A century ago‚ Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov‚ who kept his underground nom de guerre‚ Lenin‚ had achieved all that a revolutionary could wish. After his Bolshevik Party seized power he was the most important person in the Soviet Union. Then he died at age 53. So passed perhaps the most consequential‚ and certainly one of the most evil‚ human beings of the 20th century. Lenin likely ordered the execution of the Czar and the entire royal family‚ including children. Lenin devoted much of his life to revolution. Today his triumph looks like it was inevitable. However‚ he realized how fortunate he and the Bolshevik party had been. Indeed‚ when exiled from Russia to Switzerland he seemed to abandon hope. The Romanovs had ruled for 300 years‚ celebrating their third century in 1913. Why not 300 years more‚ he asked? Any revolution “won’t happen in our lifetime‚” he told his wife. (READ MORE from Doug Bandow: Naming Names: The World’s Worst Religious Persecutors) Then came World War I. Statesmen across Europe‚ which was prospering and reforming as the new century dawned‚ collectively jumped into the abyss‚ carrying with them most of the continent. The murder of Austro-Hungary’s heir apparent by an ethnic Serbian terrorist armed by Belgrade’s head of military intelligence lit the fuse to four years of horrific combat. At the conflict’s conclusion four great empires collapsed in chaos and ruin‚ including Russia. Czar Nicholas Romanov was ill-suited to rule a giant bear with feet of clay. Fatal was his decision to go to war. He only feebly resisted his government’s war party when it demanded mobilization against Germany in July 1914‚ ensuring a major conflict. His country was equally ill-prepared to fight‚ unable to meet the demands of modern war. The inefficient government was run by an effete‚ arrogant aristocracy which presided over an impoverished peasantry and rising middle class. His wife‚ a German princess‚ generated suspicion and hostility in a war against Imperial Germany. Then there was the infamous Grigori Rasputin. By 1917 the dynasty was tottering. Lacking the leadership‚ equipment‚ and supplies necessary for success millions of Russians had been killed‚ wounded‚ or captured fighting for nothing meaningful. The home front was demoralized: the government was failing‚ the army was retreating‚ people were hungry‚ and crowds were rioting. With domestic garrisons unwilling to fire on protestors and afraid of being sent to the front‚ there was no one to defend the regime. In March the Czar abdicated‚ leaving a weak provisional government in charge. It competed for influence with soldiers’ and workers’ “soviets‚” or councils. The new authorities committed a second fatal mistake‚ continuing the war. Lawyer and politician Alexander Kerensky came to the fore‚ becoming prime minister in July and launching a disastrous offensive that quickly collapsed. The only lasting result was more casualties. Until then Lenin‚ reviled for having traveled to Russia with German assistance — Berlin could not have imagined the ultimate effectiveness of its strategy to undermine the nascent revolutionary republic — was a minor force whose efforts to take control were easily defeated. However‚ Lenin‚ unlike even many members of his party‚ understood what most Russians desired: peace‚ bread‚ and land. In November the Bolsheviks staged a coup d’etat‚ easily overthrowing what had become a government without support‚ authority‚ credibility‚ or troops. Almost alone he insisted on signing a peace treaty with Germany‚ irrespective of terms‚ since to keep fighting would mean the Bolsheviks’ overthrow as well. There was still a bitter‚ multi-sided civil war to win‚ and that ran for some five horrendous years‚ with scattered resistance continuing into 1923. As many as ten million people‚ the vast majority civilians‚ died in the hostilities. Atrocities were common on all sides. The allies intervened half-heartedly‚ with most foreign forces‚ other than the Japanese‚ withdrawing by 1920. In the end Lenin stood triumphant‚ with unchallenged authority. (READ MORE: Highlighting the World’s Worst Religious Persecutors) Even after vanquishing enemies both domestic and foreign‚ however‚ he could not rest. The country was in terrible shape and the new Soviet state had to be constructed. He sacrificed socialist nostrums to push the New Economic Policy‚ which retained capitalist incentives‚ in a desperate attempt to promote economic recovery. But Lenin’s health was fragile. In May 1922 he suffered his first stroke. The second came in December. He remained involved in policy‚ but his influence diminished as his health weakened. Lenin’s third stroke came in March 1923‚ largely removing him from politics. On January 21‚ 1924‚ he fell into a coma and died. So much effort to take control‚ so little time to enjoy power! It recalls Luke 12:20‚ in which Jesus tells the parable of the rich man planning to build bigger barns and take life easy: “But God said to him‚ ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’” Who got what Lenin prepared for himself? Joseph Stalin! With consequences almost beyond imagination. Collectivization and starvation‚ terror and purges‚ the Gulag and forced labor. The horror was not just domestic. Communism accompanied the Red Army as it moved west into Europe as World War II concluded. The result was what Ronald Reagan so appropriately called the Evil Empire. Stalin’s death in 1953 only moderated the oppression. Not until Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise three decades later did the Soviet Union finally disappear into history’s ever-expanding trash dump. Although Stalin’s rule likely was far worse than Lenin’s would have been‚ no one should have illusions about what the latter would have meant. Lenin wanted power and would do anything to get it. There was no squishy humanitarianism in his writing‚ which demanded harsh‚ violent action. He was the driving force in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power. Had the party instead wavered its moment might have passed. Lenin commanded during the increasingly repressive consolidation of power. He was central to the Reds defeating the Whites during the civil war‚ selecting the brutal‚ ruthless‚ and surprisingly effective Leon Trotsky