The Harris campaign represented progressive governance in microcosm. Take the million dollars it spent on Oprah Winfrey’s production company to stage a town hall–style event. Democrats pried $15, $25, and $50 donations from the Social Security checks of seniors frightened into believing Adolf Hitler soon resurrected in the likeness of the former owner of the New Jersey Generals so that they could make one of the wealthiest women in America wealthier. The money left the payers poorer and Stedman with a broader smile upon his face. The lesson? Outcomes rarely match intentions. The government programs they push inevitably end up working out this way, too. Take aid to higher education. The more the government gives in student aid, the more colleges and universities can charge. The more the market can bear, the more schools charge, the more schools charge, the greater the demand for aid, and so on. Subsidies to healthcare unleash similar, unhealthy results. Failure justifies greater government funding. The YouTube ads from Harris peddled desperation — unspeakable outcomes — lest you tithe to them. Many did. None feel gratified by the result. And poor results this go-around do not weaken but perversely strengthen the arguments for giving more next time. The lesson? The greater the failure a liberal scheme, the greater the demand for money to make it work. Despite spending more than any political campaign in any country in history, the Democrats failed to reach their objective. They lost. In terms of the Electoral College, which, given that it and not the popular vote elects presidents, Donald Trump won comfortably. Yet, the Harris campaign spent more than double what the Trump campaign spent. Cash, whether in politics or public policy, does not solve problems. This does not necessarily mean, as the Notorious B.I.G. postulated, “mo money, mo problems.” It does mean welfare money cannot replace a father, high per-pupil expenditures rarely correlates with high test scores, the bigger the government the bigger the corruption — and a campaign drowning in money might simply mean wealthier consultants. The lesson? Throwing money at a problem never on its own solves it. Despite raising and spending more than $1 billion, and well-wisher auxiliary groups additionally raising and spending more than half that on Harris’s behalf, the campaign reportedly still solicits donations in the hopes of erasing a $20 million debt. Yes, team blue ended up in the red. Leftists love other people’s money, and never spend it as responsibly — whether it comes from compulsory taxation or a voluntary contribution — as they do when faced with the dilemma of whether to reach into their wallet to tip the hotel maid (spoiler alert: they don’t). The same Democrats who blew billions of dollars on failed campaigns that flipped the Senate, kept the House in Republican hands, and reelected, after four years in the wilderness, Donald Trump, wanted authority over trillions in tax dollars. Does anyone wonder why our national debt approaches $35 trillion given the way politicos steward donations? The lesson? Do not entrust money to incontinent people who use Oliver Twist’s plaintive plea — “I want some more” — as a permanent demand. Democrats told Americans that if they did not vote for them, democracy would end, that the Republican nominee resembled Hitler, that racism and misogyny motivated Republicans, and that only their victory stood in the way of a fascist America. These same hate-filled scare tactics pass for an argument when trying to coax votes from the other side on legislation. The name-calling explains both the poor performance at the polls and the failure to win over votes on bills from the people described as championing a neo-Jim Crow and embracing fascism. The lesson? Whether looking for votes on Election Day or on a Capitol roll-call vote, honey works as a more effective enticement than a nail-studded Louisville Slugger. The way Democrats campaigned foreshadowed how they would govern. Americans seeing how they campaigned determined how they would vote. READ MORE: $1 Billion Raised, $20 Million in Debt, $1 Million for Oprah’s Endorsement Reclaiming Education for Boys The post Five Frightening Ways Democrats Campaigned as They Govern appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In the wake of the 2020 election, my friends who are Trump voters were distraught. These folks range from early Gen X to early-to-mid Boomers. Worried that the world was ending, they decided to ask me, their “professional” political friend, what they could do. My advice was twofold: First, turn off the TV. The 24/7 news stations have one purpose — to wind up and propagandize people. Turn it off. The second piece of advice: Y’all are retired. Start running for local political office or make the trek to Austin and lobby for your positions. You have time and money. Do something! Oh, and for good measure, I recommended going back to church. Setting one’s sights above tends to help the below make more sense. It doesn’t work the other way around. Many of these folks did turn off the TV and reclaim their sanity. They switched to long-form podcasts. They became more informed and less hysterical. Now. In this election, one group of voters surprised everyone: Boomers. Aren’t people supposed to get more conservative as they age? Not this group. I have a couple theories as to why this might be. Before the election, I warned about two groups of people who are less conservative than they should be and could cost Trump the election. One was white millennial men. The other was Boomer women. It’s the Boomers who capture my curiosity. Why would they vote more liberal than Gen X — the only cohort that voted in the majority for Trump? My theory is that Boomers, when not sitting on their piles of money made in the stock