Wall Street and corporate lawyers — “The Rich” — are a built-in capitalist Republican constituency. Right? A century earlier, William Jennings Bryan, in his famous “Cross of Gold” speech, stirred his Democrat base of farmers and others on the economy’s lower rungs, declaring that his “Free Silver” Democrats were at war with the gold-standard capitalists of Wall Street and their corporate lawyers. Yet, as the decades have unfolded, Wall Street and the highest-priced legal community paradoxically have moved — almost lock, stock, and barrel —to the left. Meanwhile, farmers and union workers stopped voting left by the time the condescending Obamas and Hillarys mocked them as “deplorables” who “cling to their guns and religion.” Meanwhile, Trump, a child of New York’s outer boroughs, spoke their language and shared their working-class values despite privileges he inherited. Big business always voted GOP. Weren’t their Wall Street financiers and corporate law attorneys supposed to vote Republican, too? How explain why Wall Street investors and big-firm corporate and other lawyers lean so sharply Democrat? After all, these are the demographic who dream, breathe, and live for money, only for money. Progressives they? Their firms promote their “humanitarian concerns,” donating to public service law groups that provide free legal aid for the needy. They preach and virtue-signal about helping the poor and indigent, changing the world, fighting climate change, promoting diversity — the whole agenda — and of course donating Democrat. It seems so strange. In my 10 years of big-firm corporate litigating, I got to know dozens personally behind closed doors, and all they cared about was making more money. An extra-woke San Francisco–based firm assigned me to defend their most precious of clients, a cigarette maker being sued for lying to the public about the deadly nicotine that their cancer-causing products fed to the gullible and unwise alike. Another firm had me on a team defending a leading national energy company fighting off the distraught widows of their dead coal miners who had died prematurely from pneumoconiosis (black lung disease). I asked a senior attorney at the firm how he reconciled being a liberal Democrat donor, a progressive always talking about caring for the forgotten and the “little guy,” with his leading a legal team to crush and destroy those widows, already mired in poverty and now without breadwinners. He responded: “F**k ’em.” Certainly, everyone is entitled to the best defense, and it’s perfectly fine, I guess, to live primarily for more and more money until one dies. I myself am quite avid an advocate of capitalist principles, but I come from a different culture, belief, and worldview. I am more obsessed with doing good than in doing well. As long as other people keep their hands off me and leave me alone, I am fine with people pursuing their lawful passions. Still, I remained confounded that people so obsessed with endless money-making at the expense of the “little guy” could pontificate on the Democrat side of the aisle. In time, I discerned why such hardline money-worshippers affiliate with a political party that pledges to extricate and spread their wealth, a party whose DEI agenda would keep their own kids out of top colleges and jobs. Both Wall Street and Law share a unique common denominator: their fields are overregulated and forever subject to more regulation. The Democrats overregulate. By contrast, true conservatives speak of cutting regulations. For attorneys and the financial sector, government regulation is their bread and butter — just as long as it is not directed at them. Therefore, by donating heavily to Democrats, their quid pro quo is that, if Democrats get elected, new regulations indeed will be enacted to “force” The Rich to pay “their fair share” to “help the poor and the little guy.” However, in exchange for that monetary support, those regulations will mostly bypass the financial firms and the lawyers themselves because they have donated generously. Sometimes, to fool the general public — never a difficult challenge — new regulations will seem to be aimed at Wall Street and Big Law, too — but they will include carefully masked loopholes, negotiated with Wall Street and Law Firm lobbyists, that make those new rules meaningless. (It is like the way Biden and Harris allow 11 million illegals into the country and then propose border legislation three months before the election.) Each time new Democrats come to power, there are massive new regulations. But, for the most part, they carefully sidestep regulating the actual practice of law or finance. For show and headlines, they pass an act — but carefully include the widest loopholes. Instead, their reams of new regulations ream everyone else: primarily big business, the middle class, and small businesses. In turn, those complex and extraordinary regulations drive both big business and small businesses to race to law firms and Wall Street financial firms to help them bypass the new laws. That’s where the real money is: “After hundreds of (billable) legal/financial research hours, we believe we have found a way around the new regulation.” Or: “We have a worldwide presence