as military commissar. Lenin likely ordered the execution of the Czar and the entire royal family‚ including children. To maintain domestic control Lenin established the Cheka‚ or secret police‚ headed by Felix Dzerzhinsky‚ a hardened Polish revolutionary. (READ MORE: The Last of the White Rose Conspirators Against Hitler Has Died) In 1918 the latter initiated the infamous Red Terror‚ which lasted through 1922. Lenin insisted‚ “It is necessary secretly — and urgently — to prepare the terror.” All opposition was cruelly crushed: “Tens of thousands‚ and possibly more than a million‚ people were branded ‘class enemies’ and detained in concentration camps or summarily executed. The terror cleared the way for decades of Soviet rule and state-sanctioned violence.” Finally‚ Lenin selected Stalin as the Communist Party general secretary because of the latter’s harsh commitment to communism. Lenin might have had second thoughts about his choice — though there are suspicions that his famous last testament was concocted by others — but if so‚ Lenin’s displeasure was over Stalin’s incivility to colleagues rather than willingness to murder opponents. Modern communists admit‚ “There were virtually no ideological or political differences or disagreements between Lenin and Stalin.” Perhaps the best evidence of Lenin’s brutal centrality to communism’s essential inhumanity is the regime’s survival after his death. His death triggered a lengthy power struggle won by Stalin‚ but the Soviet Union’s survival was not in doubt. Although Stalin’s depredations were extraordinary‚ they were merely unexpected exaggerations of the horrors unleashed by Lenin’s less developed terror system. No doubt‚ Lenin would not have approved the Great Terror‚ but not out of quaint moral sentiments. Rather‚ he would be appalled at the waste of so many committed revolutionaries who could have been put to work building a more powerful if slightly less murderous socialist state. For enthusiastic communists Lenin’s death came too early. For the rest of humanity it came far too late. A century later we are still suffering the barbarities that he did so much to unleash. Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan‚ he is author of  Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of  The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea. The post A Century Ago‚ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Died appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

While globalists‚ heads of large corporations‚ and officials in international organizations may consider democracy more of a spectator sport than a representative political system embraced by countries around the world‚ at least they were willing to allow some competition into the ring this year. In addition to its usual list of drastically tired global elites such as John Kerry‚ Bill Gates‚ and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres‚ The World Economic Forum decided to invite a handful of conservative leaders to its annual meeting in Davos‚ Switzerland this past week. The opposition offered a reality check to those in desperate need of one‚ even if it wasn’t welcome. A couple of unabashed speakers even drew a little blood.  In his speech on Tuesday‚ newly elected Argentinian president Javier Milei essentially equated the WEF agenda to socialism.  Channeling the the wild rebellion and hairdo of Elvis‚ Milei called out members of the WEF in no uncertain terms: Unfortunately‚ in recent decades‚ motivated by some well-intentioned desires to help others‚ and others‚ by the desire to belong to a privilege cast‚ the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. Milei‚ an economist‚ said the practices of such leaders have obliterated and annihilated economic growth‚ “opening doors to socialism and condemning people to poverty.”  He charged the elites not only with implementing failing economic models‚ but also pitting the sexes against each other‚ as well as humans against nature. The Argentinian fireball continued to accuse them of appropriating these ideas via the “media‚ culture‚ universities and international organizations.” Finally‚ Milei wrapped his speech with a simple declaration that should have had everyone on their feet: “Long live freedom‚ damnit!” A quick pan of the audience revealed many were less inspired than me by his closing sentiments.  If Milei dropped a bomb on the audience at the WEF gathering‚ Kevin Roberts‚ President of The Heritage Foundation‚ completely wiped Davos off the map. (READ MORE from Jennifer Galardi: It’s Globe-fficial: Hollywood Has Lost Its Sense of Humor) While Milei was somewhat general in his condemnation of autocrats trying to dominate the global stage‚ Roberts was piercing in his accusations. The former head of the Texas Public Policy Foundation came out swinging right out of the gate‚ much more so than his colleagues on the panel who struck a more moderate tone.   [O]ffering conservative voices a platform — albeit a small one — simply may have been a form of damage control. When asked about the kind of people Trump might bring with him into office‚ Roberts pulled no punches. He said every member of a potential new administration should be able to “compile a list of everything that’s ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them‚ wholesale.”  He continued‚ “Anyone not prepared to do that and take away the power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration.” To say Roberts took a clear America First position is an understatement. Roberts was not afraid to call out the hundreds of globalist elites who swarmed the picturesque resort town in the Swiss Alps for what they are: tyrants. “It’s laughable that you would — or anyone would — describe Davos as protecting liberal democracy‚” Roberts proclaimed to panel moderator‚ Sir Robin Niblett. “It’s equally laughable to use the word “dictatorship” at Davos and aim that at President Trump. In fact‚ I think that’s absurd‚” he said.  