market, watch cable news shows constantly. They’re the only group that still consistently does this, and they’re the only group brainwashed ideologically based on the stations they watch. No matter whether they are FOX, CNN, or MSNBC addicts, they’re radical, balls of impotent rage sitting in recliners with computers on their laps, sending missives to their friends and family. How many gray-haired ladies have you seen screaming at the store or on the street corner? I just saw one such video where a liberal, silver-haired crazy got into the face of a young black woman for voting for Trump. “Don’t you know they’re racist?!” She was arrested for pushing the Trump voter in the face. “You can’t put your hands on someone,” the female cop can be heard saying off-camera. What the hell? What is wrong with people? Propaganda. This lady likely counts Rachel Maddow as a friend. People who watched CNN and MSNBC constantly and then The View in the mornings heard daily diatribes against Nazis (key words for Boomers who grew up with WWII veterans for parents) and heard nothing of Kamala Harris’ ignominious rise to power or Joe Biden’s mental decline. They never heard about topics radicalizing other generations like transgendering children or the DEI madness in corporations and on college campuses. Boomers missed out on so many of these phenomenon. They can pretend that elementary students aren’t being fed porn books. They can ignore the problem of boys in girls’ locker rooms or boys taking the place of girls winning in sports. They don’t know about Drag Queen Story Hour, and if they hear about it, they believe that it’s an exaggerated thing. They’re retired and so avoided the DEI madness. They didn’t have the threat of speech codes and the race training programs consuming corporate HR departments. Their wealth and paid-for homes insulate them from the problems of inflation and illegal immigration. They’re living in protected enclaves. All of the problems Trump elucidated are overstated, you see. Where is the compassion? Meanwhile, they are fed a stream of lies portraying their fellow men as villains. Right-wing “extremism” is believable for the “give peace a chance” generation. They voted Democrat because they were lovers. They wore daisies in their hair and bell bottoms on their legs. They were “beneficiaries” of abortion and The Pill and no-fault divorce. They hung their identity on social change and Jane Fonda’s fist and flower power. They believe their political enemies are racist, sexist homophobes. Some believed that to be feminist meant never having children, and so they didn’t. Meanwhile, they’re the enlightened, tolerant, good ones. The world has changed around them, but they consume media that confirm beliefs that are 50 years old. My mom has neighbors who sit in their recliners watching MSNBC all day and couldn’t believe that Kamala lost. At the mailbox during a bland conversation, they professed to having never heard how Kamala Harris came to power. They knew nothing of Willie Brown. They claimed ignorance of all sorts of issues. How could this be? Well, they probably never have heard these stories. Ronald Reagan said this of liberals two generations ago, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” That truism is as accurate today as it was when Reagan said it. The media’s hold on the Boomer generation has them knowing so much that isn’t so. Let’s hope that the destruction of the media in the wake of this election brings a crack of light into the minds of these folks. Maybe then they can see. Or maybe the more than half of this generation that voted for Democrat insanity will go to the grave thinking thoughts that just aren’t so. MORE from Melissa Mackenzie: About Tolerance The Spectacle Ep. 164: Trump Wins, But the Fight Continues Donald Trump Wins! The post The Kids Are Alright, It’s the Boomers Who Are Bananas appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On most political issues during her presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris ran on “vibes” of centrism rather than concrete policies. But on abortion, there was no mistaking where Harris stood. Here, she was energized and unequivocal. She was on a one-woman mission to give all women easy access to abortion at all stages of pregnancy. The clarity with which Harris laid out her platform on abortion — unlike her ambiguity on other issues — accentuated the extent to which abortion was the central issue of her campaign. Giving women the ability to abort their children was the purpose of her candidacy. Harris’ resounding loss throws into question the wisdom of such a focus. Voters, exit polls tell us, cared much more about the economy than abortion, suggesting that Democrats would do well to emphasize pocketbook issues to a greater extent. But the rejection also raises the possibility that the promotion of unchecked abortion is, at some level, distasteful to a majority of Americans. After all, Kamala staked her entire campaign on abortion — creating the dichotomy that a vote for her was a vote for abortion “freedom” while a vote for Trump was a vote for abortion bans — and she was soundly rejected. The Harris campaign had believed that the issue of abortion would incite Republicans and independent voters, particularly women, in purple and red states to vote for her. The campaign framed abortion as an issue of freedom, and portrayed laws that banned abortions or limited them as authoritarian. The use of “freedom” to refer to the unrestricted ability to kill one’s unborn child was omnipresent in the campaign. On her campaign website, for instance, Harris said: “In this election, many fundamental freedoms are at stake: the freedom to make your own decisions about your own body without government interference.” Harris was so all-in on abortion that she held several rallies