In a book written about the landmark Marbury v. Madison case published 2009, Cliff Sloan and David McKean retold a story told by Chief Justice John Roberts about a Russian judge who was chatting with European colleagues at a law conference somewhere in Europe: When the Russian judge said that he would like to emulate the American judicial system, a European judge sneered, “Why did you come all the way here if you just want a can of Coke?” The Russian judge replied, “Actually, I do not like Coke. I like my wine French, my beer German, my vodka Russian, and my judicial institutions American.” If there remain judges in Putin’s Russia who can freely express admiration of anything American, they may not feel the same way today. Even some on the left feel anguish after what William Barr calls the “abomination” that took place in Judge Juan Merchan’s New York court. What destroys the judiciary’s reputation is its own collusion with forces seeking something other than the blindfolded justice that has been its proud ideal. If we will still abide by the rule of law, then this verdict, unreversed, will establish a principle in law. Worse, it might be the harbinger of a new era in which law is no longer ruled by principle but is suborned to the whims of those who make law on the fly to suit their politics. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that we are not yet at the full-blown nihilist stage, and our judges will continue to follow principles. The clearest precedent of this case is that the wall of restraint that characterized our country for more than two centuries is fallen and judges and prosecutors will be expected to intervene in elections on the flimsiest of pretenses, as long as the political atmosphere favors it. Those on the left might well dread that judicial systems of conservative cities or states might find a misdemeanor which an unrestrained legislature allows to be inflated into a felony. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Biden Distracts Americans. Turns on Israel With New Ceasefire Proposal) This is particularly true given the vagueness of what was so central to the New York case, as Merchan defined it in his wildly off-the-wall jury instructions. Lurking beneath the steaming pile of allegations was the idea that the execution of a non-disclosure agreement was felonious corruption. If principle still applies, the lawyers who execute non-disclosure agreements every day in order to protect their clients’ reputations will have to tremble that they may be participants in a felony if their client is unpopular enough with those in power. Suppose, to follow a line of reasoning Victor D. Hanson has mooted, that Idaho or Arkansas find a felony in the collusion of the press in scrubbing the record of Obama’s dinner with a Hamas supporter in the lead-up to the 2008 election, and their legislature writes a way to backdoor that felony through some peccadillo of the Obama campaign in that state. Or Biden and Blinken get shoe-horned into the same thing for their quashing of the Hunter Biden laptop story. The debate in which Biden said that the laptop accusation was a lie aired in every state. If this case establishes principle, then there is every reason to expect that Republicans will use it, too. As long as we are still dealing with principled law, the kind of law that drew the admiration of the Russian judge. The discrediting of law comes about through the abuses of those who are entrusted with the judicial power. When Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and expelled the Cherokees from their land, it did not discredit the judicial system. Same applies today, as Joe Biden brags about violating the SCOTUS decision that declared his cancelling of college loan debts as unconstitutional. The branches of government clash, and the American public has generally upheld the Supreme Court when it clashes with the Executive or the Legislatures. (The egregious Dred Scott  decision stands as the greatest exception; the Taney court had to be corrected by years of civil war.) What destroys the judiciary’s reputation is its own collusion with forces seeking something other than the blindfolded justice that has been its proud ideal. The Founders and the Framers were all too aware of how English law had been corrupted by tyrants and used solely to enforce political power. American lawyers’ training imbued the Common Law tradition, which under the banner of its most scholarly exponent, John Selden, carried forward the idea of constitutionality through civil war and dictatorship until it emerged triumphant. Selden suffered for his view that all are constrained by law and the reigning executives cannot dictate what justice must be. For his troubles, he was several times imprisoned by puppet judges who stayed in their office only as long as the king was pleased with their rulings. In his later years, Selden commented on judges ruefully to his dinner companions. One such comment: We see the pageants in Cheapside, the lions and the elephants, but we do not see the men that carry them; we see the judges look big, look like lions, but we do not see who moves them. He did not mean we don’t know who does. Another shorter remark on the judiciary: There could be no mischief done in the commonwealth without a judge. It was this savvy knowledge of the realities of corruption that enabled constitutionalists like Selden and our Framers to construct an ethos of impartiality and devotion to justice, knowing that their restraint was all that lay between the new republic and the same old tyranny that stained history. (READ MORE: Welcome to Venezuela, America) William Barr expressed confidence that the verdict Merchan shepherded through will be thrown out on appeal. Many others express the same confidence. For the sake of all that is good and admirable about our system of justice, may that be true. The post Judges Hold the Integrity of Our Legal System in Their Hands appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It is once again “Pride Month,” that special season set aside by leftists to worship sexual sin, degeneracy, debauchery, and depravity. “Pride Month” is, in many ways, the leftist’s holy season, the leftist’s diabolical inversion of such truly holy seasons as Advent and Lent in the Catholic calendar. As both Advent and Lent are a time of self-denial and self-mastery, of hopeful anticipation, of spiritual preparation for the birth and resurrection of God-made-man, “Pride Month” is an inversion of it: a time of self-indulgence and