with offices in Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, even Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. We can help move your capital and factories out of America and can help you with hiring a new local workforce in the new country. We proudly offer an entire portfolio to bypass the new regulations and taxes.” In other words, the regulations that Democrats newly impose — as long as they do not directly regulate the financial and legal sectors — bring enormous amounts of business, billions of dollars, to the two fields of endeavor whose entire raison d’etre is to help people get around new regulations. Consider: When Democrats get elected, they raise taxes and ban items (e.g., gas stoves, gasoline-powered cars, plastic straws). The brutalized business sector thereupon needs lawyers and investment experts for advisory services to generate creative legal schemes to bypass the disruption. Maybe move manufacturing to China, Vietnam, Mexico, or Thailand. Maybe a loophole in the law’s drafting allows a waiver, exemption, or bypass. What if the gas stove includes an electric plug, like a hybrid car? (Dang. I should have patented that. And that is why patent lawyers like Democrats, too. ) Or consider Hollywood. Read the screen credits carefully at the end of the movie or TV show. Although the 20 Americans who still watch the Oscars, Emmys, and Tonys get lectured that it is their duty to embrace higher taxes to assure equal outcomes for everyone, to pay “their fair share,” note carefully that “Hollywood” assiduously crafts schemes to avoid their own paying the new taxes they advocate for everyone else. Proof? Does “Hollywood” produce all their films and shows in Hollywood? Soaring tax increases — promoted by celebrities — are oppressive in Southern California. Therefore, productions move across the border to Canada. Iowa has offered “Hollywood” tax incentives to film there. Many celebrities in Malibu and Beverly Hills have tax-haven homes in Arizona or Nevada. After preaching tax hikes to be imposed on all others, they run away from The (Hollywood) Hills. Signaling virtue, they give millions at Malibu and Beverly Hills soirees to elect Democrats in Montana, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. And then they are off to Romania to film. Chicago was made in Toronto. Hairspray, set in Baltimore — made in Canada. Capote, set in Kansas — made in Canada. Rambo: First Blood — made in Canada. Tax dodge? Mission Accomplished, Sir! They preach taxes for others, saying, “I am ready to pay my fair extra share. So you should, too. We all should pay more to help The Forgotten.” So why do they not volunteer to pay more? Is it illegal for people bedecked in the most glittering jewelry, and wearing special designer dresses that cost more than cars, to write a supplemental check to Uncle Sam? But they do not. Moreover, they can afford any cost of food, gasoline, or mortgage rate their Democrat and progressive policies foist upon others. Their homes are not near concentrations of illegal immigrants or inner-city no-cash-bail violent criminals. They demand mandatory gun buybacks and defunding the police while they hire private armed security and erect huge walls to keep the “riff-raff” away from their homes. Their policies supporting teaching transgender and sex-change ideology, woke math and woke history, to little children in our public schools do not impact them because those who have children send them to inaccessible private schools. Their children bypass college admissions DEI because they donate the required graft or fraudulently conspire to get them on rowing teams. They never are adversely affected themselves by the policies they espouse. The same with Silicon Valley. Cozy up to Democrats, give them billions, and they will not unduly regulate you. They will not touch your precious Section 230 that gives you almost blanket immunity to promote and disseminate to millions of unsophisticated “followers” of ignorant “influencers” vile defamation of Republicans you oppose. They will look aside as you publish Fake News for Democrats’ needs while banning actual news that Democrats decide the public must not see. News of the Hunter laptop could be banned by social media, and even one of two major-party presidential candidates could be banned, on the eve of a national election. It is a corruption. Give the Democrats billions, and they will enact the carve-outs for you. This is why certain among “The Rich” who madly pursue every penny they can obtain — as is their right — falsely signal “virtue” by promoting the anti-capitalists who will gravely damage everyone else but will give them a pass. Subscribe to Rav Fischer’s YouTube channel here at bit.ly/3REFTbk  and follow him on X (Twitter) at @DovFischerRabbi to find his latest classes, interviews, speeches, and observations. To be invited to attend any of his three weekly Zoom classes, send a request to rabbi@yioc.org Rav Fischer’s latest 10-minute messages are up: (i) “There is No Palesine” (here) and (ii) “Jewish Campus Students Need to Stop Whining” (here) READ MORE: Montana: Help Save Americans by Ousting Tester Who Is Kamala Harris? Democrats Have Abandoned Black Men, Hispanics, Asians, Farmers, and Union Workers The post Why So Many of ‘The Rich’ (Corporate Lawyers, Wall Street, Hollywood, Etc.) Support Democrats appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