that were wholly dedicated to it, including her rally with Beyoncé, who said she was endorsing Harris in order to ensure that her children would be able to abort her grandchildren. (“I’m here as a mother. A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in. A world where we have the freedom to control our bodies.”) Harris drove around in a bus emblazoned with the phrase “Fighting for Reproductive Freedom” and repeatedly warned women that Trump would undermine their ability to abort their children. At the rally with Beyoncé, for instance, she said, “If you think you are protected from Trump abortion bans because you live in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New York, California, or any state where voters or legislators have protected reproductive freedom, please know: No one is protected.” It was for abortion that Harris was willing to abandon her “pivot to the center,” as she voiced support for ending the filibuster in the Senate in order to pass a federal law requiring abortions to be performed nationwide. This all-encompassing focus on abortion led Harris surrogates and supporters to frame the election as a moral choice: Either you were freeing women to live exactly how they wanted, unburdened by the children they unintentionally conceived — or you were forcing women to give birth to children they didn’t love. It was Michelle Obama who brought this into the starkest focus. At an October rally in Kalamazoo, Michigan, she said: “To anyone out there thinking about sitting out this election or voting for Donald Trump or a third-party candidate in protest because you’re fed up, let me warn you: Your rage does not exist in a vacuum. If we don’t get this election right … we as women will become collateral damage to your rage.” She even begged the men in the audience to view women as more than “baby-making vessels.” There were certainly many who responded to this framing by happily stating that they were supporting Harris because they wanted themselves and their family members to be free to kill their unborn children. One such voter was Jason Faasse, a Michigan father of three girls. Faasee explained to CNN that he voted for Harris because he wanted his daughters to be able to abort any of his grandchildren that they didn’t want. “I have three daughters — four children overall. And women’s rights are pretty important to them,” he said. “But just their bodies, their choice, that type of mentality.” A similar explanation for voting for Harris was also provided by Virginians Andrea and Steve Chottiner in an interview with CNN. Andrea said, while holding one of the couple’s two daughters, that she voted for Harris so that her children would be free to abort her grandchildren: “The top issue for me was the right to choose, abortion rights, women’s healthcare. We have two little girls, and we want to make sure they have rights and freedoms and safety.” Her husband, holding their other daughter, echoed his wife, saying, “Well we’ve got two girls here and I want to make sure their rights are taken care of and, you know, they don’t have to worry about anything.” A Wisconsin voter, Maddie Stoelinga, also told CNN that the abortion message at a recent Kamala Harris rally had left her “feeling inspired to protect women’s rights and my own body.” And yet, a majority of Americans rejected this grotesque perspective. Even if they had voted for Trump based on his promise to not limit abortion access, they still had not embraced Harris’ message that the freedom to kill their unborn children should be the top priority. That is a sign that there is at least some recognition by a broad swath of the country of the ugliness and evil of abortion. It also gives Republicans an opportunity: to call out those who would refound America on the freedom to kill their children, and to work against them under the banner of combatting their ugly hatred. The post Did Kamala’s Abortion Obsession Alienate Americans? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The 2024 presidential election results speak to the growing irrelevance of the legacy mainstream media that carried on a campaign against Donald Trump, unprecedented in its scope and mendacity. More than half of American voters showed that they do not care what they see and hear on the “news” programs of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or PBS. And they don’t believe what they read in (or simply don’t read) the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (except their editorial page), Time, and other liberal big city newspapers and magazines. Trump’s overwhelming electoral victory should spell the end of this most recent era of “Yellow Journalism,” but it probably won’t. It is not just the leftist ideological stance of the mainstream or legacy media that has done them in. It is their insufferable arrogance, their demeaning approach to average Americans who didn’t attend the “right” schools or who hold the “wrong” positions on issues, and their obnoxious superiority complex which allows them — indeed, demands of them — to categorize their social inferiors as “dangerous,” “uneducated,” and “fascist.” Before Trump, Republicans were afraid to tussle with the mainstream media. Trump called them “fake news” and “enemies of the people,” and in the 2024 election, the people as represented by the voters have spoken. They believe Trump, not his media antagonists. This same legacy media once had the field of “news” all to themselves. They used it, for example, to help remove President Richard Nixon from office despite his 49-state electoral victory in 1972. The late, great British historian Paul Johnson rightly characterized Watergate as a “media putsch,” which was possible then because alternative news media did not yet exist. Had alternative media existed in 1973-1974, and been able to