celebration of enslaving sin, of boastful “fulfillment,” of carnally declaring that man is his own god. Transgenderism becomes a sort of leftist baptism, necessitating being born again and taking on a new name. This assertion is not mere hyperbole. Leftism is indeed a religion, and the trappings which denote it as such have been foreseen in the past, particularly in the past hundred years or so. The Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen warned in 1947 that Satan will establish here on earth a sort of anti-Church, “which will be the ape of the Church because he, the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ.” (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Bishop Robert Barron Praises Atheist Bill Maher. Why?) In 1907, the English author and priest Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson proffered a similar prophesy in his novel Lord of the World. In that dystopia, the world has been largely rid of all notion of religion, with the ruling classes of the West adopting both atheistic communism and Freemasonry. There are, of course, ceremonies, speeches, parades, and the like, but not formal worship. But the arrival of the Antichrist ushers in a new era: apostate priests are hired to devise a new liturgical worship, the worship of man as god. Sheen also spoke of the Antichrist as developing a new sort of religion, disguised under the principles of humanitarianism: He will write books on the new idea of God to suit the way people live … he will explain guilt away psychologically as inhibited eroticism, make men shrink in shame if their fellowmen say they are not broadminded and liberal; he will be so broadminded as to identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong, truth and error; he will spread the lie that men will never be better until they make society better … he will foster more divorces under the disguise that another partner is “vital,” he will increase love for love and decrease love for persons; he will invoke religion to destroy religion; he will even speak of Christ and say that he was the greatest man who ever lived; his mission he will say will be to liberate men from the servitudes of superstition and Fascism, which he will never define. But in the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one; he will not believe in God. Such a characterization surely calls to mind the leftist cult vying today for dominance over the Western world. Those whose principles are diametrically opposed to the morality preached by Christianity for 2,000 years insist that they are devout lovers of God, that their perverted policies are in service of His Kingdom. (Joe Biden, for instance, never misses an opportunity to brand himself a “devout Catholic,” despite his decidedly anti-Catholic positions on nearly everything.) “Tolerance” has, indeed, become the leftists’ “sanctified” name for indifference to right and wrong, truth and error. “Pride Month” itself evinces this: an unnatural vice is lauded as a valid expression of love, even though it destroys both body and soul; the surgical mutilation of children’s healthy genitals is hailed as “lifesaving,” while efforts to protect children from such irreversible horrors are derided as bigoted. In fact, leftism has instituted its own set of unholy sacraments. The brilliant Dr. Peter Kreeft wrote, “Abortion is the Antichrist’s demonic parody of the eucharist. That’s why it uses the same holy words, ‘This is my body,’ with the blasphemous opposite meaning.” Every religion requires sacrifice: in the Catholic faith, the Eucharist is Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross — in leftism, the unborn innocents are slaughtered on the altar of antichrist. Transgenderism becomes a sort of leftist baptism, necessitating being born again and taking on a new name. And homosexuality becomes the leftist caricature of holy matrimony. Marriage is centered on the family, on self-giving love mirroring the love of God Himself and resulting in new life; homosexual acts are incapable of producing a family, and center instead on self-gratifying appetite, consuming the other to satisfy oneself. “Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world. The great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on,” Sheen declared of the religion of Hell-on-Earth. “From now on, the struggle will be … for the souls of men.” (READ MORE: The Holy Eucharist and the Hint of an Explanation) As moral degeneracy and cultural decadence become more and more common, more and more pronounced, it is time to look from these earthly cities to Heaven, the City of God. If we model ourselves after the denizens of Heaven, then not only may we hope one day to reside there for eternity, to join the ranks of those we emulate here on earth, but we may also find our own earthly cities transformed, perhaps mirroring a little better, a little more closely, the City of God. The post Pride Month, Leftism, and ‘The Ape of the Church’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) offered a spot-on illustration when the House debated ejecting the anti-Semitic Congressional representative of Somalia, Ilhan Omar, from the House Foreign Relations Committee. He explained that he personally always has disapproved of that tactic. He explained that he always preferred — and still does prefer — allowing elected representatives, no matter how despicable they be, to sit on committees. And then, during committee sessions, debate them firmly and unapologetically, beating them by making the better arguments and exposing them for what they are. Therefore, he said, he would prefer not throwing Somalia’s Omar off the committee. But … Alas, we now live in an uncharted era of “American Lawfare,” warfare conducted by abusing the rules of law to destroy political opponents. But, he added, we are playing in a new, dirty environment with different rules. The other side broke with history and protocol by preventing certain Republicans from sitting on committees. In other words, there are long-accepted rules of civility and comity, and both sides need to play by the same rules. (READ MORE from Dov Fischer: A Disgusting, Filthy Corruption of American Justice) For example, in baseball it is accepted that pitchers throw baseballs a variety of ways (fastball, curve, slider, change-up, knuckleball, screwball) and in a variety of locations (up and inside, low and inside, in the dirt, up and outside, low and outside, or even over the plate) in order to baffle batters and induce them to miss the ball when