In case it wasn’t clear to anyone in the room‚ Roberts clarified: “But the thing that I want to drive home here‚ the very reason that I’m here at Davos‚ is to explain to many people in this room and who are watching‚ with all due respect‚ nothing personal‚ but that you’re part of the problem.” One has to wonder what the WEF was thinking when it decided to invite true conservatives — particularly ones who tend to lean more nationalist and populist like Milei and Roberts — to the most exclusive party for the who’s who in business‚ politics‚ and NGO’s‚ or as those at the WEF like to call them‚ stakeholders. Particularly considering their new pet project is to combat “disinformation.”  Is Klaus Schwab‚ head of the WEF‚ and his elite minions truly interested in extending the olive branch to those they’ve patronized for years? Roberts isn’t convinced benevolence had anything to do with it. (READ MORE: This Is How the World Economic Forum Wants to Reset You) “I think the WEF’s intentions in inviting President Milei and me were‚ in all likelihood‚ an attempt to co-opt us‚” he said. “If so‚ they failed. For once‚ their platform was used against their aims‚ proving that the political Right‚ which is ascendant worldwide‚ is maturing in its tactics.” To be more charitable‚ offering conservative voices a platform — albeit a small one — simply may have been a form of damage control. There is an increased perception that those who attend the annual meeting are dreadfully out of touch with the everyday citizen in democracies around the world.  As Roberts so poignantly pointed out‚ “Political elites tell the average people … that the reality is ‘X’ when in fact reality is ‘Y’.”  Roberts laid out five crucial examples: immigration‚ public safety‚ China‚ gender ideology‚ and climate change. Roberts couldn’t resist digging the knife in on the final point‚ the darling of the WEF: I guess the favorite at the World Economic Forum — is climate change. Elites tell us that we have this existential crisis with so-called climate change. So much so‚ that climate alarmism is probably the greatest cause for mental health crisis in the world. The solutions‚ the average person knows‚ based on climate change‚ are far worse and more harmful‚ and cost more human lives … than do the problems themselves. While initially reticent to accept the invite from across the Atlantic‚ Roberts said he realized he had the opportunity to confront the perpetrators of tyranny directly: “My objective was to speak for the millions of people who are harmed everyday by policies that emanate from Davos‚” who Roberts called the “forgotten people.”  He said he was glad that he attended on their behalf despite commenting that the meeting itself sounded “dreadful.” There was perhaps one more subtle‚ but obvious (at least to me) difference between Roberts and the rest of his colleagues on the panel — his posturing. Not just metaphorically‚ but literally. I noticed it in the first thirty seconds of the discussion. Roberts spine was erect‚ shoulders pulled back‚ seat squarely situated toward the audience. The rest of the men and one woman (Allison Schrager‚ an economist) on stage‚ while not slovenly‚ seemed a little more casual and relaxed. Before he said a word‚ Roberts communicated he was ready for battle and would not mince words. He did not. It was a departure from his normal‚ laid-back‚ friendly Texas style that he often conveys on his podcast‚ The Kevin Roberts Show‚ where it’s hard to believe anyone would consider him an enemy. No doubt‚ he probably made more than one in the room that day.  That doesn’t seem to be a concern for Roberts as he doesn’t expect he’ll be invited to return to Davos anytime soon. It’s unlikely the attendees of the summit will take Milei’s or Robert’s sharp reproach under consideration. Requests for audience questions after the discussion was met with deafening silence. Niblett‚ commented‚ “Let’s get some questions in. I have a feeling people are going to be shy because I’m not seeing hands shoot up. Any hands shooting up here? Anyone got a question? Right. No. Okay. In that case we’ll keep going round on our own track.” (READ MORE: Davos Is So Predictable) Finally‚ a brave soul spoke up and asked Roberts about what to expect day one of the Trump presidency.  He confirmed the very thing that’s been setting liberals’ hair on fire for the past few months: “There needs to be pushing through schedule F civil service reform so the president can fire a good number of the unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state. The administrative state is the greatest threat to democracy in the United States and we need to end it.”  After that Roberts stated the president will have to tackle rolling back climate change policies and fiscal restraint.  That was enough to shut the whole room down.  While Roberts and Milei may not have changed any minds this past week‚ they put those insistent on foisting their terrible ideas on others on notice. The current Right is no longer willing to remain passive. As Milei has declared‚ the new conservative movement is not here to “guide sheep‚ but to awaken lions.”  The post Roberts and Milei Set Fire to Libs at Davos appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Nikki Haley had her moment in the early debates. Calling out the dysfunction and incompetence in Congress and the Republican Party electrified people — but just for a moment. Since then‚ she has been coasting‚ attempting to avoid angering any part of the potential GOP coalition. She is trying to thread a needle that cannot be threaded. In politics‚ when you try to be somebody to everybody‚ you end up being nobody to anybody. The past four months of the Republican primary process have shown why Haley and DeSantis are on the B-team. Breaking Out and Stalling The Haley campaign was flailing and failing for months‚ it looked pointless as she went into the first Republican “understudy” debate. Haley broke out by grabbing the anti-establishment mantle. While DeSantis‚ played rope-a-dope‚ Haley swung away at a fumbling‚ losing‚ incompetent Republican Party — it rescued her campaign. Haley shot past the other nobodies‚ approaching DeSantis’s polling numbers. The race became Trump far ahead with Haley and DeSantis battling to be the alternative. (READ MORE: Republicans Need an Immigration Deal Now Rather Than Later) Then she froze. It’s all well and good to say what every Republican was thinking about bumbling leadership‚ but that’s not enough. At some point‚ you have to put some meat on the bone. That’s where Haley failed.  