uncover some of the things that Jim Hougan, Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin, and most especially Geoff Shepard later uncovered, it is doubtful that Nixon would have resigned. Today, the legacy media have to compete with Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon’s War Room, Charlie Kirk, the Free Press (where some of the legacy media’s former employees fled after exposing legacy media bias), Newsmax, Real America’s Voice, the Washington Times, Breitbart, Substack, Elon Musk’s X, Fox News, The American Spectator, and many other sources of information. The first hints at the growing irrelevance of the legacy media occurred during the 2004 presidential campaign when CBS’s Dan Rather and 60 Minutes aired a report using fake documents to prove that George W. Bush received preferential treatment to avoid serving in Vietnam. Shortly after the report aired, alternative media sites raised questions about the authenticity of the documents. CBS stood by its story — which obviously helped the campaign of Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. Had there been no alternative media, the story would have been believed and could have turned the election in Kerry’s favor. But the alternative media sites were right. The documents were fake. CBS later had to admit their error. Rather and others connected to the program were fired or “resigned.” Bush narrowly defeated Kerry. The legacy media’s credibility took another hit. Donald Trump’s entry into the political arena in 2015 and his surprising success in the 2016 presidential election shook the legacy media to its core. The media putsch of Watergate was nothing compared to what happened after the 2016 election of Trump. All pretenses of objectivity disappeared at mainstream media companies. With little “fact-checking,” the legacy media ran with the false stories of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia. The mainstream media parroted and egged on congressional and other investigations into alleged wrongdoing by Trump. After all, he had called the legacy media “fake news.” At virtually every campaign event, and later as president, Trump lashed out at media bias against him. He told the American people that they shouldn’t believe what the legacy media told them. For four years, the mainstream media provided negative portrayals of Trump. And in 2020, it looked as if they had succeeded in removing Trump from electoral success. But Trump refused to go away. He alleged that the 2020 election had been stolen from him by voting rule changes and irregularities in key swing state elections. The legacy media and others branded Trump and his supporters as “election deniers.” The legacy media blamed Trump for the events of Jan. 6 — despite the fact that he had urged House Speaker Pelosi to guard the Capitol with National Guard troops and told his supporters to act peacefully that day. Then the legacy media gleefully reported on the various Trump indictments and legal problems. But still, Trump refused to go away. The anti-Trump legacy media then acted as a screen and cover for an obviously mentally declining Democratic president during the 2024 campaign until Biden’s debate performance against Trump rendered that impossible. So the mainstream media shifted gears and tried to persuade the American people that Kamala Harris was presidential timber — even though she had not received a single vote for the nomination and had previously been viewed as a political lightweight. But the legacy media’s main contribution to the 2024 political campaign was to portray Trump as “dangerous” to democracy. This became the Democrats’ main campaign issue even after two assassination attempts on Trump, and the legacy media joined in the fun. When Trump decisively won the 2024 election — winning every swing state and the popular vote — the legacy media’s disappointment could be seen on their anchors’ faces as swing state after swing state was called for Trump. It was like 2016 all over again — MSNBC and CNN’s election coverage was reduced to a funeral-like atmosphere. All of their negative coverage of Trump meant nothing. A majority of American voters confirmed the mainstream media’s irrelevance. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: The Press Barons Feign Impartiality. No One Believes It. Trump’s Well-Chosen Promises The Garbage Election Bob Woodward’s War on Trump The post The Growing Irrelevance of the Mainstream Media appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Many news stories that once seemed important have been drowned out by the Trump election tsunami. Looming large among these is the story of the Federal Emergency Management Agency supervisor who directed her personnel to bypass the homes of hurricane victims that displayed “Trump for President” yard signs. The FEMA staffer in question has been fired — good riddance — and the FEMA director has been called on the carpet by congressional Republicans. But a story that might have had legs in a tight election no longer seems to matter. It should. Before it’s relegated to the back pages, we should take a moment and reflect upon what it demonstrates about public service culture. As I observed in a previous article about the Biden–Harris administration’s utterly lame hurricane response, Americans across the political spectrum believe that taking care of the victims of natural disasters should be completely evenhanded and apolitical. Yet, even when Biden and Harris came under fire for their apparent indifference to the suffering of thousands, their response seemed more about regaining control of the political narrative than it did about actually using the resources of the government to make a difference for people whose lives had been ripped apart. (READ MORE: Hurricane Outrage: Where is Harris?) It’s not just the public or the media who are influenced by the priorities championed by those who occupy our highest offices. Crucially, the attitudes of presidents, vice presidents, and Cabinet officials percolate downward throughout the whole of the executive branch. I worked in government for nearly 40 years and I repeatedly observed the workings of this dynamic.  