With the election fast approaching, I know you were all looking forward to this test, which will ensure that you will vote wrong, very wrong, or terribly wrong. Or even all three at the same time.  Instructions: Add 5 points for each choice “A,” 10 points for each choice “B,” 15 points for each choice “C,” and subtract 50 points for each choice “D.” What is your opinion on a new tax for the wealthiest? Good, screw them. Good, let them share with the poor. Good, I like AOC’s “Tax the rich” costume. Whisky and Coke. Do you consider inflation to have been a problem during Biden’s term? What inflation? What is inflation? Who is Biden? No. Would you like to promote free abortion throughout the country? Could it be applied to certain politicians retroactively?  Hesitating between voting for Kamala Harris or Herod. Of course, we need more old people, more cats, and fewer children. Whisky and Coke. Should we have more diversity education in the classroom? Three hours a day at least. Classrooms are a fascist invention. And education should be free until at least the age of 60. If this helps to reduce time for mathematics, go ahead. Should the United States naturalize illegal immigrants? Of course, there are no illegal human beings (except for the IRS). Of course! Even the ones who committed murder. We should faithfully copy Ursula von der Leyen and Angela Merckel’s European model. Whisky and Coke. Is man’s impact on climate change myth or reality? Denialist! You denialist b*****d! Cancel the pollster! To the gallows with the author of this test! What is your opinion of the Chinese communist regime? Respect! You don’t say “communists,” you say “people who identify with a political tendency different from Western stereotypes of democracy.” I wouldn’t piss off the Chinese. Would that there were a democracy like China in these fascist United States! That Xi Jinping doesn’t like the sun much. Should children be guaranteed the right to have their sexual organs amputated at any age? Of course, it’s not something new: my father already threatened me with that every time I failed more than two subjects. Sexual organs do not exist, they are social constructs. Age does not exist; it is a social construct. Children do not exist, they are a social construct. What is your opinion on the current gun control policy? Terrible, offenders without unemployment benefits do not have sufficient access to them. Bad, we Democrats need more armed and irritated people at Trump rallies. Horrible. I am in favor of peace. And marijuana.  What did you say about marijuana? How would you rate the foreign policy of the Biden–Harris era? Biden’s was a disaster. Harris’ was wonderful. Long Live Free Palestine! We should be strengthening ties with Bolivarian liberators such as Nicolás Maduro. Maduro? Will there be Venezuelan rum at the summit? Are you for or in favor of woke policies? In favor. In favor. In favor. Postpone for five minutes. What is your opinion of the electric car? Very good. We shouldn’t make cars, but if we have no choice, at least make them electric. I love them because they don’t make noise, so you can sneakily run over fascists. If Elon Musk makes it, very bad. If it is promoted by George Soros, very good. Does it have back seats, a cigarette lighter, and a hole to hold a bottle? What should U.S. policy toward Israel look like?  The United States should recognize Hamas as a pacifist organization. Jews should be expelled. Israelis should let themselves be killed by their Islamist brothers. Have you seen how many hot chicks there are in the Israeli army? Are you in favor of defunding the police? Of course. Public spending has to be cut somewhere. Yes, and in return build saunas to reeducate prisoners. Most of them only kill because they are stressed. They are the last fascist stronghold in the country. Whisky and Coke. Could you answer YES to the question of whether Kamala Harris worked at McDonalds? Yes. Yes. Yes. The bathroom? Kamala Harris worked at McDonalds? Yes, once. Yes, she served me a delicious vegan and diverse pronoun burger. Yes, every time a McDonald’s goes dark, I hear her hysterical laughter. Yes, but I was served by the blonde at the next register over. Finally, tell us which party you will vote for, and why you have chosen the Democratic Party. Yes. I will vote for the Harris–Swift tandem. The one with the girl at McDonalds. Whisky and Coke. CONCLUSIONS: Between 0 and 100 points: Vote Democrat and urgently sign up for Alcoholics Anonymous. Between 100 and 200 points: Vote Democrat, then bust a couple of storefronts to celebrate. Between 200 and 255 points: You’re already going to vote Democrat, Kamala.  Over 255: go back to school and learn to add (but vote Democrat!) The post The Ultimate Test to Decide Whether to Vote Wrong, Very Wrong, or Terribly Wrong appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