Instead of charging through the anti-establishment opening‚ she shrunk at the task. Perhaps she felt safer retreating to pre-Trump Republican orthodoxy‚ or perhaps her new donors wanted a “conventional” candidate who does not say things that upset them and their cocktail party guests. Whatever the reason‚ Haley missed her chance to define herself in a way acceptable to the GOP base while presenting herself as the best chance to beat Biden. Haley has since been tagged with the dreaded “neocon” label — a toxic term in important corners of the GOP social media and podcast world. Is Haley truly a neocon? Maybe. maybe not. The “neocon” slam has become an all-purpose insult akin to how Trump calls anyone a RINO who looks at him cross-eyed. Discredited by the quagmire in Iraq and de-industrialization that mostly benefited China and Wall Street‚ neocons are politically marginalized and homeless. Republicans ejected them and the Democrats don’t want them. There is zero prospect of a comeback. Haley’s problem is that she and her team either do not recognize the problem‚ or they do but are afraid of alienating her new donors. Perhaps she believes that too much aggressive rhetoric would lose her the support of suburban women — something the GOP desperately needs to claw back. Either way‚ she made a bad move (or non-move). Money does not matter nearly as much as it used to in national politics. Votes and grassroots support matter far more. No dollar amount can make up for bad or weak messaging. After all‚ Trump was outspent by far in 2016 and still won.  Where Is the U.N. Bashing? Haley has had plenty of opportunity to show America First/populist bona fides without necessarily transforming into a Vivek-like bootlicker. Her stint as a UN ambassador is the perfect platform to take swings at a corrupt‚ venal‚ morally bankrupt organization that conservatives detest. Where is the demand to disband a Human Rights Council headed by the most vicious‚ authoritarian regimes? Where is the proposal to tie access to the American market to how nations vote in the UN? What about a code of conduct for diplomats that routinely flout American law and make life for the NYPD miserable? She could easily end each demand with a quick‚ ‘If you don’t like it‚ you can get out.’ Haley never served in Congress (unlike DeSantis). She has no association with the failure and dysfunction of the D.C. Republicans. She was not part of Trump’s failure to implement his domestic policy. Haley was a popular and successful southern governor‚ a small business owner‚ and a local volunteer — and her husband is in the military. She has a resume that should play favorably in the field. (READ MORE: After Iowa‚ It’s Time for Republicans to Rally to Trump) However‚ Haley’s failure to exploit her cultural advantage is egregious. Haley is a Clemson graduate while Ramaswamy is from Harvard‚ DeSantis went to Yale Law School‚ and Trump went to U-Penn. Of all the institutions in American society the conservative grassroots detests‚ Ivy League schools are at the top of the list. With the disastrous performances of the Penn and Harvard Presidents over anti-semitism‚ much of the rest of the country is starting to agree. Haley could have easily swatted aside Ramaswamy’s barbs by saying‚ “The last thing America needs is a Harvard sociopath in the Oval Office.” That’s a guaranteed applause line and what’s Ramaswamy going to say? Instead‚ she choked and made the cardinal political error of letting an attack go unresponded. Trump would never have let Ramaswamy off the hook. The bottom line is that Haley is well-positioned to engage in the anti-elitist class war that energizes the GOP base. If Haley’s money people don’t like it‚ tough. Too Timid‚ Too Late The bottom line is that Haley has not been aggressive enough. She has failed to grab the populist high ground and she hasn’t pushed the “winner” narrative supported by her polling against Joe Biden. Haley is still in the game‚ but just barely. She polls better against Biden than either Trump or DeSantis. Her lead in the most recent CBS poll is 53 percent to 45 percent‚ an 8-point lead and ahead of Trump’s 2-point lead (50 percent to 48 percent). Importantly‚ Biden’s percentage drops against her‚ to just 45 percent‚ which means she is not just claiming undecided voters but is actually pulling votes out of the Biden column. Should Trump’s legal troubles catch up to him and push him into a deficit against Biden or his health noticeably deteriorate (he is unquestionably not as sharp as he was in 2016)‚ Haley remains the Republican best placed to beat Biden‚ as discussed in this column earlier this month. Haley would be in much better shape if she and her team would get with the times and match up better with the Republican base. The prospects for that‚ however‚ are not great. Politicians and their campaign flacks are stubborn types. They hate to admit they are wrong. Changing course usually means someone gets fired — which is what should happen within Haley’s circle. But like many in whatever mish-mash that counts for the GOP establishment‚ Haley’s crew does not get it. The post Haley Made Strategic Blunders. They’re Costing Her the Campaign. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I helped bring some holiday cheer to the Internet with the research paper I co-authored demonstrating that sex differences in sports performance persist regardless of gender self-identification. “Obvious” was probably the most used word in tweets and headlines related to our study‚ closely followed by “duh” on X.  With the festive mirth behind us‚ it’s time for a serious look at the why and so what of our work. Briefly — for those who had other‚ better things to do the week before Christmas — our study compared the performances of the males and females in the non-binary category at distance running races with the males and females in the men’s and women’s categories‚ respectively. We found that males who identify as non-binary are faster than females who identify as non-binary‚ just as the males in the men’s category are faster than the females in the women’s. (READ MORE from George M.J. Perry: USA Cycling Attempts to Justify Men Racing Against Women) Obvious. Duh. Right? Then we have to ask why private corporations‚ sports’ governing bodies‚ and governments are implementing policies that contravene the “obvious” finding of our study. Either the primacy of sex over gender in athletic performance is not sufficiently obvious to the necessary number of people‚ or saying “But it’s obvious!” is not enough to counter the emotion‚ sophistry‚ confusion‚ institutional heft‚ academic literature‚ and implied threats of gender activists.   