing our strategic depth. Addressing Physical Demands The physical demands of combat are undeniable. Here, the conversation must pivot to address not just the capability but the specific physical requirements. The military has begun to adapt its training and standards to ensure that all combat roles are filled by soldiers who can meet the physical demands, regardless of gender. This includes: – Adjusted Training Regimens: Recognizing different physical makeups, training can be tailored to increase the overall strength and endurance of all soldiers. This isn’t about lowering standards but making them universally achievable through targeted fitness programs that might emphasize different muscle groups or endurance capacities. – Equipment Innovation: Modern military technology can also play a role. Exoskeletons, designed to augment human strength, and lighter, more ergonomic gear can help level the playing field. Research into such technologies should be accelerated to ensure that physical disparities do not hinder operational effectiveness. – Role Specialization: While not all roles require the same level of physical strength, combat roles do. However, within combat units, there are positions where strategic thinking or technical skills might be more crucial than sheer physical power. Roles in intelligence, communications, or operating advanced weaponry systems can be equally pivotal, where physical strength is less of a factor. Cultural Shifts and Duty For conservatives, the military isn’t just about defense; it’s a reflection of our societal values. Integrating women into combat roles supports the conservative principle that rights come with responsibilities. This integration isn’t about altering the military to fit a narrative but about expanding the pool of those willing to defend our nation, aligning with our values of inclusivity through merit. Women in the Selective Service  If women are to serve in combat, the conversation about Selective Service registration becomes crucial. Extending registration to women would not only be an act of fairness but also expand the pool of potential defenders in times of crisis. This aligns with conservative ideals of shared duty and collective responsibility for national defense. Operational Effectiveness While some critics have raised concerns that integrating women into combat roles could compromise unit cohesion and performance, empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Studies conducted by the U.S. military have shown that units with women have performed just as well as units without women in combat roles. Moreover, the experience of countries like Canada, the UK, and Israel, which have successfully integrated women into combat roles, demonstrates that with proper training, leadership, and policies in place, gender integration can actually enhance unit cohesion and performance. By fostering a culture of mutual respect, trust, and equality, military units can leverage the varied skills, perspectives, and experiences that women bring to the table, ultimately leading to more effective and cohesive teams. The military, like any institution, thrives when it can draw from the widest talent pool. If variety means having the best possible force, then conservatives should not shy away from this truth. Call to Women and All Willing Americans The addition of women in combat roles isn’t a concession or a compromise; it’s a strategic evolution that aligns with conservative values of individual responsibility, merit-based advancement, and a strong defense posture. By embracing this change, we’re not just modernizing our military; we’re affirming that the duty to defend our nation is not gender-specific. It’s a call to all capable and willing Americans. Let’s ensure that our military remains the world’s finest, not by clinging to the past, but by drawing on the full spectrum of talent America offers. This isn’t about changing the military to fit a social agenda; it’s about ensuring we have the strongest, most capable defense force, which in turn strengthens America’s position in the world. In this, we find not just a policy adjustment but a reaffirmation of our core conservative values: strength, readiness, equality of opportunity, and the honor of serving our country. READ MORE from Ronald Beaty: The Sacred Duty of Skepticism READ MORE: Wokeness Is Responsible for the Military Recruitment Crisis   The post The Conservative Case for Women in Combat appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Pete Hegseth’s nomination to become Secretary of Defense has reopened the women in combat controversy because of the nominee’s views on the subject. Hegseth is a veteran of infantry combat in Iraq, and has expressed concerns about using women in combat roles, particularly in infantry and armor where close combat would be involved. In the past few decades, women have been increasingly integrated into units such as artillery, military police, and combat aviation. A female fighter pilot was one of those tasked with the kamikaze mission of crashing her fighter into one of the airliners involved in the 9/11 attacks if all else failed, and the Marine Corps now allows women to lead infantry platoons if they can pass the grueling physical and mental challenge of Infantry Officers’ School at Quantico Virginia. My personal experience with women in a combat role came in 2009 and 2010 in Iraq. As a civilian State Department field advisor, I had a security detachment led by a female lieutenant for a number of months. Several of the soldiers in the detachment were women as well. We went outside the wire nearly every day to inspect building projects and meet with key local leaders. The women were polite, professional, and ready to kill if necessary. On one mission they were detached to take a group of visiting VIPs to a refugee center. On their way back, they were hit by an Iranian built IED which blew the leg off of one of the male soldiers in the team. The lieutenant did an excellent job of handling the MEDEVAC and in restoring morale in her badly shaken unit. She was subsequently put in for an award for heroism. Despite all of that, I share some of Mr. Hegseth‘s concerns on the subject, but perhaps for different reasons. Every female member of that that security team was a volunteer. They actively sought the duty. That is fine in the limited wars we have fought since the turn of the century, but there are some politicians — mostly Democrats — so interested in DEI, that they would actually draft women and put them into combat roles whether the females involved want it or not. That might not matter in peacetime, but if we get