[unable to retrieve full-text content]The following article, Unhinged Liberal Women Cry On Social Media Over Trump’s Victory And Falsely Claim They’ve Lost All Their Rights, was first published on…

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

A notable accolade. The post “#1 in the USA”: The Clash on the best American band first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

America’s Catholic bishops are giving President-elect Donald Trump a mixed reception ahead of his second term. Following Trump’s overwhelming victory in Tuesday’s election, Archbishop Timonthy Broglio, head of the Military Archdiocese and president of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference (USCCB), issued a statement congratulating the 45th and 47th President on his victory. [T]he USCCB would do well to familiarize themselves with the Catholic Church’s moral teachings on immigration throughout the centuries. “I congratulate President-elect Trump, as well as the national, state, and local officials who campaigned to represent the people. Now, we move from campaigning to governing. We rejoice in our ability to transition peacefully from one government to the next,” Broglio wrote. He added, “Let us pray for President-elect Trump, as well as all leaders in public life, that they may rise to meet the responsibilities entrusted to them as they serve our country and those whom they represent.” (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Kamala Harris’s Anti-Catholic Bigotry on Display) In a subsequent interview, Broglio noted, “No matter who occupies the White House or holds the majority on Capitol Hill, the Church’s teachings remain unchanged.” So far so good, although the USCCB made little enough mention of the Church’s perennial moral teachings on abortion during outgoing President Joe Biden’s term, even though Biden is a self-described Catholic. “Let us ask for the intercession of our Blessed Mother, the patroness of our nation, that she guide us to uphold the common good of all and promote the dignity of the human person, especially the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn, the poor, the stranger, the elderly and infirm, and migrants,” Broglio said. Ah, there it is. The Catholic Church has, since the first century, reaffirmed and reiterated the inherent human dignity of the human person, especially the unborn innocents, and ferociously, unequivocally condemned the grave moral evil of abortion. While the Church’s moral teachings do also address such issues as poverty and migration, those issues were never placed on a par with abortion — at least, not until Trump came on the scene in 2016. To his credit, Broglio did insist that the USCCB’s “preeminent concern” is “the dignity of the human person. We like the phrase that the human person is created in the image and likeness of the Almighty from womb to tomb. So that’s a primary concern.” He called abortion “a form of violence in our society” that “cheapens the dignity of the human person.” However, the archbishop quickly followed that up by saying that the U.S. is a “wealthy nation” and, as such, has “a responsibility to address … the concerns of the poor, those who are on the margins of society. It’s distressing to see in some of our major cities the number of people who are without homes, without shelter.” Again, fair enough: care for the poor has always been a concern of the Church’s — it’s one of the reasons so many American Catholics were once Democrats. But it would be erroneous to place it on a par with abortion. Poverty is an unfortunate reality, one which might be alleviated; abortion is an unnecessary brutality, one which cruelly ends the life of an innocent unborn child, an evil which demands to be opposed at every turn. Catholic Doctrine and Immigration Broglio followed that concern, however, by noting that USCCB leaders “have advocated for reform of the immigration laws in this country for decades. And this is really the time I hope that something can be done to rectify a system that is broken and to try and make it more responsive to the needs of people.” He added, “Coupled with that would be our responsibility to help those nations from which people are migrating, because often they’re migrating because of poverty and other difficult situations in their home countries.” The Catholic Church has, contrary to the claims of progressive bishops, long been a proponent of national sovereignty and advocate of justified border control measures. Pope Pius XII once declared, “It is quite legitimate for nations to treat their differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs.” Yes, Christians have an obligation not to treat immigrants — legal or otherwise — uncharitably, but we also have an obligation to love our nation, our national heritage and culture, and to protect and preserve those things. Enforcing laws that uphold the common good is a matter of justice. It was largely on the grounds of this particular issue, closely following concerns over the economy, that Trump was handed the sweeping mandate — the electoral college, the popular vote, the House, and the Senate — that he was, even after nearly a decade of mainstream media and Democratic politicians smearing him as a fascist, a Nazi, and even Adolf Hitler. The American people, in accord with our laws, placed Trump in office a second time. He has a responsibility — to the American people, to the U.S. Constitution, and even to Catholic moral teaching — to protect and preserve the nature and identity of the country. (READ MORE: Trump, McDonald’s, and the Lost Art of Noblesse Oblige) Broglio’s devotion to pro-life principles, to defending the lives of the unborn innocents who have been so callously and wantonly slaughtered in this country, is admirable. However, he and the rest of the USCCB would do well to familiarize themselves with the Catholic Church’s moral teachings on immigration throughout the centuries. Particularly given the USCCB’s complicity in the ongoing illegal immigration crisis, it might be best for the bishops to sit this one out and focus their efforts on protecting the unborn. The post Catholic Bishops Stumble on Immigration appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Those who wish to govern must sacrifice their freedom. It is not only the grinding demands of a campaign, with its enormous demands on the body and the spirit as well as on the finances. It is, when the campaign has been won, that the greatest demands come.  The greatest of our leaders were true public servants and gave us examples of power harnessed to responsibility. We speak of those in government as public servants. Sometimes, that term expresses only a hope. While Harry Truman left the White House in much the same financial shape as when he came in, we have become inured to folks like the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens for whom a lifetime in government turned out to be immensely rewarding financially.  