The value of quantitative research proving the obvious about sex differences in sports is not that it might sway the gender ideologues. It won’t.  People outside of the sports industry — particularly endurance sports — may not know the extent of the capture‚ through which gender activism has successfully displaced sex in favor of gender. Each year‚ 15-20 million Americans participate in road running races: 5Ks‚ marathons‚ and every distance in between. Over 10‚000 races are currently listed on RunSignup‚ a participant management platform for road races. RunSignup lets you search for races by location‚ the distance of the race‚ date range‚ and whether the race “Supports Non-Binary.” Toggling that last feature reveals that over 3‚000 road races — about one-third of their industry leading listings — have a non-binary category. These races are taking their cues from the top. Our study used the results of races produced by New York Road Runners (NYRR)‚ a New York City non-profit with annual revenue of over $100‚000‚000. The title sponsors of their races include Tata Consultancy Services‚ United Airlines‚ JPMorgan Chase‚ Abbott Laboratories and Royal Bank of Canada. NYRR launched their gender inclusion initiative in 2018‚ added the non-binary category in 2021‚ and began offering equal prize money for the men’s‚ women’s and non-binary categories in 2022.  NYRR’s size and history position them as the model running organization in the US. They’ve prepared planning guidance for other groups to “implement a similar policy at your race organization‚” with the point of contact being an activist consultant who first approached NYRR about a non-binary category in 2013. (READ MORE: The Non-Binary Athletic Category Hurts Female Athletes) Similarly‚ the trade organization for road running races‚ Running USA‚ partnered with The Equality Institute to produce a “Transgender and Nonbinary Inclusion Policy Template‚” which they direct “should be used with no customization.”  This template takes the unprecedented step of letting gender self-id provide immunity for doping. The policy framework permits races to excuse a positive test for performance enhancing drugs if the athlete in question demonstrates “a legitimate medical use … in connection with [their] medically supervised hormone treatment for gender transition.” This policy conflicts with national and global anti-doping protocols. Perhaps not for long‚ though. In October 2023‚ the United States Anti-Doping Agency granted the first ever waiver for a female athlete to take testosterone without sanction‚ because it was part of her “gender affirming care.” If anyone should know and understand the “obvious” differences between males and females‚ it’s the people working in the sports industry. These policies are the result of either capture or capitulation at two of the most influential endurance sport organizations‚ and at the Congressionally recognized agency that oversees the intersection of physiology and integrity in sport. It’s tempting to decry the decision makers at these organizations as weak or woke for not standing their ground on the grounds of “it’s obvious.”  But perhaps they spent long hours looking for any reputable authoritative support. Upon reading Scientific American or the American Anthropological Association‚ for example‚ they may have been reluctantly persuaded to disbelieve the evidence of their senses — or to surrender a futile fight.  For all we know‚ these decision makers demanded academic studies from the gender activists‚ who promptly produced Joanna Harper’s 2015 study in the Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities. This paper deployed cherry picked self-reports by transgender athletes to conclude that testosterone suppression eliminates the male advantage in sports. As far as science goes‚ this is as far from science as one could go. But it persuaded the International Olympic Committee to revise their guidelines‚ permitting males in women’s events at the Olympic Games.  And if this wasn’t sufficient‚ the well prepared activists may have produced the literature review published by the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport (CCES)‚ a governing body with authority to “address unethical behaviours and promote a values-based approach to sport.” CCES commissioned the report — which does not name any of its authors — from E-Alliance‚ “the research engine which propels gender equity in sport in Canada forward.” (READ MORE: Transgenderism Goes to the Olympics) Or maybe the decision makers know someone who was fired and cancelled as part of the leadership coup at NYRR in 2020. A disgruntled former employee led a woke cancellation mob‚ whose grievances included “[s]taff have been working on a policy for transathlete inclusion for three years that has not changed much in that time but has continuously been pushed down‚ particularly by a leader in PR.” “Capture” has become such a familiar term that we no longer use its original modifier: ideological. That adjective is both implied and superfluous. We don’t worry about empirical capture or evidentiary capture‚ nor even philosophical capture. If the word “capture” even applies to those ways of thinking‚ we don’t notice them because we expect and welcome them. The issue only arises with “ideological thinking[‚ which] is contemptuous of the empirical realm.” Debaters learn that the goal of a debate is not to change your opponent’s mind‚ but your audience’s minds.  The value of quantitative research proving the obvious about sex differences in sports is not that it might sway the gender ideologues. It won’t.  The value is shielding and strengthening the people at sports organizations — perhaps a silent majority — who want to do the right thing against seemingly unstoppable momentum and unbearable pressure. It probably won’t be enough‚ but it’s a better alternative to “but it’s obvious” and far preferable to “Well‚ we didn’t know.” The post Why We (Sadly) Need To Prove the Obvious About Sex in Sports appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