In my own agency, for example, a newly installed deputy secretary — the actual chief operating officer for the agency — signaled his indifference to a terrorist threat with the pungent phrase: “The ninjas are never coming over the fence.” This attitude was picked up by subordinate managers at every level and our ability to provide effective protection to critical facilities declined precipitously — only to be restored in the post-9/11 panic. Throughout the 1990s, whenever we tried to energize security, we’d be dismissed not only by our superiors but by many of our peers; none were willing to take a stand against this dismissive attitude toward the threat. Low-level supervisors, such as this FEMA official, align themselves accordingly. While the “ignore Trump supporters” directive probably comported with her own political beliefs, I suspect that the driving impulse was the typical bureaucratic “let’s please the boss” mentality, which is pervasive across the government. In this case, the overall impact was relatively small, although extremely painful to those victims who found themselves bypassed. This, however, is not always the case. Consider, for example, the notorious takedown of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas in 1993. I won’t pretend to review all the claims and counterclaims surrounding this ugly event, except to suggest that local law enforcement seemed convinced that the whole thing could have been managed to a successful conclusion without the massive employment of force by the FBI. For present purposes, the significant thing is that this occurred early in the Clinton administration when FBI officials seemed eager to demonstrate to the new president and Attorney General Janet Reno that they were prepared to go after “gun nuts” — particularly “gun nuts” who were also “religious cranks and cultists.”  My point is that it works both ways. The political leadership takes a position and the bureaucracy falls all over itself to show how it supports that position. I worked for many years with a (relatively) senior career official whose values shifted with every change of administration — his new political appointee bosses were always “brilliant,” even “inspirational,” until reality set in, disappointingly, leaving him to yearn for and then be seduced by the next new leadership, regardless of its politics.  Herein lies a lesson for the incoming Trump administration. It may well be the case that certain federal agencies are so riven with left-wing pieties that nothing short of wholesale firings, or even agency shutdown, can remedy the situation. I suspect that the Department of Education falls into this latter category and that there are others similarly corrupted. I retired in 2018 and the DEI rot had already started to take hold. I gather that it has since metastasized, not just in civilian agencies, but also in the armed services. But it’s not just DEI that needs to be rooted out. There are many other left-wing obsessions that have taken root over the years. For those agencies that can be returned to serving the American people as they should, the task may be less daunting. Appoint good Cabinet heads that genuinely support the administration’s objectives — failure to do this was clearly a weakness of the first Trump administration. Next, make sure that the second and third layers of political appointees are also responsive to your objectives. Also, make sure that these individuals actually understand the workings of the agency they’ve been appointed to manage. In working with new political appointees, I was often astonished at their abject ignorance of the basic missions and operating principles of the agency.  Above all, make it clear to every subordinate that success lies in helping the new leadership to fulfill the wishes of the American people, as expressed in the votes they’ve cast. Send clear direction, set concrete expectations, and follow up to see that those expectations are met. Reward those who respond positively, find ways to marginalize those who don’t, and get rid of those who actively resist. James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His recent novel, Letter of Reprisal is available on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback format. READ MORE from James H. McGee: Peanut the Squirrel and the Coercive State Is Walz Vanishing in Virginia? Hurricane Outrage: Where is Harris? Female Superheroes Not Needed at the Secret Service   The post Trump’s Election Sends the Swamp a Message appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The future president of the United States has announced a “new era” for the nation. I propose 10 goals that will make the next Trump administration as solid as the beginning of Metallica’s Load. Return to Freedom During the Biden administration, many things were lost: unity, prosperity, and the ability to navigate the world stage, among others. However, the main victim was freedom. Freedom is at the core of the American identity. Trump has the opportunity to revive the core tenet of America’s character and, as Reagan said, be “the keepers of the flame of liberty.” It is an opportunity to encourage people to pursue their dreams and their own paths and make the government stop behaving toward citizens like the parent of a teenager. The government will have the right to act like a parent when children are born through an official record, in duplicate, and with the governor’s signature.  