But we see that the charm of living vicariously through glam politician/celebrities has worn thin. The promise of our American democracy has been that it is the ordinary free citizen who is free to make a life as celebrated and glorious and enriching life as that of the glittering elites. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Unity Is a Common Goal, Often Abused) This last election was largely about the working American casting off the enchantment of the elite classes and seeing that instead of doing good, dedicating themselves to the good of the country, they have concentrated far more effectively on doing well for themselves. They spoke at the polls and told would-be public servants: serve us well or we will remove you. The country wants as its public servants those who realize that the only proper use of power is in service to those who have voted to grant it to him — or her. Good governance is responsible, meaning capable of responding, through its power, to the genuine needs of Americans people: protection from enemies, without and within, ensuring a free market and fair trade, and good at responding to disasters that are beyond the resources of private citizens to address adequately by themselves. One of the illusions of those who fancy themselves the governing class has been that Americans have a great desire to be perennially free of such responsibility. They have used the addictive joys of irresponsibility the way a dealer uses drugs — to enrich themselves irresponsibly, little caring for the destructive effects on the people whom they have hooked. And there is an addictive attraction to power with no responsibility, and it allows us to plan lives around money we need not pay back, devotion to ourselves that we may take for granted, and an imagined unlimited ability to satisfy every craving with no consequence of ill health. A permanent childhood, endlessly gratifying.  To the degree we have fallen for this bait and that our culture has turned towards such an ethos, we elect leaders who reflect this irresponsibility in a variety of ways in their own lives. We are blessed, however, with powerful counterexamples of what politicians can be. The greatest of our leaders were true public servants and gave us examples of power harnessed to responsibility. We were blessed at the start with George Washington and his conscious attempt to establish an ethos of selfless duty as the main requisite of the job of head of the American federal union. Adams left a quiet legacy of doing what was right for the country even if it meant political defeat. Lincoln gave his own life in ridding our nation of the obscenity of slavery. In a later age, Truman was famous for the attitude expressed by the sign on his Oval Office desk: The Buck Stops Here. Ronald Reagan had a motto on his desk as well: “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit,” teaching that empowerment depends not on enhancing one’s glory but on dedication to what needs to be done. But our own times provide counter examples as well. One of Rush Limbaugh’s most acute criticisms of Obama’s presidency was 44’s proclivity to always speak as the perennial candidate, always free to lecture and criticize, and never accountable for the results of his own use of power. He wanted us to believe as well that the government was something outside him and for which he was not responsible. Judge me on utopian promises, he was saying, and not on what I deliver in the world of action in which you, my subjects, live. On the other hand, one can equally evade responsibility by claiming the opposite: to be power incarnate, and thus reducing to zero the standing of anyone to question him. Dr. Fauci famously showed that attitude when, subject to increasingly telling criticism, he fulminated, “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science,” dimly echoing the phrase famously attributed to Louis XIV: “I am the state.”  In either the Fauci way or the Obama way, the same result follows — the one exercising the power is trying to exempt himself from any accounting. He wishes to be free to act with impunity in the future, either by denying the power he holds (Obama’s way) or denying any accountability for it (Fauci’s way). The problem of responsibility is shared by every free individual. Genesis tells that God gave the human being enough power to rule all other beings, but within a framework: “To work it and to protect it.” The message is that we are responsible for protecting the world over which we have been given power. We are part of a commonwealth that will prosper if we act within the bounds of care and accountability. In the wake of the disastrous results of their narcissistic exercise of power, Obama and his proxies under Biden peddled the excuse that all blame lay elsewhere. They peddled the malignant Woke construct of an always-guilty oppressor class, identifiable by ethnicity and designated from birth to be forever responsible for all that goes wrong in society. Eventually, this metastasized into one great enemy, to whom all blame was always appropriate — Donald Trump as Emmanuel Goldstein. (READ MORE: Created in God’s Image: Where Human Greatness Lies) Existentially fearsome, eternally threatening, his menace justified every abrogation of the traditions of our politics that has kept our Republic from following the Greek democracies into a suicidal plunge into oblivion. But now, by the grace of Providence, the citizens awarded political power to us. What will we do with it? We have had plenty of people to blame for their misuse of power. The drama of Trump overcoming the brute force of a coordinated political attack that aimed to censor, censure, impoverish, isolate, criminalize, and imprison him — certainly inspired some to attempt to assassinate him — is an epic for the ages — yeuge! Time to Deliver for Every American But now we will have the power, and we will be rightly measured by our use of it. Lincoln realized this and tried to turn America towards a new birth rather that into a settlement of old scores once the rebellion had been defeated. It is up to us to as well provide an example for the ages about what American good governance really should look like. The first time around Trump delivered a fine economy and a world more peaceful than in any other administration of this century. All was overwhelmed by the monstrous lies of the impeachment campaigns, which have at last been dealt their mortal blow by an American public that has had years to make up its mind and consider. Now it is up to us to deliver. No