into a serious shooting war, I believe that  the whole edifice would collapse. Forced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Of all the women I know, only one or two might want to be involved in a combat role and most would object strenuously to being forced into such a situation. This concern is not entirely academic. Last June the Democrat dominated Senate Armed Forces Committee approved a proposed bill which would require women along with men to register for the draft at age 18. If we ever get into a real shooting war with Vietnam-like casualties where a draft is reinstated, we’ll likely see that the Democrats and feminists will be the first to change their tune when the body bags come back with large numbers of women in them. If there is an analogy, it is the African American experience. In World War II when many black men were kept out of combat roles and largely relegated to being cooks, truck drivers, and other support roles, many complained bitterly. Fast forward to Vietnam with its totally integrated military. By that time blacks were complaining equally bitterly about being used as cannon fodder in disproportionate numbers. There is a more recent analogy regarding gender equality in military terms. Women were first assigned to serve on warships shortly before the first Gulf War broke out. When they first joined, most expected to serve on shore duty. For some, sea duty was an unpleasant surprise; but feminists cheered. When deployment orders to the combat zone were issued, many women sailors suddenly became pregnant and undeployable. That is a dirty little secret that feminists and their friends in politics quietly swept under the rug. The Nature of Men and Women A 1997 Rand Corp. study titled New Opportunities for Military Women found that pregnancies can hurt unit readiness for the simple reason that “pregnancy can affect the availability of women” and that “the effect is greater when the unit has many women.” And combat readiness may not be the only negative effect pregnancy represents. Behavior associated with the romantic attraction necessary for pregnancies to occur — including jealousy, sexual harassment, and reckless daring or protectiveness associated with male gallantry — may also affect cohesion. The Rand study continues, “When gender negatively affected cohesion, it was generally because gender is one way that people break into categories when conflict surfaces … or because dating occurred within a unit.” Some experts believe that these and other problems — e.g. the particular vulnerability of captured female soldiers to rape and sexual torture — can be managed with competent leadership and preparation. My own view is these kinds of problems are unlikely to overwhelm the services because the number of women who seek combat roles and meet the physical qualifications will be low. But keep in mind, if women are forced into combat units involuntarily in large numbers, it will be a very different situation. DEI is unattractive when standards are lowered to include the unqualified. But it looks even worse when the DEI commissars are prodding you into a foxhole. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: 7 Ways to Move Toward a Trump Doctrine Wokeness Is Responsible for the Military Recruitment Crisis Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel. After retirement, he served as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and later as a civilian field in Iraq and Afghanistan. The post The Dark Side of Women in Combat appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There was a time — it was a long time ago, it seems — when car companies were in the business of designing and selling cars. They worked to make the cars they designed appealing as something more than just appliances. Jaguar was among the leaders, once upon a time. It just took the lead — in a very different direction. You may have already seen it. Jaguar’s Copy Nothing ad campaign. It doesn’t feature a single Jaguar. Which begs the question: What is Jaguar trying to sell? Well, it looks like what whoever was behind the opening montage for the summer Olympics in France a few months back was trying to sell. That also had nothing to do with the Olympics but much to do with mocking Jesus and the Last Supper. Which — at the time — begged the question: Why do that? Well, for the same reason that Jaguar is doing it now. The company that once designed and sold cars that were so beautiful it didn’t matter that they didn’t always run very well (it was said a Jaguar looks better on a lift than most cars look on the road) no longer cares much about cars, having committed to manufacturing battery-powered devices going forward. This “commitment” can be seen as a commitment to androgyny, one device being interchangeable with any other device. The identity of a device comes down to what it is called — much the same as a man who calls himself a woman has assumed an identity. But without underlying reality. In the case of androgynous cars, there is very little need for more than a few identities — that is, brands — because of the fundamental sameness. Of course, the idea seems to be that — just like the Alphabet People insist — there can be a limitless number of identities and that there will be a market for all of them, too. What you just heard was the sound of Jaguar (and other would-be device peddlers) whistling past the graveyard. A “Jaguar” that is just another Tesla with a different identity is not a Jaguar. It is a device trying to be another device. Tesla at least has an authentic identity in that the brand is synonymous with devices. That is what people who buy a Tesla want. A device. To understand the distinction between a Jaguar and a device, take a look at a 1960s E-Type and then take a look at a Model X, or any other model Tesla sells. Take a look under the hood of a Jag equipped with a V12 and then take a look at a Tesla’s “frunk.” What you see — and don’t — is all the difference. Jaguar no longer makes cars like the E-Type or the XJs that looked just as good and maybe even better than Tawny Kitaen did back in the 1980s when she cavorted with them on MTV. And Jaguar no longer makes or sells the magnificent Jaguar engines it used to sell, either. Like so many other brands that have lost their identity, Jaguar made the mistake of shifting from selling beautiful cars — sedans and coupes — to selling crossovers, which are inherently appliances. It is difficult to make an appliance beautiful because the form does follow function when the driving parameters are how many cubic feet of cargo space there are behind the second row and does it