The Old Patriotism People need to regain their pride in being American. The Democrats have fought against national identity and have spent four years humiliating the very soul of the American people — their sense of belonging to the nation, its history, and its symbols. Reclaiming American pride is paramount to feeling at home again. And we don’t have to invent anything new. It is old. It’s the old patriotism. And it still works. Raise your flag! Tax Relief for the Middle Class The Biden administration claimed to hate the rich — unless they were in the family — but who they really harassed were the middle class. Trump must slim down the government and ease the tax burden on families. Reagan’s tax prescription succeeded, among other things, in bringing inflation down from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent in eight years. Personally, I would lower taxes for everyone except Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who gets off on paying fees. Restore National Unity Democrats have worked hard to divide the nation into sides — good and bad, black and white, rich and poor. Unite the nation. You don’t need your principles to mimic those of your opponent. Just restore commonality, starting with the human condition, and inspire Christian equality, the dignity of all men, and the pride of belonging to the nation.  Security and the Rule of Law Don’t be afraid to clean up the streets. Whatever the left says, no one is going to complain about living in a safer neighborhood. The championing of criminals and the drive to defund the police is one of the stupidest battles the left has fought in recent times. International Diplomacy, Leadership, and Pacifism Trump’s foreign policy is a major concern for Europeans. They fear that “America First” will translate into isolationism, and that the United States will disengage from global matters. The truth is that it is impossible for Trump to reach the levels of international irrelevance witnessed during the Biden era. The United States must return to being the leader of the Western world, and promote peace and conflict resolution while ceasing to contribute economically to the idiot leaders of the U.N. who want to cool the planet by blowing dollars. To achieve that leadership, the best thing to do is to get back to being strong on the inside (my personal trainer told me so). Continue to Fight the Culture War It will now be tempting to focus on management and governing and put aside the cultural battle that has allowed Trump, in part, to win elections. This would be a mistake. We must raise every statue that Democrats have toppled, promote a radical opposition to Wokism (which died in this election), and proudly display the badges of classical conservatism. We must smash the ideas that impoverish the nation, that make us worse people, and that have brought us to this point. Cleanup Education and Culture The two great sources of moral decline are education and culture. Universities are factories churning out Wokists and stupid anti-Semites, and Hollywood is as ideologically unsupportable as an Al Gore documentary. I have no idea how you fix that, but it’s obvious that if you don’t do something, that breeding ground will become poisonous as soon as the next election approaches.  A New Environmental Conservatism Climate policies are ruinous and stupid. Eliminating them should be a priority. But Trump has the opportunity this time to promote a new conservative environmentalism, based on the real world and the need to preserve the environment. But also based on the common sense wisdom of agricultural workers across the country and the importance of promoting a clean world without green taxes, climate religion, or all that highly polluting progressive garbage. Fostering an Appreciation for Wealth Building Wealth is good. We should repeat that mantra every day and put it on the walls of schools. And capitalism is the most efficient path to prosperity. Wealth and poverty are like beauty and ugliness — no one, except a progressive, would dream of claiming that it is handsome people’s fault that there are ugly people.  READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: November Brings Disturbingly Few Blondes A Long Letter of Condolence to All the Losers Election Campaign Handbook for Winners The post Ten Priorities for Trump’s New Administration appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hezbollah in southern Lebanon has assaulted Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles for over a year, forcing over 60,000 northern Israeli residents to flee their homes. Although Israel has been responding with airstrikes against Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and command centers, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) ground forces entered southern Lebanon at the end of September in a campaign to disarm the terrorist group and cripple their offensive capabilities. The United Nations and European officials decried Israeli boots on the ground in Lebanon as a violation of international law. But, in less than two months, the IDF uncovered Hezbollah tunnels, military training centers, arms depots, and rocket launch sites all within meters of U.N. facilities. What is UNIFIL? The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created in 1978 to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon after the IDF’s weeklong Operation Litani. The U.N. expanded its forces mandate in 2004 with the Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for disbanding “all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.” Following the Second Lebanese War in 2006, Resolution 1701 permitted the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to be the only armed group in southern Lebanon. These resolutions call for the 10,000 members of UNIFIL and the LAF to actively prohibit