excuses, no fear. Just as Trump has put together in this winning campaign a memorable coalition from all parts of America, each bringing their talents to bear for the cause, so must we continue. The path we take must command and excite the best and the brightest, must encourage a path forward in which we welcome merit, ability, and devotion to our national cause and in the cause of freedom. It must look towards what we can all be together, and only in the most egregious and criminal of cases, look backwards towards what we now as a country leave behind. Trump’s comeback is legendary. Now for a legendary presidency, filled with the knowledge he has expressed so movingly of being spared by divine providence from the assassin’s bullet. Let his term of office be galvanized by that knowledge of purpose. May we all welcome in a renewed sense of an American Covenant, an embrace of our responsibility to each other, to the world, and above all, to the One in whom we find our oneness and whose blessings on us all we humbly entreat. The post We Must All Renew the American Covenant appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Donald Trump’s historic election victory has completed the realignment of American politics. The GOP has emerged as the party of the working class, while the Democrats are now the party of financial and cultural elites. Trump won 31 of the 50 states, and his stunning popular vote victory brought the Senate under GOP control and appears to have enabled Republicans to keep control of the House. But to consolidate that political realignment, Trump will have to keep the promises he made to the American people during the campaign. And those promises can be grouped under the broad heading of “America First.” He has effectively pledged to go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy but to be the champion only of America’s liberty. Despite the Democrats and mainstream media’s attempts to portray “America First” as a version of Nazism at home and isolationism  abroad, the American people decisively rejected that narrative. Beginning with Barack Obama, the elite left and neoconservative right sought to convert the word “nationalism” into something dark and dangerous. The Obama-led left understood that nationalism stood in the way of their desire for global governance. Denigrating nationalism was part of what Obama meant when he promised to fundamentally transform America. Recall that one of Obama’s first undertakings in 2009 was to go on an international tour where he apologized for America’s past sins. He also publicly downplayed the notion of American exceptionalism. Part of the left’s strategy here was to persuade Americans that appeals to nationalism were xenophobic, racist, misogynist, intolerant, and un-American. When businessman and entertainment personality Donald Trump entered the political arena in 2015 and embraced nationalism, the left, who previously liked  Trump or at least found him to be tolerable, suddenly vilified him. Trump’s greatest sin in their eyes was that he appealed to the uneducated, unwashed Americans who, in Obama’s words, clung  to their religion and guns. Trump’s audience for his “America First” mutterings were the people that Hillary Clinton called “deplorables” and Joe Biden called  “garbage.” Soon, the Obama-left added the words “white Christian” to “nationalism” in describing dangerous Trump supporters. Many Christians, after all, opposed abortion on demand and favored the overruling of Roe v. Wade, and abortion had by then became sacrosanct for Democrats and the left in general. And Donald Trump in his first term had made the end of Roe possible by appointing constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices. White Christian nationalists became enemies of the state. Exit polls showed that the two most important issues in the 2024 election were the economy/inflation and the crisis at the southern border. Trump repeatedly addressed both of those issues and promised voters he would cut taxes and carry out mass deportations of illegal aliens (especially those with criminal records). Trump said he would remove taxes on tips, overtime pay, and social security benefits. He also promised to lower inflation and restrain government spending. And Trump said he would threaten and use tariffs and penalize American companies who sent manufacturing jobs overseas while incentivizing domestic manufacturing to protect American workers. With a compliant GOP-led Congress, Trump should be able to accomplish some, if not all, of those things. Trump will need to ensure that his tax cuts — as he promised — are targeted first and foremost at the working class. During the 2024 campaign Trump characterized the crisis at our southern border as an “invasion.” He pointed out that many of the illegals that crossed the border were dangerous criminals — an assertion later confirmed by the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security. Trump blamed the Biden administration’s open border policies for the crisis, and apparently most voters agreed. Belated attempts to pass a flawed border control bill failed in Congress and the left’s effort to blame Trump for the bill’s defeat was unpersuasive. Trump promised mass deportation of illegals, and polls showed that most voters approved. If Trump was to flip-flop on this issue, he would alienate a sizeable portion of his “America First” supporters. Trump also promised to return the United States to energy dominance by promoting oil exploration, fracking, nuclear power, and renewable energy sources. This issue resonated in states like Pennsylvania — so much so that Kamala Harris flip-flopped on this issue, even though Trump commercials showed her previous remarks in which she promised to end fracking. The “America First” voters don’t want to be forced to drive electric vehicles, and they don’t want their sons and daughters fighting wars in the Middle East to maintain access to foreign energy sources when we have plenty of energy sources at home. The Realist Promise “America First” also has a national security component that supports a more restrained “realist” approach to the world instead of the neoliberal/neoconservative interventionist policies of the past three decades. Trump promised voters that he would end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and focus on deterring China in the western Pacific. Trump also wants our European and Asian allies to contribute  more toward their own defense — something that most American presidents supported in the past, and something that also resonates with most Americans. Trump has vowed not to waste American lives and resources fighting peripheral wars to spread democracy throughout the world. Americans have had their fill of costly nation-building efforts. Trump is not, as he is often depicted by the neoliberals and neoconservatives, an isolationist; he is a foreign policy realist in the tradition of George Washington and John Quincy Adams. He has effectively pledged to go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy but to be the champion only of America’s liberty. Whether the Trump-led realignment of the political parties is solidified will depend on how many of these promises Trump will keep. Stay tuned. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Would Bush’s Endorsement Help Harris? The Garbage Election The post Trump’s Well-Chosen Promises appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I understand that people are very upset that the angonoka turtles are disappearing, but what has me on edge is the slow extinction of blondes. For years, blondes have been the last hope for joy in a declining world. I have no intention of disparaging brunettes and redheads, but without blondes, the West is dying, this time for real. These are days of trenches, thick scarves, and camaraderie. Of friends, steamy bars, and good love. Some say it’s a seasonal thing. Everything changes at this time of the year. With the cold, girls parade their beauty wrapped in large plaid scarves, thick jackets, and delicate trench coats, while men favor long dark coats, hanging down above feet, laced in rain shoes. Eyes become dense and bright, and smiles float strangely complicit in the night time gloom. With the cold, the tyranny of good taste and elegance returns to the city, and somehow takes us back to one of the oldest setbacks in the history of mankind: how to respond to the freezing inclemency? The ancients invented bonfires and braziers, and then we spoiled it with electrical appliances that smell of short circuits, and are just as good at warming your hands as grilling steaks. But anyway, with this early morning breeze, sharp as crystal shards, the festival of exposed flesh that has given us so many misfortunes this summer is over, and the cities receive the best news possible: people are getting dressed again. Let us toast to celebrate that we will once again see artists painting murky canvases of streets, full of puddles, but with her appearing in black and white, a foreground of surprise and beauty, protecting herself under a borrowed umbrella, with him, a picture of the classic gentleman, hand inside the pocket of that black coat and an urgent cigarette between his lips. Everything in November could be a happy work of art, were it not for the fact that we miss the golden reflection of the sun’s mane. There is a whole theology of weather about which little has been written. Heat calls for bad taste, and I suppose vice, while cold encourages virtue. The author’s theory does not meet with ecclesiastical approval, perhaps because it is based on the apocryphal moral principle of exposed toes: a time of year that encourages men to show their toenails can only be related to sin, while a season that encourages covering up, seclusion, and closing one’s mouth, is an impulse towards contemplation and ascetic struggle. The cold prods us towards the fervor of friendship, towards an embrace, balustrade love, and the best red wine. It also invites us to read a good book under thick blankets, to watch embers crackle in the fireplace for hours, or to visit those coffee shops that seem suddenly aged, and that, behind dense and foggy windows, hot chocolate is served while nutritionists drink carajillos at the back of the bar, asking themselves where their impeccable business plans have gone wrong. A wet Paris blooms in every neighborhood and so we know that October is already bending its promises of eternity. It succumbs, like everything else. November arrives on the horizon carrying a cruise ship of cement overhead, a gray and deceptive sky, like that pre-Christmas weather so very ours, so Galician, which seems to hesitate between raining and raining, or raining again. It comes full of moray eels and that is the only thing that makes me uneasy. Finally, hair gets darker. November is a month of few blondes. And of going gray. November is the month of many gray-haired men. It’s all part of the same deal, to rent our Mediterranean and colorful soul, and become, for a while, one of those capitals where it snows like any Christmas in a Frank Capra movie. And how beautiful it is to be alive on those days, when the photos of couples come out as if trapped in the 1920s, when winter love was a sparkle in sepia and two intertwined glances, telling each other things in silence for many pages of the kitchen almanac. These are days of trenches, thick scarves, and camaraderie. Of friends, steamy bars, and good love. Of cursed poets, old books, and big families, swirling around the stew pot, among the kitchen vapors that have seen us grow up. Here beside the sea a soft sadness is painted, while joy sprouts inside homes and those restaurants that overflow with meat, laughter, and wine. The seaside on the other hand, cold, sparse and discreet, only shelters lonely poets, lunatics and lovers, who if we are to be honest, during this hour of tremor and storm, are the same thing, the same brown cat in the infinite night of the incipient winter, which arrives again with its hands full of good taste and beauty. Everything is, I suppose, perfect, except for the extinction of the blondes who, with their jovial, augustian look and their sixties striped bikinis, saved us from the festival of bad taste that is summer. READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: A Long Letter of Condolence to All the Losers Musk, Spain Is Calling You The post November Brings Disturbingly Few Blondes appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ever since Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election in 2000, the Dems have been pitching a temper tantrum about the electoral college. It’s been a 24-year drumbeat of: The electoral college is an obsolete artifact of the 18th century. The will of the people is being ignored. It’s not democratic — in a country that’s not a democracy. Suddenly, the people who want to control every aspect of our lives, are all for pure democracy. Our founders were wise beyond the average leftist’s limited intellect. They understood that pure democracies always end in looting and tyranny. With the right propaganda and moral decay, it’s just a matter of time before some dictator wannabe convinces 51 percent of the mob to vote their feelings and give him autocratic powers to make the wealthy pay their share (i.e. redistribute the wealth from the group that earned it, to the group that didn’t). Of course, after the redistribution has been completed and the booty consumed, the prosperity will