they swing. Major league pitchers are remarkably trained and skilled at hitting their exact target from 60 feet and 60 inches away. Once in a while, a pitcher is concerned that the opposing batter seems too comfortable, standing in an ideal position close to home plate, which enables the batter to reach and hit outside pitches more easily. To move the batter farther away from the plate, the pitcher occasionally throws an inside fastball close to the batter, almost hitting him. That alerts the batter to back away a bit, if only for his own health and safety. This is all common — and proper — play. Because pitchers in the major leagues are so expertly skilled, they can hurl that very hard spheroid precisely near the batter without actually hitting him. But sometimes a pitcher either accidentally misses, or acts perniciously, and deliberately strikes the opposing batter with the ball, often hurled at 95-100 miles per hour. That is wrong, unacceptable, and often malign. When that happens, all 50,000 spectators in the stadium know what to expect when the teams will change positions at the half-inning. You can be sure 100 out of 100 times that the other team’s pitcher, playing for the team whose batter was hit by a fastball five or ten minutes ago, will deliberately throw his fastest pitch at one of the best players on the other team. Everyone knows it is coming, especially the star player of that other team. He knows he soon will be drilled and hurt. There is nothing he can do to prevent it from coming. And then he gets hit awfully hard. If the batter is lucky, he will be in nasty pain for the next several days, on round-the-clock ibuprofen, and his wicked bruise will be gone in three weeks or a month. However, often he is not so lucky. Every so often, a ball pitched that way will break his hand, wrist, ankle, or some other bone, and he will be knocked out of action for three weeks or months. If that happens, you can be sure that the next time the league schedule has those two teams playing each other, even if many months later, the “bad blood” will be revived. The sport even has a name for throwing a hard fastball directly at the other guy for the purpose of retaliatorily pain infliction: it is called “beaning” the batter. The pitch that hits him is called a “Beanball.” (READ MORE: Universities Must End DEI and Implement DEI) That’s the American Way in what is America’s National Pastime (or runner-up). There are clear rules. You deliberately broke them? Well, now prepare to get it back, and then we will “call it even.” That principle does not sound noble, but it is a form of comprehensible street justice. At the same time, it is not as much about revenge as it is about deterrence. A team — and all its pitchers — need to think more carefully about avoiding hurting players on the other side after they themselves have suffered those consequences. Writ large, Germany conducted a wave of nighttime bombings of civilian targets in London, so the U.K. — with invaluable American assistance — bombed Dresden into rubble. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, so we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both those countries redirected their relationships with America. That’s the American Way: We leave people alone. Just don’t target us wrongly. If you do, we will “bean” you — not so much as revenge but to make clear you better not even think of doing that again. Alas, we now live in an uncharted era of “American Lawfare,” warfare conducted by abusing the rules of law to destroy political opponents. The Soviets did that famously under Stalin, his NKVD, and the KGB. Everyone was fair game. Even Lavrentiy Beria, an architect of that murderous lawfare despite being reared by deeply religious and church-going Orthodox Georgian parents, ultimately got destroyed by his Stalinist lawfare himself in due time. Likewise, Hitler used his “legal” system, under chief judge Roland Freisler, to destroy his enemies. And so it always has gone in brutal dictatorships. British kings set up biased judges and prosecutors, augmented by false witnesses, to “try” innocent people like Sir Thomas More and a bunch of Henry VIII wives and their alleged consorts. The Spanish Inquisition was by definition, a judicial system relying on judges and courts to complete and validate their mass murders. America was always too great for that. We had presidents whose crookedness was discovered sooner or later. They never were prosecuted. It does seem that the Democrats would have prosecuted Nixon wrongly for Watergate, but Gerald Ford heroically pardoned Nixon before the country could be torn asunder by such lawfare. Democrat liberals and their associated press went ballistic against Ford, and their anger drove them to destroy his image and beat him when he sought election on his own in 1976. But the judgment of history for most non-partisan observers is that he was a great man, at least in that one particular way, sparing the country the spectacle of putting a president on trial, as they would do in Brazil, Pakistan, or South Africa. When Donald Trump ran for president, the throngs who attended his massive rallies would chant three particular slogans — each comprised of three one-syllable words, promoting rhythmic cadence — always with extra gusto: “Build That Wall!” “Drain the Swamp!” and “Lock Her Up.” That last referred to Hillary Clinton’s federal felonies perpetrated, particularly spoliating documentary evidence and destroying hard drives sought to investigate her. These were — and are — federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Even Martha Stewart was imprisoned for spoliating evidence. Trump smiled at his MAGA rallies as the chants were shouted, and thereafter he had four years to have prosecutors bring charges against Hillary. Similarly, conservative Republican prosecutors in the states had time to do so. But, for all the bluster and bluff, even the unpredictable Trump knew — deep down — that it is not the American Way to leverage the law with the full weight of the United States of America, to prosecute a political opponent. There are rules of civility and comity. They repeatedly have been broken by Democrat lawfare. More than for revenge, we urgently need deterrence. It is time for Republican prosecutors, Senate and House representatives, and perhaps soon the chief executive in the White House, to throw bean balls. The post American Lawfare? Time to Bean Them With a High, Hard Fastball appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When the