American Refugees: The Untold Story of the Mass Exodus from Blue States to Red States By Roger L. Simon (Encounter Books‚ 224 pages‚ $30) Among the holdings in the collection of New York’s Museum of Modern Art are two paintings by the short-lived Italian Futurist artist Umberto Boccioni (1882-1916) entitled “Those Who Stay” and “Those Who Go.” I wasn’t aware of these two works until my friend Brendan‚ who was strongly moved by them‚ drew my attention to them many years ago. I hadn’t thought about the Boccioni paintings in a long time (and neither‚ apparently‚ have the powers that be at MOMA‚ where both items are now‚ according to the museum’s website‚ in storage)‚ but I was reminded of them while reading Roger L. Simon’s wise‚ witty‚ and winning new book American Refugees: The Untold Story of the Mass Exodus from Blue States to Red States. [I]n red and blue states alike‚ Roger finds himself frustrated by “the docility‚ the mass sheepishness‚ of the public” in the face of a level of government tyranny that feels unprecedented in America. I should refer to him as Simon‚ but that feels a bit odd to me‚ because I’ve known him‚ at least from a distance‚ for a couple of decades or so. As founder of the trailblazing website Pajamas Media‚ later PJ Media‚ he published a lot of my work and even sent me to Denmark to report‚ for the now defunct PJTV‚ on the ridiculous 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit. Before that‚ he wrote a dozen-odd popular crime novels‚ including The Big Fix‚ and several screenplays‚ including the Oscar-nominated script for Enemies‚ A Love Story (1989) — which‚ long before I ever had anything to do with him‚ I reviewed enthusiastically in (where else?) The American Spectator (“hugely entertaining‚ richly human … a beautifully shaped film with a rare sense of story‚ character‚ and place”). (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: All Hail Cate Blanchett) The nature of Internet-era relationships (both personal and professional) being what it is‚ I have yet to meet Roger in person‚ but it didn’t take long for me to feel that I knew him pretty well. Like me‚ he’s originally from New York; until moving to Nashville in 2018 he’d spent his adult life as a member of the film community in Los Angeles‚ a milieu with which I was pretty familiar at a certain point in my life. Prior to 9/11 he’d been‚ by his own account‚ a standard-issue L.A. liberal‚ a type I know intimately; in the years after that unpleasant little Twin Towers incident in 2001 shook up his political thinking and turned him into a conservative pundit‚ he found not only his friends in Tinseltown but his career as a top-flight film writer evaporating‚ a phenomenon I can relate to as someone whose editors at the New York Times and Washington Post‚ among other places‚ lost my phone number after I wrote a book critical of Islam. People still talk about the Blacklist as if it was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of American politics‚ but‚ hell‚ the Hollywood Ten actually were card-carrying Communists — mindless tools of Stalin‚ willing instruments of the Kremlin — and as far as I’m concerned they deserved a lot worse than they got. Far more deplorable than the relatively brief canceling of rich real-life Reds like Dalton Trumbo has been the gradual‚ now decades-long excommunication of people like Roger Simon from the heights of Hollywood glory simply for being politically to the right of Cher‚ Bette Midler‚ and Rob Reiner. But I digress. I began with Boccioni’s paintings “Those Who Stay” and “Those Who Go.” American Refugees is‚ in large part‚ about how Roger‚ his wife‚ and their daughter — after being frozen out of a community that had shunned them‚ Amish-style‚ for dissenting from the Democratic Party line — transplanted themselves from California to Tennessee. But it’s also‚ more broadly‚ about the nationwide phenomenon of which they’re a part — the emigration during the last few years of millions of conservative-minded Americans from increasingly woke blue states‚ mostly California and New York‚ to red states‚ mostly Florida and Texas. Myself‚ I’m a born-and-bred New Yorker who left the city in 1998 — long before the current exodus — but even when I was living there‚ a surprising percentage of the conversations among my friends and acquaintances were about how determined they were to get the hell out‚ abandon the rat race‚ the filth‚ the crime‚ and the high taxes for some saner‚ healthier clime. As it happened‚ I did leave‚ eventually. Others never did. In many cases‚ it was obvious that they’d never leave‚ no matter how much they talked about it — they were just blowing off steam. In his book‚ Roger ponders the phenomenon of “those who move and those who don’t and what it means beyond the political.” In L.A.‚ it appears‚ he knew a good many folks who talked a lot about clearing out but who‚ you somehow could tell‚ never would. But then there are the refugees. “Refugees‚” Roger writes‚ “are different kinds of people. To them‚ the ability to ‘move on’ is part of their DNA. They are people for whom looking for new horizons is a natural‚ almost instinctive‚ part of life.” (READ MORE: Bradley Cooper Is Leonard Bernstein — And I Am Marie of Romania) Until I decamped all those years ago‚ I never thought of myself as a refugee by nature. But I was wrong‚ I guess. I did leave. And Roger did‚ too. And the book that resulted‚ American Refugees‚ is in equal parts delightful and distressing. Delightful‚ because Roger is by nature immune to pretense and abounding in humor‚ even when discussing topics that at first glance don’t seem particularly rib-tickling. He’s done a lot of hard thinking about his move to Nashville and has a lot to say about it‚ but he wears his learning lightly and doesn’t pose as an expert in anything whatsoever; on the contrary‚ his book is framed as a tale of a naif’s exploration and discovery — the story of a man who’s in his seventies but still unsure about a lot of things‚ still intensely curious‚ still eager to learn about and adapt to (and‚ in his own modest way‚ to try to push for small positive changes in) a new culture‚ and still ready to make new friends and