wane but the tyranny will remain. If the Dems keep pushing this bill, I may yet get to see them hoist themselves on their own petard in four years. That’s why our founders were big fans of checks and balances. They understood that the only good government is a government incapable of enslaving its citizens. To that end, they entrusted the states with power over the federal government. States have influence over legislation (via the Senate) and elections (via the choice of delegates for the electoral college). (READ MORE: The Imaginary Electoral College Advantage for Trump) But none of that matters to our leftists. If the electoral college is standing between California and New York dictating to the rest of the country how to live, it is an undemocratic relic that must be eliminated. They just needed to find a way around the Constitution without that troublesome debate and amendment process. That’s when the Dems came up with the National Popular Vote Bill. They’re trying to get a controlling majority of states to pass the bill, which would award their state’s electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote — thus circumventing the check on concentrated power which the Constitution provides. The bill has already passed in 17 states, and the District of Columbia: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois, and New York. Those jurisdictions collectively have 209 electoral votes. Even though those states have passed the bill, it does not become operational until states with an additional 61 electoral votes pass it. At that point the participating states will have the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to control the electoral college. Unfortunately, short of Supreme Court intervention, there’s nothing the peasants in flyover country can do about it. Have you noticed anything peculiar about the participating states? There’s not a single red or swing state among them. It’s a scheme designed by the Dems to use the states they control, to silence the states that they don’t control. The National Popular Vote Bill is a dirty trick to disenfranchise states like Florida and Pennsylvania, thus cementing one-party rule over the executive branch. However, there’s something proponents of the National Popular Vote Bill never understood. Republicans haven’t lost the popular vote because they can’t win it. They’ve lost it because they haven’t been trying to win it. They’ve been playing by the rules — something the Dems don’t understand. The Presidency is won by winning the electoral college, not the popular vote. It’s part of that little “checks and balances” thingy that our founders came up with. That’s why just about every Republican in modern history has competed to win enough states, rather than a popular majority. But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from undermining the peaceful transfer of power by claiming that a loss of the popular vote delegitimized the election of George W. Bush (in 2000) and Donald Trump (in 2016). But then Donald Trump decided to try for a return to the Oval Office and ran a very unconventional campaign in 2024. He didn’t play the game as a calculated application of gamesmanship. He wanted more than the win. He wanted to give the Dems the spanking that they had coming. He campaigned for the votes of all Americans, not just those in competitive states. He held rallies across all of America, including the blue states of New York, Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Illinois. He knew he was never going to win those states, but by encouraging Republicans in those states to vote anyway, he ran up his popular vote total. Guess what? The Donald delivered a tear inducing beating to those who had impugned his character, attacked his wealth, attempted to imprison him, and celebrated attempts on his life. He won the electoral college 312 to 228, and the popular vote by almost 5 million votes. (READ MORE: The Electoral College and Slavery: A Reality Check) It has been pure schadenfreude watching the radicals melt down on national TV after the citizens of the United States selected Adolph Hitler to lead us into a brighter future (snark intended). After being called a racist womanizing semi-fascist Nazi for the past eight years, I feel entitled to trigger their anguish a bit more.  I’d like the Dems to consider how this election would have turned out if the National Popular Vote Bill had already been operational. Can you imagine Joy Reid’s tears upon finding out that the Donald had won the electoral college 521 to 17 — after being awarded the votes of the participating states? Can you visualize the tweets of “Meathead” Reiner when his home state of California was awarded to the “cancerous” Donald Trump? How many profanities would “Raging Bull” De Niro be able to scream when his home state of New York was awarded to the “convicted felon.” It would have been glorious!  If the Dems keep pushing this bill, I may yet get to see them hoist themselves on their own petard in four years. Thinking of JD Vance or Ron DeSantis with a 500+ electoral college landslide gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over. Note: Obviously I’m not in favor of selecting our President by popular vote. But if the Dems continue down this path, they may discover that it comes with some unintended consequences. John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He is a staff writer for the American Free News Network and can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com. The post If Only We’d Had the National Popular Vote Bill appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Kids these days.” We often hear older generations complaining about the younger generation because of how they’ve gotten softer and had much easier lives than previous cohorts. Young people respond with “OK Boomer,” blowing it off as something the old, cranky generations always say. It’s as universal a phrase as “back in my day.” But this time, the complaint might carry more weight. There’s evidence that young people are truly maturing more slowly than previously. The kids are staying kids for far too long. I’ve seen it in my own experiences with my Gen Z peers how young Americans have been infantilized — and the cultural implications of it. We laugh at the videos of hysterical young (and old) Americans reacting to President Trump’s landslide victory and stories of college campuses canceling classes and providing “safe spaces” for students. It’s funny, but it’s also a troubling result of our culture’s chronic coddling of young people. According to Pew Research, young Americans are reaching key life milestones — getting a full-time job, being financially independent, getting married, and more — at a much later age than previous generations. The trend of delaying full-time jobs, financial independence, and marriage reflects a culture that encourages prolonged dependence rather than independence. In 1980, 64 percent of 21-year-olds had gotten their first full-time job compared to the 39 percent in 2021. And the 32 percent of young people married at 21-years-old in 1980 dropped to a measly six percent. Both metrics have decreased by 25 percent.  