rejections began rolling in, there was a universal theme. All the editors of the big publishing houses had taken the time to read my new memoir, and they all emailed my veteran literary agent to say how great the story was, or how well-written it was, or how intelligent the format, interesting, clever, funny, heartfelt, profound, etc. Yet all these wonderfully complementary messages ended with, “But…” I have faced none of the disadvantages that are so advantageous in the publishing industry today. My agent kept apologizing to me and I was feeling sorry for her. As they always do, excuses ran the gamut. Several editors, however, were very honest about why they would not publish my book. One suggested that if I rewrite the book and omit the fact that I grew up in an area that was all white, she will consider it. After all, as she explained, that is offensive. Here is a direct quote from another. “If Neal was BIPOC or gay, I’d publish this in a heartbeat.” I get it. We all love stories of overcoming adversity. I believe most avid readers are sympathetic to those who face challenges concerning race, identity, and sexuality. I too support the LGBTQ+ community and equality for all. So, it could simply be basic economics—supply and demand. Having a mathematical mind, this makes perfect sense to me. There’s the historical context as well. For centuries, the literary industry, like every industry, was rigged against minorities and folks with perceived abnormal lifestyles. For too long it was a world of straight white men promoting other straight white men. But people in the publishing industry have led the charge to change that, and that’s a wonderful thing. Anytime you want to move the needle of status quo, you have to push hard in the opposite direction. They did that. They’re still doing it. Memoirs by authors who fit into this niche now dominate the landscape. When the reviews for these books come pouring in from all the major newspapers and review organizations, there is a central theme. The recurring word in all these reviews: “Brave.” The author was brave to go through what they did and very brave to tell their story. Hence, every “privilege” I was born with as far as most facets of life are concerned, is a handicap as an author. I grew up in a town that was all white and the dozen small towns nearby consisted of only white people as well. At a time when gay sex was still illegal in some states, I was never attracted to boys. Heck, even girls took a backseat to baseball. So I’ve never known courage of the kind where your very identity could put you in danger. If I could go back to the womb, perhaps I could plan better. Unfortunately, that is just the reality of my childhood. Hence, being that kind of brave can never be an option for me. But there are other kinds of brave. We lived in a shack in the woods with no electricity, no running water, no bathroom, no heat, and no insulation. Not even interior walls in the bedrooms. We shared the little shack with many pets—gray, furry, with big teeth and long pink tails. Wild animals crawled into our house and under my covers at times. My dad’s temper exploded into violent episodes dozens of times each day. I was seven years old the first time I stepped between him and Mom. It wasn’t to be a hero; I just thought it normal since Mom had done this for me many times. Anytime I could deflect Dad’s wrath from my mom or sisters, I would. (READ MORE: CRT and the Threat to the American Family) Growing up on a small farm in a small rural area meant I had no concept of the real world. Most things in life perplexed me. But I’ve never thought to question my identity or gender. Hence, what the publishing world sees as real bravery has eluded me. I had to raise hogs beginning at age eleven, and not the cute little family-friendly pigs that dominate Tik Tok today. Most of ours would kill you if given the chance. I had to learn how to castrate, ring noses, and for one huge 400-pound sow who was extremely dangerous, I had to reach inside her to retrieve her piglets when she was having trouble with delivery. But I’ve never done drugs. Before Nancy Reagan told me to, I always said, “No.” To this day, I’ve never done illegal drugs and rarely done legal ones. I just didn’t realize I was cheating myself out of the opportunity to overcome addiction and be a hero to others while aiding my future writing career. (READ MORE: Edmund Morris, Nancy Reagan, and Life) Either through fate or choice, I have faced none of the disadvantages that are so advantageous in the publishing industry today. None of the things I experienced are defined as heroics in the modern literary world. And that’s okay. I never wanted to be a hero. I never claimed to be a hero. But I also didn’t plan to be such a straight, white Okie from Muskogee that it made being the right kind of courageous impossible and deemed my words irrelevant. I guess we all look back over our lives and question many of our decisions. But when a new memoir comes out from one of these “brave” writers, and the numerous editorial reviews harp on that bravery, it is especially depressing to realize how wrong I did everything without even trying. It reminds me of the scene from Cheers where Dick Cavett, playing himself, explained to Sam Malone that his biography about overcoming alcoholism and being a womanizer wasn’t enough anymore. He added that publishers today were looking for drugs and homosexuality. (Note: this was 1983.) Sam’s response sums up my entire life. “Sorry I didn’t get out more.” Neal Wooten is a widely published author. His memoir With the Devil’s Help:With the Devil’s Help: A True Story of Poverty, Mental Illness, and Murder (Pegasus Crime/Simon and Schuster) is being made into a ten-part scripted miniseries. The post I Wish I Could Be Brave appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Over five years ago, I reported on the socialist agenda of the climate change alarmists and the essentially socialistic character of what was then called “the Green New Deal.” The GND presented an elaborate, ultra-expensive mega-agenda to radically transform society by retooling the national economy in accord with a central plan concocted by a self-anointed elite. It’s time to join the fight against the heavy, oppressive hand of Big Government, folks. While the phrase “green new deal” has receded into the background, the current administration if rushing full-speed ahead to implement its top-down central plan to transform our society, using the false scare of climate change as its