play an active social and political role on what‚ until very recently‚ was‚ to him‚ utterly alien terrain. And he’s a man‚ may I add‚ who before he moved to Music City thought it was close enough to Knoxville that he’d be able to jump in his car and be having lunch with his UT law professor friend Glenn (“Instapundit”) Reynolds a half hour or so later. Alas‚ no. American Refugees is also a love song to the South. I like that. I grew up in New York City but spent summers in my mother’s home state of South Carolina — summers that I remember as idyllic. For my friends and neighbors in New York‚ back in those days‚ South Carolina might just as well have been South Sudan. Nobody from the North ever went to South Carolina‚ except perhaps to drive through it on the way to Miami. They’d never heard of Myrtle Beach‚ let alone what is now known as North Myrtle Beach‚ where we always spent two or three weeks in a dirt-cheap shack on the shore — a stretch of strand that absolutely everybody’s heard of nowadays. Of course‚ Roger’s first years in Tennessee were disturbing ones for America. The Democrats engineered the Russia hoax‚ carried out two bogus impeachments‚ and stole the 2020 election. Yes‚ in those days there was terrible racism in the South. New Yorkers routinely cited it as a reason why they would never set foot in a Southern state. But there was racism in New York‚ too — it just took a different form. And the Southern version was‚ in some ways‚ at least more honest and more human. Few of the white people in my New York social circle even knew a black person; by contrast‚ all the white Southerners of my acquaintance knew as many blacks as they did whites. Yes‚ there was a cruel and unjust hierarchy‚ but there was also a good deal of respect and even love across the color line. Which may help explain why‚ in the years just before the pandemic and the BLM and Antifa riots and so on‚ there seemed to be a good deal more genuine racial harmony in the South than in the North. Even now‚ my impression is that Critical Race Theory and the toxic “anti-racism” movement have made far fewer inroads below the Mason-Dixon line than above it. Which is at least part of the reason why Americans who a few years ago would have described themselves as old-school liberals — and who never would have conceived of moving to the former land of Jim Crow — are resettling there. “The South‚ and red states generally‚” Roger writes‚ “had become the place to be for patriots.” Not that the refugees are all finding paradise‚ or anything close to it. Roger‚ after a few years in Nashville‚ is frustrated with Tennessee politics just as he was with California politics. A Republican-run state‚ he’s discovered‚ can be just as maddening as one that’s run by Democrats — even moreso‚ perhaps‚ because these people are‚ after all‚ supposed to be on your side. But it’s never that simple. It’s about donor money and influence and longstanding networks of good ol’ boys and inertia and stagnation‚ plus a big dose of old-fashioned corruption. (READ MORE: Imperfect Criticism‚ Great TV: Remembering Siskel &; Ebert) In the third decade of the 21st century‚ in red and blue states alike‚ Roger finds himself frustrated by “the docility‚ the mass sheepishness‚ of the public” in the face of a level of government tyranny that feels unprecedented in America — not to mention downright horrifying. He shares with us something that he was told at a Passover celebration just last year: according to a renowned Talmudic scholar of the Middle Ages‚ “only twenty percent of the Jews agreed to take the risk of following Moses out of Egypt during the Exodus. The rest — the vast majority — preferred to remain as slaves to Pharoah.” Is this true? Who knows? The question is: in a time when so many of our fellow Americans seem shockingly indifferent to the radical transformation of our country — inclined to look away or keep their heads down in the face of even the most appalling violations of fundamental American principles — is it depressing or comforting to know that most of the members of our species may always have been this feckless? Still and all‚ there are big pluses to living in a red state rather than L.A. Visiting Texas‚ Roger reflects that in Southern California‚ the freeways “only looked perfect around Disneyland‚” whereas in Texas “they were immaculate practically everywhere. How could that possibly be when Texas had no state income tax? Who was paying for the roads?” There are even deeper rewards. When‚ after his big move‚ Roger had a serious medical issue‚ one after another of his new friends in Tennessee “told me and my wife that they would pray for me.” This didn’t happen back in Malibu. It brought tears to his eyes. In L.A. he’d been a thoroughly secular Jew surrounded by secular Jews‚ but felt increasingly alienated; in Nashville‚ outnumbered by evangelical Protestants — the very fact of whose faith‚ one can imagine‚ must‚ for him‚ have been a bit daunting at first — what Roger experienced was not alienation but a strange and unaccustomed attraction to the numinous. His account of this development is by far the most moving part of the book. Of course‚ Roger’s first years in Tennessee were disturbing ones for America. The Democrats engineered the Russia hoax‚ carried out two bogus impeachments‚ and stole the 2020 election. The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago while deep-sixing the Hunter Biden laptop. And a relatively minor episode at the Capitol was officially labeled — absurdly‚ despicably‚ treasonously — as an insurrection of historic proportions‚ with hundreds of peaceful‚ patriotic citizens being treated as enemies of the state. Even as these dire developments were unfolding‚ Roger was attending Republican groups in Tennessee whose members‚ to his frustration‚ were content to persist with business as usual‚ the elegant GOP club ladies “peck[ing] daintily at their catered salads” every week or so while state politicians favored them with a half hour of banal boilerplate that had nothing to do with the crisis facing our country. Roger and his wife‚ the writer Sheryl Longin‚ didn’t turn Tennessee politics leftward‚ as so many locals feared that the “refugees” might do; but they did‚ by his own admission‚ inject an element of urgency — he calls it “benign assertiveness”; I wonder if it might be fairly described as a rather pungent taste of L.A. manners and mores — into the Volunteer State’s sleepy‚ staid‚ stuffy‚ and perhaps overly genteel political institutions. But what else to do when you discover that the red state you’ve moved to is in danger of transforming itself — not because of mischievous newcomers‚ but because of cynical old uniparty hands — into a simulacrum of the blue state from which you fled? The post Those Who Move to a Different State appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For sixty years‚ the Supreme Court has required “public figures” to prove that a media outlet acted with “actual malice”— that is‚ intent to publish false information or reckless disregard for publishing it — in order to recover damages for false statements about them. But this onerous test has no basis in the history of the First Amendment‚ and recent events illustrate why the Court should heed calls to reexamine its misguided precedent. After hedge fund luminary Bill Ackman excoriated university presidents for their disastrous congressional testimony in defense of genocidal antisemitic speech that would not be tolerated against any other group of students‚ Business Insider published accusations of plagiarism against Ackman’s wife‚ Neri Oxman — accusations that she and Ackman vehemently deny. Since then‚ Ackman claims that his attorneys have found that at least half of the accusations are false‚ while the bulk of the others do not fall under the common understanding of plagiarism. Business Insider is standing by its reporting.   [M]aking media companies pay for publishing false information about someone …  may start to restore legitimacy to an institution Americans no longer trust.  Ackman has confirmed a lawsuit is forthcoming. While the court will have to determine whether each Business Insider claim was true or false‚ and therefore consider what exactly constitutes “plagiarism‚” perhaps the more interesting question is whether Business Insider can get away with lies regardless.  (READ MORE: SCOTUS Takes Up Free Speech Case) Under the current standard for “defamation” — a legal claim that someone lied about you‚ causing harm — articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 and since expanded by lower courts‚ a “public figure” seeking to recover damages must show that the defamatory statement was made with “actual malice.” In other words‚ the speaker or publisher must have known that the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. Whether someone is a public figure is a multi-factor but ultimately expansive test that captures almost anyone who has achieved a measure of public recognition or success in his or her field.  Nonpublic figures‚ meanwhile‚ need only show that the published material is false and meet the other elements of the state law under which they are suing. The actual malice standard is extremely difficult to meet‚ in large part because it requires showing the state of mind of a third party. This standard helps explain why‚ in effect‚ the press has free rein to publish the amount of false information we see today.  There have been increasing calls for the Supreme Court to reconsider the heightened “actual malice” standard. Many of these calls have come from originalists — the most prominent being Justice Clarence Thomas — who argue that the standard has no basis in the original understanding of the First Amendment and that libel law traditionally has been left to the states.  Public figures often have the most to lose from false accusations targeting their reputation or life’s work. While social media provides a digital megaphone to every individual potentially targeted by false accusations‚ subsequent denials and corrections almost never get as much traction as an inflammatory accusation hot off the press.  When the Supreme Court imposed the “actual malice” standard‚ it reasoned that a lesser standard would inhibit criticism of public officials and dampen public debate on important issues. But that free exchange and debate is far easier in today’s world‚ when social media has shattered the gatekeeping function of traditional media and now breaks news and circulates gossip through multiple channels‚ allowing truth to be exposed at an unprecedented speed. These accounts are too numerous‚ too anonymous‚ and too judgment-proof to be collectively silenced by a return to the original understanding of the Constitution. And states‚ the laboratories of democracy‚ can and do impose different requirements for libel claims to ensure public debate remains robust while protecting individuals from harmful falsehoods. In addition‚ making media companies pay for publishing false information about someone — including “public figures” — may start to restore legitimacy to an institution Americans no longer trust. (READ MORE: Trump’s CNN Lawsuit Shows Freedom of Press Does Not Include Right to Libel) This won’t happen overnight. Any suit filed by Oxman would take years to work its way to the Supreme Court. Until the Court reconsiders its Sullivan precedent‚ we are left with public outcry as the sole protection from media outlets levying careless and damaging accusations against countless Americans.   Anna St. John is the president and general counsel of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Law Center (iwlc.org). The post Supreme Court Should Reexamine <;i>;New York Times v. Sullivan<;/i>; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Potatoes known for having eyes‚ but when you get to know duchess potatoes‚ you might not want to take your eyes off of them.

by Tom Luongo‚ Tom Luongo: Last fall I poked the slumbering bear of the #ungovernble set by taking extreme umbrage with calling people “Sheeple.” For the record I absolutely detest that word. Instead I shot back with a very reflexive‚ “Bullshit!” There are very few things that trigger me more than consigning 90% of humanity […]

by Rhoda Wilson‚ Expose News: On Sunday‚ Dr. Paul Alexander published a Substack article in which he stated that the so-called covid pandemic “was a PCR-manufactured‚ 95% false-positive‚ 0.05% IFR fraud fake‚ ‘no asymptomatic spread’ lie of a pandemic; nothing else. All of this pandemic was a lie.” He used the example of the luxury […]