Think about it.  It’s no wonder the average age for a groom is 30 and for a bride 28 when they’re being provided legos, mindfulness exercises, hot cocoa, and milk and cookies as students at the elite Georgetown University were offered post Trump-win. Our nation’s elite universities are establishing a norm that a self-care day and “safe space” is necessary and normal when you don’t get your way. They’re being treated like children who can’t deal with emotions.  So why is it surprising that they’d act how they’re treated? Just like parents who don’t want to discipline their children and hand them an I-pad instead. Obviously, these students aren’t ready to get married, have kids, and raise the next generation. Just like I-pad kids aren’t ready for the real world without Bluey. Those who’ve been coddled might be surprised to find out that family responsibilities don’t pause because they’re upset. Kids still need to be fed, clothed, and cared for when they’re sick or sad. And the university won’t be there to provide hot cocoa to ease their emotional pain after.  But my generation isn’t the victim of just bad parenting and universities catering to their every emotional need — we’ve also pushed marriage off due to hook-up culture, dating apps, pornography, and the decline of religion.  Delayed financial independence and moving out from parents’ houses is also, in part, the result of higher college attendance rates and steep housing prices. Either way, it doesn’t foster maturity in young people. And it doesn’t push them to grow up.  It’s an indicator of a culture in decline.  This decline is clearly demonstrated in our falling birthrate. In 2023, the U.S. hit of 1.62 children per woman fertility rate — lower than the 2.1 children per woman rate required to keep the population level steady.  But again, it makes sense. If women are getting married later, they have far fewer years than previous generations to have children while still able to conceive and carry a baby to term.  Now, I understand that marriage isn’t a calling for every individual. But as a single woman who’d like to get married young, I’ve personally seen the effects on my generation of not being forced to grow up. I’ve been startled by how many marriage-aged men on dating apps are presenting as frat boys who live for the weekend and spend Sundays recovering rather than at church — at age 30. We can’t just blame the men. Many women pursue hookups and partying well into their mid-to-late-20s. And then it hits them. If they want children, they’re going to need to settle down ASAP. Maturing the Young Now that I’ve spent 700 words complaining about the problems, let’s talk solutions. We must promote maturity and responsibility among young people. This means shifting the cultural narrative, calling out universities for infantilizing students and encouraging young people to join the workforce early. First, conservatives must start leveraging whatever cultural power we have to shift the Overton window back toward normalcy. We should call out, mock, and shame the universities that continue the infantilizing of students. Donors should leverage contributions to these higher education institutions until they stop the insanity. We should celebrate students who decide to go straight into the workforce after high school. College isn’t a necessity for everyone, and these young Americans learn about the real world sooner and avoid the spoiling (and indoctrination) of American higher education. While undecided college seniors apply for an often-unnecessary post-graduate degree and $100,000 in college loan debt, other young Americans have been working and building real-life skills for five years already. Lastly, we should promote the beauty and pride that comes from maturing. Boys becoming men and girls becoming women in their early to mid-20s is normal. It’s good. And it’s what our nation needs to reverse the decline. READ MORE from Libby Krieger: Yes, Furries Are Gay 12-Year-Old Student Sent Home Over Conservative T-Shirt The post Our Young Must Aim for Adulthood appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

NEW DELHI, INDIA — Perhaps the most striking first impression for any visit to India, the world’s most populous nation and most complicated democracy, is the traffic. Even in the nation’s capital the roads are barely organized chaos. Lane markings mean nothing, as drivers create as many lanes as cars will fit abreast. Smaller towns don’t bother with lights, making every intersection an extended game of vehicular chicken. Everywhere cows have priority, wandering with calculated insouciance, irrespective of the inconvenience imposed on all. When Dalits, formerly the “untouchables,” choose to convert, Hindu nationalists blame Christians for demonstrating love and concern. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is pushing India toward what he hopes will be superpower status. While no one can doubt the economic prowess of the Indian people — they have prospered while overspreading the globe — the country remains often hostile to markets and entrepreneurship. The so-called Permit or License Raj continues to resist Modi’s efforts at economic liberalization. Even in the capital of New Delhi extreme poverty, so unnecessary, is evident, and life in the countryside is very hard for many. Nevertheless, Modi recently won his third general election, a remarkable feat. However, his victory was incomplete. His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost its parliamentary majority, forcing him into a coalition government for the first time. Moreover, Modi is officially a lame duck. After a decade as premier, the 74-old is serving his last term. That should be cause for celebration, given his campaign to turn India in an authoritarian direction. One likely successor is his long-time number two, Home Minister Amit Shah. Alas, reports Bloomberg columnist Andy Mukherjee, “Shah’s control over federal investigative agencies — and the way he used them against political opponents — has made him India’s most-feared man.” For instance, the government jailed and expelled from parliament Rajiv Gandhi, a leading opposition leader. Shah, who served with Modi in Gujarat state, “wants a Hindu nation much more than Modi,” contends journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. However, Shah may not be the worst