pretext. Trillions of federal dollars are being channeled into replacing our existing system of generating and transmitting electricity. Federal regulations are being promulgated to force Americans to replace everything from stoves to refrigerators to water heaters to dishwashers to heating and cooling units, etc. Other regulatory decrees are designed to replace vehicles powered by internal combustion engines with battery-powered electric vehicles. (READ MORE from Mark Hendrickson: The US Is No Longer a Trustworthy Ally) The leftwing character of this socialistic agenda keeps resurfacing in multifarious anecdotes. One of the more extreme examples: It has recently come to light that some of the trillion-plus dollars appropriated for the climate agenda under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act has been given to a group called “Climate Justice Alliance.” In the name of “climate justice” (a dangerously open-ended buzzword phrase if there ever was one) this group believes that Palestine is a climate justice issue. It fulminates against  familiar leftwing bogeymen such as “colonialism” and “imperialism” as well as some newer buzzwords like “extractivism” (you know — the process of taking things out of the Earth that people can use, like food and energy). One of their slogans makes their ties with orthodox socialist ideology super clear: “Only Socialist Revolution Can Stop World War III.” Huh? What does that have to do with climate change? In doing some research, I came across an article from three years ago that typifies the socialist bias of the climate change movement. The author engaged in an ad hominem attack against Mark Mills. Mills is a physicist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of the practical problems of actually implementing the GND. He has tabulated the dauntingly vast quantities of various minerals that will have to be extracted (sorry, you anti-“extractivists”) in order to produce wind and solar energy on the scale dreamed of by their advocates. Mills’ work is based on numbers, not ideology, so what is his critic’s problem with him? He advises his readers not to pay heed to Mills’ writings because “Mills is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank.” Not only that, Mills once gave a talk sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Ah, guilt by association. Earlier this year, an organization named Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) expressed alarm about a growing number of videos on YouTube that counter climate alarmism. CCDH wants to censor such videos. They want Americans to stay alarmed and to support the radical transformation of society that climate change alarmists advocate. Of particular concern to CCDH and others in the alarmist camp are three categories of what they call “new denial.” As reported by Bloomberg, these three anti-alarmist categories are “(1) The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless. (2) Climate solutions won’t work. (3) Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.” Apart from the weirdness (and danger) of classifying opinions that don’t conform to climate alarmism as a form of “digital hate,” anyone who has been following the issue closely can see that the growing doubts and concerns about the alarmist agenda are all eminently reasonable. For the CCDH to suggest that the massive greening of the planet in recent decades due to CO2 enrichment is anything other than beneficial is ridiculous. To denounce the modest global warming of the last 150 years that has lengthened agricultural growing seasons and boosted food production sufficient to sustain eight billion human lives seems cruelly misanthropic. To point out the inefficiencies, relative unreliability, and enormous negative environmental impacts of mass producing intermittent energy sources (primarily solar and wind) is not only not hateful disinformation, but highly responsible. To assert that climate “science” and the political movement that it spawned — so heavily politicized that its cost/benefit analyses omit benefits — is unreliable is actually an understatement. (READ MORE: Without the Never-Trump Vote, Trump Can’t Win) The Bloomberg article cited above is representative of the mainstream press’s pro-alarmist bias. Such articles are more effective because the bias is more subtle — no trumpeting socialist revolution or implying that people who favor free markets are troglodytes. The Bloomberg headline states: “Attacks on Renewable Energy Are Proliferating on YouTube,” and the first paragraph warns against videos “attacking” alleged climate change solutions like wind and solar. Question: Are there no “attacks” against fossil fuels? Of course there are! “Attack” is an emotive word. The alarmists believe that they are advocating right policies, which entitles them to argue in the most forceful terms why we, the people, should stop using fossil fuels. In other words, they are “attacking” the use of fossil fuels, but they claim they are simply presenting facts. Then they turn around and whine when knowledgeable skeptics challenge their conclusions, labeling such arguments as “attacks,” as if they are somehow nefarious. The word “attack” implies that the person advancing that point of view is an aggressor, an evil actor. But on the issue of climate change, it is the alarmists who are the aggressors. They are attacking American’s lifestyles. They favor elitist central planning over the consumer sovereignty that free people benefit from. What we have playing out in the climate change arena is yet another would-be leftist revolution. The alarmists are pushing an elitist, centrally planned, top-down scheme for transforming our entire society. We skeptics are the counter-revolutionaries, striving to preserve our rights, our freedoms, and our prosperity. It makes me think of the Nicaraguan struggle in the 1980s between the Marxist revolutionaries and the contras (the counter-revolutionaries — the freedom fighters — that President Reagan supported). If the Gipper were here today, he would be leading the American contras in our resistance to the socialist tyranny that the left is striving to impose upon us. It’s time to join the fight against the heavy, oppressive hand of Big Government, folks. Join the fight for freedom. If you aren’t one already, become a climate contra. The post Climate Change Socialism on the Attack appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Former Liberal Australian Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull has taken to the