militias, such as Hezbollah, from arming and operating between the Litani River and the “Blue Line” border between Lebanon and Israel. In light of Hezbollah’s yearlong display of powerful aggression, it’s evident that UNIFIL and the LAF have utterly failed. Not only had UNIFIL been sleeping on the job, but recent evidence suggests they may have been in bed with the enemy. UNIFIL’s failure to uphold the mandate throughout the early 2000s allowed Iran to strengthen Hezbollah as the region’s hegemonic force. Under Hassan Nasrallah — the Hezbollah leader killed by IDF airstrikes this past September — the terrorist group established full military occupation between the Litani River and Israel’s border with over 20,000 active militants. This illegal occupation facilitated overland shipment of rockets and missiles from Iran via Syria and Iraq, allowed the unhindered positioning of rocket launchers along Israel’s border, and generated stockpiles of tens of thousands of rockets and missiles under cover of civilian residential neighborhoods. UNIFIL ignored these violations of international law and, under intimidation, allowed the Iranian proxy to dictate when and where the U.N. could patrol in southern Lebanon and what was off-limits for inspection. With its hands fully tied, UNIFIL shifted its objective to providing humanitarian aid to the southern Lebanese people. Israel’s current ground operation to disarm Hezbollah, therefore, enforces the U.N. resolutions that UNIFIL abandoned. Recent discoveries by the IDF also question whether it was UNIFIL’s complacency that allowed Hezbollah to prosper — or its compliance. Is UNIFIL complacent or complicit in attacks on Israel? Last week, on Nov. 8, the IDF’s 9th Infantry Brigade discovered a Hezbollah training center roughly 200 meters from a UNIFIL base. The center, according to the IDF, “was used by terrorists for training, studying, and storing large quantities of weapons.” Inside, Israeli troops found “maps of Israel, explanations of IDF equipment, as well as tunnel shafts and additional weapons… [and rocket] launchers prepared for firing at Israeli communities.” Other Hezbollah rocket launch sites and arms depots have been found in closer proximity to UNIFIL posts. Last month, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz presented the U.N. Security Council with a map showing the entry to Hezbollah tunnels leading across Israel’s border that was positioned only 150 meters from UNIFIL posts. The training center discovery follows two weeks of daily Hezbollah attacks against Israel, where the northern cities of Safed, Nahariya, Acre, and Haifa are often targeted multiple times per day with barrages of 10–80 rockets. Most projectiles are intercepted, but several have landed on buildings, cars, and public spaces, injuring close to a dozen people. Seven Israelis were killed in rocket attacks near Metula and Haifa at the end of October, and two were killed in Nahariya on Nov. 12, bringing the recent death toll from Hezbollah attacks to 41. Ahead of the IDF’s ground campaign in Lebanon, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Danny Danon delivered a statement recommending “that UNIFIL relocate 5 km (3 miles) north to avoid danger as fighting intensifies and while the situation along the Blue Line remains volatile as a result of Hezbollah’s aggression.” The Israeli government further requested that more than 20 UNIFIL observation posts along the Blue Line relocate as IDF forces could not guarantee their safety while conducting military offenses against Hezbollah positions in their vicinity. UNIFIL rejected Danon’s statement, interpreting his request as a veiled threat to their mission. UNIFIL members have become collateral damage as a result. Last month, an IDF tank shell collapsed an observation post, injuring two Indonesian peacekeepers. Two other UNIFIL outposts have also reported taking IDF artillery fire. At a U.N. Security Council meeting in October, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix stated: “The safety and security of peacekeepers [in Lebanon] is now increasingly in jeopardy.” Indonesian U.N. Ambassador Hari Prabowo claimed that “Israel positioned itself above international law…and above our shared values of peace.” Italian Minister of Defense Guido Crosetto called the IDF’s actions “not a mistake” and “could constitute a war crime.” Italy is the second largest contributor of troops to UNIFIL after Indonesia. Israel denies claims of targeting U.N. posts. According to Katz, “It is the Hezbollah terrorist organization that uses UNIFIL personnel as ‘human shields,’ deliberately firing at IDF soldiers from locations near UNIFIL positions in order to create friction.” The IDF offensive in southern Lebanon — vehemently condemned by the U.N. and hindered by UNIFIL — constitutes the first action by an international body to enforce U.N. Resolutions 1701 and 1559 since they were mandated almost two decades ago. “We are fulfilling our obligations to ensure [U.N. Resolutions] … and the [U.N.] council must support us in our efforts,” noted Danon, As early as 2021, security analysts Sarit Zehavi and Eric Mandel questioned the legitimacy of UNIFIL. If their purpose is to maintain peace in southern Lebanon, then, at best, they have succeeded by not rocking the boat and forcing Hezbollah to disarm. But if their purpose was to enforce peace by prohibiting armed militias from operating in southern Lebanon under U.N. resolutions, then UNIFIL has been a “profound failure.” The U.S. contributed $145 million per year toward maintaining UNIFIL during President Biden’s administration. With a new administration on the horizon, President-elect Trump’s objective to “end wars” might entail defunding players that facilitate local conflicts through their ineffectiveness and compliance with terrorism. If