choice. Other candidates share Modi’s political authoritarianism twinned with Hindu nationalism, which, more than economic reform, became the BJP’s overriding message. (Unfortunately, the Indian National Congress party has desperately responded by increasingly accommodating Hindu violence.). Mukherjee points to Yogi Adityanath, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. The latter “has acquired a reputation as a strongman. He is known for carrying out house demolitions, particularly of Muslim properties, as extrajudicial punishment following episodes of communal violence. He appeals to the hardliners as someone who can take forward Modi’s agenda of religious polarization at a national level.” Modi was a product of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, a virulently Hindu organization, and its ideology of Hindutva, which equates India and Hinduism. The RSS is likely to play an important role in anointing his successor. He came to the political fore while running the government in Gujarat state, in which he was implicated in mob violence against local Muslims, in which some 1,200 or more were killed. Conveniently, much of the evidence disappeared and he was never held accountable. His foreign backers also have worked assiduously to whitewash his record. Yet Modi has brought his commitment to Hindu nationalism with him to national leadership: “Founded as a secular republic, India now functions as a de facto Hindu state.” Unfortunately, politics has become the greatest threat to religious minorities. Explained the Washington Post, “a broader truth about India today: that antipathy toward the Abrahamic religions of Islam and Christianity — often portrayed as alien religions brought to India by its historical invaders — can be wielded as an effective mobilizing force for political ends.” These and other religious minorities suffered greatly in the recent political campaign, targeted by Modi and the government. Reported the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: In the leadup to the June 2024 elections, political officials increasingly wielded hate speech and discriminatory rhetoric against Muslims and other religious minorities. Prime Minister Modi repeatedly claimed that the opposition party would ‘wipe out [the] Hindu faith from the country’ and had plans to make Hindus “second class citizens in their own country.” He perpetuated hateful stereotypes about Muslims, referring to them as “infiltrators.” Union Home Minister Amit Shah echoed these statements and insisted falsely that opposition leaders would impose Shari’a if elected — despite the fact that the opposition election manifesto included no mention of Shari’a or Muslims. The growing intolerance for religious minorities poses an obvious threat to the most vulnerable communities in India. For instance, a report released earlier this year by the Religious Liberty Commission of Evangelical Fellowship of India concluded: The year leading up to the general elections in the spring of 2024 has seen an unfortunate increase in divisive rhetoric and inflammatory language. The same was not adequately addressed by official channels and sometimes it seemed to have been condoned in large and sensitive states of the Union. The resulting sense of immunity in sections of society has led to a painfully large number of incidents of violence against the Christian Community, and religious minorities in general. Data with the EFI Religious Liberty Commission (EFIRLC) shows an alarmingly steep rise in the number of violent incidents against the Christian community, climbing from 413 in 2022 to 601 at the end of 2023. The Indian political apparatus, its law enforcement agencies, and its justice system, specially at the level villages and small towns, have been found wanting and slow in its responses despite urgent pleas for help from victims, church leaders and civil society. Rising intolerance and violence like this undermines New Delhi’s claim to global leadership. Only last month, reported International Christian Concern: Two Hindu nationalist organizations are trying to stop two large public Christian conventions scheduled to take place in different provinces of the Central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal have submitted appeals to the police and district administrative officials, warning that unless the conventions are canceled, authorities will be responsible for any subsequent communal disturbances. That is, unless the police suppress Christians’ right to assemble, radicals will be forced to attack. Which will then be the government’s fault! BJP-dominated states are responsible for much discriminatory legislation and action. Indeed, Christian organizations privately fear retaliation for simply criticizing government misbehavior. A U.S. group concerned with religious liberty published an article of mine, only to remove it after its India-based staff expressed fear of being even indirectly linked to criticism of Modi. For ten years BJP rule has degraded India’s status as a secular state welcoming all faiths. In October the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a painful update on India: Religious freedom conditions in India have continued to worsen throughout 2024, particularly in the months prior to and immediately following the country’s national elections. In addition to the enforcement of discriminatory state-level legislation and propagation of hateful rhetoric, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government made a concerted effort to implement election promises that negatively and disproportionately impacted religious minorities and their ability to practice their faith. Such promises included enacting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), inaugurating the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, and introducing a national code to replace religion-specific personal laws. Each action was justified by government officials as necessary to protect India’s ‘cultural [and] linguistic heritage’ — a common euphemism for Hindu supremacy, often at the expense of religious minorities. In raw numbers Muslims suffer the most from such public disabilities and private violence. However, Christians have faced special hostility for their evangelism, especially to those historically left behind by India’s Brahmin elite. When Dalits, formerly the “untouchables,” choose to convert, Hindu nationalists blame Christians for demonstrating love and concern. The CAA discriminates against Muslims in determining citizenship. The National Register of Citizens is used to expel those lacking citizenship, which also is biased against Muslims. Moreover, “Since the beginning of 2024, Indian authorities have facilitated the expropriation of places of