pages of Foreign Affairs to warn America and the world about dealing with a possible second Trump presidency. Turnbull, who has made appearances on Trump-deranged MSNBC where he described Trump as a dictator-wannabee and an admirer of Vladimir Putin and other dictators, and who the BBC described as “cosmopolitan and progressive,” was Australia’s Prime Minister between 2015 and 2018. His essay is full of psychobabble about Trump being a “gaslighter,” a “bully” and “convinced of his own genius,” a leader who wants to be surrounded by “sycophants.” Trump, if he wins in November 2024, Turnbull writes, will “feel as invincible in his triumph as a Roman emperor, but he won’t have a slave by his side whispering, ‘Remember, you are mortal.’” Turnbull advises America’s allies to “stand up to the bullying” should Trump return to the White House. Turnbull was Australia’s Communications Minister … who critics described as “Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister.” Turnbull as Prime Minister called Communist China a “frenemy,” and in his memoir he calls China a “bully.” Back in 2011, Turnbull told an audience at the London School of Economics that China’s economic growth was nothing to worry about, and didn’t mean that it would also become a military threat. In the speech, he showed a fondness for quoting New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (who is nearly always wrong about China) and Barack Obama, both of whom welcomed China’s “peaceful” rise. “[I]t is important to note,” Turnbull said, “that China’s growth in power, both economic and military, has not been matched by any expansionist tendencies beyond reuniting Taiwan.” China’s approach toward trade, he remarked, “also argues for its rise to remain peaceful.” Nor was there any need to worry about China’s naval power. “Suggestions that China’s recent launch of one aircraft carrier and plans to build another are signs of a new belligerence are wide of the mark,” Turnbull said. “This is no time for another ‘long telegram’ or suggestions of containment,” Turnbull said. “China, unlike the Soviet Union, does not seek to export its ideology or system of government to other countries.” Perhaps Turnbull should consult the people of Tibet or Hong Kong or Taiwan about that. China experts like Matthew Pottinger and Elbridge Colby, both of whom served in the Trump administration, know that while China may be more patient than Soviet leaders were, they are every bit as expansionist as their communist predecessors were in Russia. The Belt and Road Initiative, for example, involves China using its economic power and leverage to expand its geopolitical reach across Eurasia, into Africa, and even as far as Latin America. Turnbull criticized Americans and Australians who recommended basing long-term strategic policy on a potential clash with China. He rejected the notion that Australia should base its defense planning and procurement on a possible naval war against China in the South China Sea. He welcomed China’s economic rise as being responsible for Australia’s prosperity. Even Turnbull had to admit in a 2017 speech in Singapore how wrong he had been to be so complacent about China. And he acknowledged in that speech that President Trump was right to expect Australia and other allies to pay more for their own defense. Before becoming Prime Minister, Turnbull was Australia’s Communications Minister, where he earned the moniker the “Duke of Double Bay” and who critics described as “Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister” who engaged in an “audacious bid to end Tony Abbott’s political career and seize the Prime Ministership which he had desperately coveted for many years.” According to Turnbull in his Foreign Affairs piece, he stood up to Trump the “bully” several times, and persuaded Trump to see things his (Turnbull’s) way and, therefore, won Trump’s respect. Why, one wonders, would Turnbull seek the respect of Trump “the bully” or Trump “the dictator?” And while Turnbull calls Trump “erratic,” some of Turnbull’s domestic critics called Turnbull “incoherent and inconsistent,” said his China policy was “absolutely all over the place,” and accused Turnbull of being “soft” on China. Is Malcom Turnbull really someone who other world leaders should take advice from about Donald Trump or anything else? The Trump administration, as Josh Rogin explained in Chaos Under Heaven, shifted U.S. foreign policy in a confrontational direction toward China, adopting a whole of government approach to dealing with the global threat posed by Communist China. Instead of being “erratic” and “all over the place” like Turnbull, the Trump administration actually pivoted to the Indo-Pacific, much to the benefit of our friends down under. Perhaps a little gratitude is in order from Australia’s former leader. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Neocons Slander the American Right A Short History of Democratic Party Lawfare The Virginia Battles That Decided the Civil War The post Spare Us the Advice From Down Under appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Once again the estimable Joseph Epstein hits it out of the park on how addictive and dispiriting watching and reading the news has become these days. I feel his pain. It’s sort of like road kill, isn’t it? You know you shouldn’t look, but you find yourself doing so against better judgment. We need to keep up with the continuing catastrophe our culture and politics have become. But it can be soul-crushing. I never saw anything remotely like what went on in Juan Merchan’s courtroom. For my Exhibit A, I would guess most savvy TAS readers had as much difficulty as I did keeping our eyes off the recent show trial in Manhattan, a kind of judicial road kill conducted on the same rules of engagement that applied in the Queen of Hearts’ court. The charges, of course, were complete balloon juice. But I said all along that all Fat Alvin had to establish to secure a conviction with a Manhattan jury was that the defendant’s name is Donald Trump. I don’t think even Horace Rumpole could have gotten the Donald off on a charge of spying on the Eskimos before this lot. My sources tell me the International Association of Kangaroos is suing Big Al and Juan Merchan for plagiarism and cultural appropriation. For a couple of years in my newspaper reporting days, when the world and I were young, I covered the courts in a large judicial district in Central Florida. During that time I was present in court, wire to wire, for about three dozen