have a third row. Jaguar’s crossovers are by no means ugly. But they aren’t beautiful works of art like the E-Type and XJ were and will always be. They lack the kind of beauty that makes up for other things, such as practicality. And even reliability. For exactly the same reason a man will indulge an exceptionally beautiful woman. Today’s Jags are also already well down the road to being the same as everything else in another way. Most new Jaguar crossovers come standard with 2.0 liter turbocharged four-cylinder engines, just like most other crossovers — including crossovers that cost a third less than what a Jaguar-branded crossover costs. This sameness is a consequence of compliance. Jaguar, like every other car company (most of them now crossover companies), didn’t fight when they might have won the fight. Instead of spending money on ad campaigns explaining to people why it was becoming impossible to sell magnificent in-line sixes and even more magnificent V12s, money was spent on designing compliance engines, of which the 2.0-liter turbo four is the archetype. There is a reason why literally every brand that once sold its brand-specific engines now sells the Universal Engine — a  2.0 liter turbocharged four. It is the same reason, in its essence, why almost everyone wore a “mask.” Because they were told to. Because they complied. Behold the ugly results. Why buy a Jaguar-branded crossover with a 2.0 liter four when you can buy a same-shaped crossover from another brand with a 2.0 liter four for a third or less the cost? This question seems to never have occurred to the people running Jaguar now. Beauty sells. And sameness costs. “The car,” said Sir William Lyons, the founder of Jaguar, “is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive.” Jaguar created many cars that were so alive it was easy to imagine them leaping. As opposed to what we’re seeing now. Live Vivid, everyone! READ MORE from Eric Peters: Tariffs, Cars, and the Whiskey War Birth Control Seats The Imminent Death of Volkswagen The post Jaguar’s ‘Copy Nothing’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Following President-elect Donald Trump’s swift victory on election night, the chattering class turned its gaze towards the approaching Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. The only thing worse than Trump’s victory, these hosts opined, would be sitting across the table from the smug family members who voted for him. Whatever familial bliss Norman Rockwell depicted in his World War II-era Freedom From Want painting is long gone. Today, if the mainstream media is to be believed, holiday gatherings are just another opportunity to play the victim and gather ammunition for a post-holiday therapy session. Americans Fear Politics at the Table A survey of 2,000 Americans — split evenly between men and women ages 25 to 65 and located across all 50 states — who regularly celebrate Thanksgiving found that election-related stress is impacting holiday plans for 64 percent of Americans. (RELATED: Don’t Be a Turkey on Thanksgiving) Nearly a quarter of respondents said that they were “considering skipping Thanksgiving altogether.” And just about half of Americans wanted a “total politics conversation ban for all guests and family members.” As for the source of their anxieties, both sides are equally to blame. Harris voters are the source of “election and Thanksgiving anxiety” for 48 percent of Americans, while Trump voters are the cause of worry for 52 percent. Hosts of The View Disagree on Holiday Plans In the week after the election, the ever-insightful ladies of The View opined on whether or not differences in political opinion should be an obstacle to family gatherings at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Sunny Hostin saw no room for coexistence with relatives who voted for Trump, saying, “I really do feel that this candidate, President-elect Trump, is just a different type of candidate — from the things he’s said, and the things he’s done, and the things he will do.” “It’s more of a moral issue for me,” she continued. “I think that people feel that someone voted not only against their families, but against them and against people that they love.” But Sara Haines felt differently: “I wouldn’t have had any holidays if I had to only pick the ones where everyone agreed with me.” In Haines’s mind, toxic personalities — not political affiliations — are the cause of frustration during family gatherings. “I would never let my politics be the reason that I don’t show up to see my family because they won’t always be there,” she said. Ana Navarro took a similar approach, explaining that she and her husband will be gathering with his five children, even though they voted for Trump. The reason? He wants to see his grandkids. “For our family, he has told them, ‘I will not let politics split up our family,’” Navarro said. (RELATED: A Happier Thanksgiving) Navigating Political Polarization Where Hostin’s view tracks with the 23 percent of Americans who planned to avoid family gatherings, Haines and Navarro take a more sensible approach. Political division in the family isn’t a foregone conclusion — it’s a choice to prioritize feeling safe or morally superior over relationships with family members. Obviously, there are certain boundaries to relationships that can help relatives navigate bumpy relationships or an antagonistic family member. But recognizing, as Haines does, that skipping out on holidays now costs precious time with parents, grandparents, and other relatives is key for younger Americans to overcome the discomfort of disagreeing over dinner. Similarly, Navarro’s point that taking a principled stand on politics would cost her husband time with his grandchildren is a reminder to older generations of what can be lost when politics is prioritized over people. Thanksgiving has earned a bad rap as the holiday for unwanted political conflict at the dinner table, and it’s become an opportunity for some mainstream media pundits to encourage separation rather than coexistence. And though the message obviously resonates with a significant number of Americans, most people aren’t willing to set aside their familial relationships over election results. Mary Frances (Myler) Devlin is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Devlin:  Kevin Roberts’s Fiery New Fusionism Dissatisfied Democrats Voice Frustrations With Party Line on Transgender Issues Florida Turns the Tide for Social Conservatism Despite Massive Spending Gaps  The post Even <i>The View</i> Hosts Don’t Want You to Skip Holidays With Family appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.