worship, including the construction of Hindu temples on the sites of mosques,” including the Ram Temple, long a RSS priority. BJP-dominated governments have continued to transform laws governing family relations. The BJP also has maintained a nationwide assault on evangelism, restricting conversions and even prayer for healing. Christians are the chief victims of these restrictions: “Since the beginning of the year, authorities have arrested dozens of Christians on allegations of conducting or participating in forced conversions. In June, for example, police in Uttar Pradesh detained 13 Christians, including four pastors; in July, seven Christians faced accusations of violating the state’s anti-conversion law in two separate incidents.” Indeed, according to the Fellowship anti-conversion statutes have become a prime weapon of persecution. “For Christians, the main whip hand is the false bogey of proselytization which is used to justify horrific crimes against the community. Dalit Christians, Adivasi Christians, and Christian women are vulnerable to violence and discrimination due to their intersectional identities.” One of the worst sources of violence is cow vigilantism. Non-Hindus are threatened by both state governments and private mobs. Indeed, “20 of India’s 28 states currently enforce anti-cow slaughter laws. Vigilante groups and self-proclaimed ‘cow protectors’ frequently exploit such laws to target religious minorities, including Muslims, Christians, and Dalits.” One mob killed a Hindu student mistakenly accused of smuggling cattle. Alas, government officials often promote violence: “perpetrators of such attacks often operate with impunity; they rarely face punishment and are often released on bail within 24 hours.” Unfortunately, such assaults are common. A special United Nations panel noted reports of violence and hate crimes against minorities; dehumanizing rhetoric and incitement to discrimination and violence; targeted and arbitrary killings; acts of violence carried out by vigilante groups; targeted demolitions of homes of minorities; enforced disappearances; the intimidation, harassment and arbitrary and prolonged detention of human rights defenders and journalists; arbitrary displacement due to development mega-projects; and intercommunal violence, as well as the misuse of official agencies against perceived political opponents. Violent Hindu nationalists spare no religious minority from their wrath. Reported the Commission: From January to March 161 incidents of violence against Christians in India were reported — 47 of which occurred in the state of Chhattisgarh. Such incidents ranged from violent attacks on churches and prayer meetings to physical assaults, harassment, and false allegations of forced conversion. Muslims continued to be targeted, as well. In March, a group of Hindus in Gujarat violently attacked foreign Muslim university students as they gathered for prayer during Ramadan. The university subsequently issued new guidelines, instructing students not to pray in common spaces. Moreover, following the election results, during which the BJP lost its national majority, at least 28 attacks against Muslims occurred from June to August. Unfortunately, this is unexceptional. Last May saw the start of substantial, continuing violence against Christians in the Northeast state of Manipur that a year later had “led to the loss of over 100 lives, the destruction of at least 228 churches, 300 people being injured and tens of thousands displaced.” Last October a meeting of an even smaller sect, Jehovah’s Witnesses, was bombed by Hindu extremists. As 2023 dawned, the Washington Post reported: “Since December, Hindu vigilantes in Chhattisgarh state in eastern India, enraged by the spread of Christianity and rallied by local political leaders, have assaulted and displaced hundreds of Christian converts in dozens of villages.” The UN panel warned against the violence. Like the People’s Republic of China, New Delhi punishes its critics in foreign nations. In 2023 the Modi government apparently plotted the assassination of an Indian-born Canadian Sikh. Moreover, reported USCIRF: “In 2024 the government of India has expanded its tactics of repression to target religious minorities and their advocates abroad…. including the revocation of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards as well as threats of violence and surveillance.” In response to this awful record, the Commission recommended that Washington designate India as a “Country of Particular Concern.” That remains unlikely, running afoul of policymakers of both parties who hope to make New Delhi into another informal “partner,” if not formal ally. However, India has made clear it will not be America’s catspaw. Indeed, Indians have dramatically increased trade with Russia since the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, India will naturally continue to expand its military and watch China warily, while engaging in naval exercises with Japan and others. Washington should see India plain. Concluded USCIRF: The Indian government continues to repress and restrict religious communities through the enforcement of discriminatory legislation like anti-conversion laws, cow slaughter laws, and antiterrorism laws. In doing so, authorities have arbitrarily detained individuals highlighting violations of religious freedom, including religious leaders, journalists, and human rights activists, without due process — in some cases for years. Indian officials have repeatedly employed hateful and derogatory rhetoric and misinformation to perpetuate false narratives about religious minorities, inciting widespread violence, lynchings, and demolition of places of worship. Americans in and out of government should call on New Delhi to act the part of a major international leader. It is particularly important for India’s friends to do so. After leaving most of its population in immiserating poverty for decades, the government has finally adopted more realistic economic policies. Now it should take a hard look at its increasingly authoritarian domestic practices. To become great India must be good, treating all of its people, irrespective of their religious faith, as Indians. READ MORE from Doug Bandow:  Constitutionalists Should Use Biden’s Judicial Proposals to Thwart the Legal Left North Korea: The World’s Worst Human Rights Black Hole Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.  He is a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and author of several books, including Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics and Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire. The post Hindu Nationalism Against Religious Freedom appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.