criminal trials, where I saw and heard everything the jury saw and heard, and observed how the judge conducted the proceedings. I never saw anything remotely like what went on in Juan Merchan’s courtroom. Manhattan “sophisticates” might consider Bartow or Lakeland Florida to be Dog Patch (they aren’t). But any case brought by a prosecutor there that depended on the testimony of a an opportunistic porn star, a publisher of tabloid newspapers whose last name would have gotten one arrested for repeating over the air 30 years ago, and a convicted and disbarred perjurer, would have been thrown out of court on first reading. Any judge who attempted to abuse court time with such would have become a figure of fun, and, on the occasion of the next election, a former judge. With any luck Mr. Epstein’s new TV will also throw a rod, and he’ll enjoy a few more days of peace. May I suggest a cable package that includes movies and sports channels only for those weary of the carnage and totally at sea on what to do about it. And if the kind of political knee-capping that took place in Judge Merchan’s courtroom becomes standard practice, it’s America that will become road kill, just another squalid, one-party dictatorship in a world full of them. READ MORE from Larry Thornberry: Manhattan Is on Trial Yakima Canutt: The Little-Known but Great American Stuntman Too Much of a Good Thing — Head Butting in August? The post The News Is Necessary, but Soul-Crushing appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

If it feels like you’ve seen a lot of advertisements lately soliciting victims of Camp Lejeune’s tainted water, it’s because you have. One of the people who proved to be most helpful in getting the Pact Act passed was then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In 2022, a provision was added to the “Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act” (PACT Act). It created a $6 billion fund to compensate up to 500,000 former Marines and family members who may have been exposed to contaminated water while stationed at Camp Lejeune from the 1950s through the 1980s. The new law held the promise of justice for Lajeune victims — and also the promise of a boon for the lawyers who signed them up. What has since been referred to as a “Wild West” of legal advertisement was unleashed: $145 million has been spent by law firms and their touts — known in the profession as “lead generators” — since 2022. That’s more than double what was spent on any mass tort advertising campaign before. This new gold rush didn’t happen by accident. A new report from the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) reveals the people behind the coordinated plan to use Camp Lejeune victims to build what amounts to a new business model for personal injury attorneys. The “Wild West” is really the beginning of an entirely new taxpayer-funded liability landscape, the report shows. (READ MORE: Federal Spending: Where Are D.C.’s Fiscal Watchdogs?) While news coverage of the PACT Act rightfully focused on compensating victims of U.S. government negligence, GAI’s new report details how trial lawyers lobbied lawmakers to add — or rather, forget to add — the usual caps on legal fees. The law allows them to receive uncapped fees on settlements from the government directly. This lets them bypass the court system, and the associated costs for the attorneys. Situated amid the injured veterans and their families at the August 11, 2022 bill signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House was a South Carolina personal injury attorney named J. Edward Bell, III. Ed Bell’s involvement in Camp Lejeune litigation began back in 2008, and he has had an enormous influence on subsequent legal challenges concerning Camp Lejeune’s water contamination issues.  Bell’s aggressive awareness campaigns, culminating in alliances with key political figures, showcased his dedication to bringing the Camp Lejeune issue to the front of public consciousness. Bell’s presence at the bill signing, the report details, underscored his singular involvement. “We were told by the Department of Navy and others, in order to prevail and in order to have at least a chance of going to court, we have to change the laws,” said Bell at the bill signing ceremony. “So, we wrote the bill.” Mr. Bell seems poised to collect handsome royalties for his work as an author. One of the key lobbying battles, in which Mr. Bell and his plaintiffs bar colleagues ultimately prevailed, was over the fight to remove caps on the fees attorneys involved in the litigation might collect. An earlier version of the legislation featured a 25 percent fee cap, and subsequent efforts since the bill’s passing have called for caps to be implemented at anywhere from 17 to 33 percent of what is awarded to a successful claimant. But the law, as it stands, features no caps on the fees lawyers like Mr. Bell can collect. That’s how he wanted it. And, as he admitted, others helped him do it. One of the people who proved to be most helpful in getting the Pact Act passed was then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). “The secret sauce in the House was Nancy Pelosi,” Ed Bell said at the signing of the bill. “She took this up individually and walked this through the House.” (READ MORE: Nancy Pelosi’s Other Legacy: A Mountain of Debt for Our Children) Pelosi’s bill walking efforts coincided with Bell’s hiring of her former chief of staff, Danny Weiss, to lobby on the PACT Act’s passage. Weiss registered as a lobbyist for Cormac Group (a lobbying firm representing Bell Legal Group) on October 13, 2021, just before North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Senate version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act on November 4. Unlike the House’s version of the bill, Senator Tillis’s bill omitted attorney fee caps, benefiting Weiss’s clients. Lobbying records show Weiss lobbying on behalf of Bell’s clients for veterans’ affairs and mass tort litigation issues involving the Camp Lejeune Justice Act during the next three months. In all, Weiss was paid more than $700,000 by the Bell Group for his efforts. Apparently, he was worth it. On March 2, 2022, Pelosi issued a public statement championing the inclusion of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act in the PACT Act, which would ultimately go on to pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Joe Biden five months later. It was a victory for all parties. After decades of coverup and rejection, Camp Lejeune victims could finally get