UNIFIL had done its job, there would be no need for IDF boots on Lebanese soil. READ MORE from Bennett Tucker: Israelis Choose to Limit Attack on Iran … For Now Israel Eliminates the ‘Butcher of Khan Younis’ Israel Fends Off Massive Iranian Missile Barrage Nasrallah’s Death: Israel Takes Step Toward Victory The post The UN’s Failure in Lebanon appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As Ohio Republicans celebrate Sen. JD Vance’s ascension to the vice presidency, they now face one of their most challenging tasks: who will succeed him in the Senate? The choice is crucial, given the new GOP majority in the U.S. Senate. Fortunately, Republicans hold the state legislature and the governor’s office. Many Ohio Republicans, however, have questions and concerns about Gov. Mike DeWine. Speculation surrounding Vance’s replacement has resulted in several notable contenders for Ohio’s Senate seat. The major names at the moment include former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, state Sen. Matt Dolan, former Ohio Republican Party Chair Jane Timken, and Ohio Lt. Gov. John Husted. Ramaswamy is considered a strong choice by Ohio conservatives and has expressed interest in possibly taking the role. “To be frank, I would strongly consider it if I were asked to serve,” Ramaswamy told NBC. “I have not discussed this with Governor DeWine, but, you know, I look forward to evaluating what the future holds in store. I would strongly consider it if asked.” Though Ramaswamy has expressed willingness to serve as Ohio’s senator, he has also expressed interest in running for Ohio governor when DeWine’s term ends in 2026, which may dissuade him from accepting the position. LaRose is also being considered for Vance’s replacement. He has made a name for himself with his focus on election integrity in the state, as well as for initiatives that help grow the number of new businesses in the state. LaRose made a bid for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown’s seat this year but came in third to Bernie Moreno in the Republican primary — who successfully ousted Brown. Despite his achievements, LaRose has faced scrutiny for previous statements he made about President-elect Donald Trump, including calling him a “racist,” and for his support of former Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential bid in 2016. Dolan and Timken have also been touted among the list of potential candidates. Unlike the other options, Dolan and Timken are not as well-known nationally but are active at the state level. Both Dolan and Timken are vocal Never Trumpers. Dolan has spoken out against Trump, especially after the 2020 election, saying that Trump was “perpetuat[ing] lies about the outcome” of the election and calling Trump’s handling of Jan. 6 a “failure of leadership.” Timken also expressed opposition to Trump, stating emphatically after Jan. 6, “I am done with Trump.” In her 2022 campaign for Vance’s Senate seat, however, Timken made an effort to portray herself as pro-Trump. Finally, there is Husted, who has been referred to as a “formidable Republican candidate statewide” due to his work in the state — particularly his focus on improving the state’s economy. Similar to Ramaswamy, Husted has also expressed interest in running for Ohio governor in 2026 — he has already received an early endorsement from his colleague DeWine. Though there are many contenders for Vance’s coveted seat, the ultimate decision resides with DeWine. The governor has said that he would prefer “someone who really will focus on the state of Ohio, will focus on national issues, someone who will really work hard, someone who wants to get things done.” Though DeWine made clear the qualities he’s looking for, he also expressed concerns about the individual’s ability to hold the seat moving forward: “These are qualifications I think that are very important, but it also has to be someone who can win a primary. Someone who can win a general election and then two years later, do all that again.” DeWine’s sentiment is reasonable, but what has Ohio conservatives concerned is DeWine himself. Many of them feel he is not dependable. Though DeWine has appeared willing to work with Trump, he was openly critical during the 2024 presidential campaign, notably over Trump’s remarks regarding Haitian refugees in Springfield, Ohio. Also, DeWine’s last-minute endorsement of Never Trumper Matt Dolan in the 2024 Republican Senate primary has led Ohio conservatives to believe that DeWine’s choice could spell trouble and split Republicans. Though Ohio has become a Republican stronghold, voting for Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris by 11 percent, DeWine’s flirtation with Never Trumpers, combined with internal divisions within the Ohio Republican Party, has made the situation much more contentious. Sensing blood in the water, Ohio Democrats are beginning to seek out candidates for the prized Senate seat. With a special election on the horizon in 2026, speculation is that Democrats might recruit a very familiar face, current U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown. Though Brown lost to Bernie Moreno by 3.8 percent, some believe that Brown may attempt to regain his position in a couple of years. While there is still time, the question of who will succeed Vance in Ohio will no doubt be a quarrelsome affair. Whoever replaces him in the Senate will affect Republicans’ legislative prerogatives for the next few years. READ MORE from Hunter Oswald: Ohio Senate Race: Moreno Scores Vivek and Shapiro Progressives Are Trying to Make Ohio More Like Michigan Iran Pushes the Middle East Closer to Catastrophe The post The Battle for JD Vance’s Replacement appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Dope on Dope in Government-Run Schools

What Happened? What's Next?