compensation for their health issues. But the biggest winners may prove to be lawyers like Ed Bell, who now get to exploit this lawsuit settlement “express lane” they lobbied to create. Don’t expect to see fewer advertisements on TV seeking Camp Lejeune victims anytime soon. Some experts, according to Bloomberg, say the $145 million spent on advertising so far may double again. Hedge funds and litigation finance companies are treating the ad buys as investments, “with hopes of significant returns based on how well the lawsuits perform.” The Wild West is now financed by Wall Street, with lawyers driving the wagon trains, and taxpayers picking up the tab. The post The Camp Lejeune Justice Act’s Uncapped Fees appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Many Americans are understandably fixated on the global crises dominating the headlines. But as we continue to focus on conflicts like Israel’s war against Hamas, we must not neglect a critical region in the quest for global stability and prosperity: North Africa. Most importantly, policymakers in the U.S. must accept that the contest for influence in North Africa is part of a wider strategic competition. The Maghreb — encompassing Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya — sits at a strategic crossroads between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Its vast energy resources, including Libya’s oil reserves and Algeria’s immense natural gas deposits, make it a vital supplier to global markets. The region’s proximity to key shipping lanes in the Mediterranean and its growing economic potential underscore its importance to American interests. (READ MORE from Paul Packer: Silence That Can Kill: Where Are the Black Friends Jews Need?) But with Washington’s eyes elsewhere, our adversaries have been steadily establishing influence in the region. Russia’s military involvement in North Africa ranges from being deeply embedded in Libya to supplying the majority of Algeria’s arms imports. China has dramatically expanded its economic engagement, emerging as the top trade partner for countries such as Algeria and a major investor in sectors from infrastructure to automobiles across the Maghreb. The United States cannot afford to cede this ground. We need a more active, supportive role in North Africa — one that bolsters our geopolitical standing, supports economic development, and safeguards the region from the predations of rival powers. Morocco provides a prime example. The Kingdom, which has been led by the same family for nearly four centuries, has a storied history of friendship with the U.S., dating back to 1777, when Morocco became the first nation to recognize American independence. America and Morocco also have a close security partnership. In recent years, Morocco has sought to leverage its position bridging Europe and Africa to attract diverse international investment and emerge as an economic gateway to the continent. But Morocco’s significance extends beyond just economics or security. The nation’s decision to normalize relations with Israel in late 2020 was a diplomatic breakthrough, one that promises to reshape regional dynamics. By recognizing Israel and opening the door to greater economic and people-to-people ties, Morocco has helped to further isolate extremist voices and create new space for moderation and pragmatism to take root. However, the durability of this breakthrough is not guaranteed. The United States must continue to nurture and strengthen the Morocco-Israel relationship, both to capitalize on the strategic benefits for American interests and to bolster the forces of stability and cooperation in a volatile region. Morocco also demonstrates the competitive playing field. China has rapidly expanded its economic footprint in the country, with major investments in sectors like infrastructure, agriculture, and technology. Russia has also sought, with less success, to make diplomatic inroads and exploit divisions over the Western Sahara dispute, a conflict between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front over the sovereignty of the resource-rich territory. The United States can’t take its relationship with Morocco, or any of our North African partners, for granted. We need a positive agenda that plays to American strengths and shared interests with the region. For starters, that means helping North African states guard against predatory investment that leaves them beholden to foreign powers. Through vehicles like the new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, America can mobilize private capital for high-quality infrastructure and offer an alternative to China’s often-onerous deals. The U.S. should work with North African governments to promote economic reforms, competitiveness, and diversification to create jobs and opportunities, particularly for the region’s youth. We should incentivize American companies to seek opportunities in the region while holding firm to values like transparency and local employment. On security, the U.S. should expand programs to build local capacity to address challenges like terrorism, smuggling, and uncontrolled migration that reverberate well beyond the region, while steering clear of military entanglements. We should also use our diplomatic heft to push for political stability and dialogue within and between Maghreb countries. (READ MORE: I Was There on October 7) Crucially, American engagement should capitalize on our edge in soft power, from English-language training to entrepreneurship coaching to university ties. Such links are an unparalleled asset in the competition for moral allegiance. Most importantly, policymakers in the U.S. must accept that the contest for influence in North Africa is part of a wider strategic competition. As Moscow and Beijing flood the zone with economic enticements and geopolitical chess moves, Washington cannot simply hope for the best. We need to match their overtures with an affirmative vision that places partnership with the region at the center. With focused, consistent engagement, the United States can help the Maghreb choose a path of openness, stability and mutual prosperity, and cement the region’s westward orientation for generations to come. The region may not always dominate the headlines, but America’s commitment today can secure our position in this important corner of the world — and send a message about our standing globally. The post Why the US Must Renew Its Commitment to North Africa appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.