They got to Jerry Seinfeld. He received enough blowback from the Left that he caved. He no longer blames humorless left-wing pundits and activists for the war on comedy. Indeed, he now says he “regrets” claiming that comedy on television has basically disappeared, “[T]he result of the extreme left and P.C. crap, and people worrying so much about offending other people.”  Will Chris Rock and Jennifer Aniston be next? Rock complained in 2019 that he is now stifled, saying, “If it was five years ago, I could say something offensive and funny right now.” Last year, Aniston claimed, “[I]t’s a little tricky because you have to be very careful, which makes it really hard for comedians.” The humorless ones, who are heavily concentrated in education, nonprofit advocacy groups, and the media, have certainly had an effect. In 2008, comedy as a share of the U.S. box office was 21 percent. Now it is in the single digits.  Seinfeld got it right the first time.  Political correctness, or woke politics, is a form of mind control. What animates the Left is power, and nothing is more important than getting inside the heads of the masses. Once the people surrender their conscience, they can be mobilized to do whatever the ruling class wants.  Make no mistake, controlling what we are allowed to laugh at is part and parcel of their agenda. The two most protected demographics in the nation are LGBTQ+ and Black people. But there is a big difference between the two. Black people are much less incensed about jokes that come at their expense than are gays and transgender persons. The latter, represented most conspicuously by GLAAD, are the biggest promoters of censorship in the nation. And, they are very good about punishing the “offenders,” squeezing apologies from them. Tracy Morgan has apologized to the gay and lesbian community for a joke he told in 2011. Eddie Murphy, in 2019, apologized to the same people for a joke he told in 1996. Kevin Hart apologized in 2019 for a joke that he said, “[H]urt members of the LGBTQ community.” Will Ferrell, in September this year, said he regretted dressing as a woman some years earlier while telling a joke. “That’s something I wouldn’t choose to do now,” he explained.  Harper Steele, a comedy writer known for Saturday Night Live, said he regrets penning a drag queen joke that he wrote years ago. He now says, “It’s absolutely not funny.” Amy Schumer apologized in 2015 for making a joke about Hispanics, saying, “I hope I haven’t hurt anyone.” Jay Leno often made fun of Asians, but now he says he regrets it.  Trevor Noah had lots of fun at the expense of Indians and Pakistanis, but now he is apologizing for the “hurt” he caused. Jimmy Fallon has apologized for wearing blackface in a 2000 Saturday Night Live skit. Jimmy Kimmel apologized in 2020 for wearing blackface in the 1990s. Tina Fey has apologized for wearing blackface in her sitcom 30 Rock.  Sarah Silverman now says she is “horrified” about wearing blackface in one of her 2007 episodes of The Sarah Silverman Show. Nikki Glaser has apologized for making fun of “skinny” women. Alfred “Weird Al” Yankovic, in 2018, apologized for featuring the word  “midget” in one of his songs from the 1980s. Patton Oswalt now regrets joking about “retards.” No one ever apologizes for telling patently obscene jokes about Jesus, Our Blessed Mother, nuns, priests, or the sacraments. This includes many of those who are now apologizing profusely about insulting others. Sarah Silverman and Trevor Noah, for instance, are two of the biggest anti-Catholic comedians in the nation, but they will never apologize for slandering priests.  If proof is needed to show how political all of this is, consider that Dave Chappelle — who won’t apologize for LGBTQ+ jokes — apologized in 2016 for simply saying, “I’m wishing Donald Trump luck.” Similarly, John Mulaney now says he “deserved backlash” for joking about Trump and Biden without making it clear that he very much favored Biden. Best of all is Stephen Colbert. In 2017, he made an obscene joke that offended Trump supporters and gays at the same time. He only apologized to gays. Jay Leno called me years ago after I blasted him for telling anti-Catholic jokes. He said he tells 11,000 jokes a year and wanted my advice on what kind of jokes about Catholics are okay and which ones are not — reporters and television talk-show hosts have asked me the same thing. I told him that jokes about Catholic school kids are fine. “Sister Act” type fare is also okay. But when you get to the heart of our religion — as Gretchen Whitmer did by mocking the Eucharist — that crosses the line.  The comedians of an earlier era — Bob Hope, Jerry Lewis, Sid Caesar, Rodney Dangerfield, Dean Martin, Don Rickles — made their audiences laugh without getting vulgar. Mel Brooks managed to lampoon everyone without getting nasty. So it can be done. All it takes is creativity, prudence, and a sense of decency. When that happens, there is no need to protect or demonize anyone.  William “Bill” Donohue is the president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization and the publisher of Catalyst. He has authored several books on civil liberties, social issues, and Catholicism. RELATED: A July 4th Remembrance: When Comedy Was Funny Jay Leno: Mix Politics With Comedy, and You Get Politics I Miss Comedy in America. Just Look at Saturday Night Live. The post The Politics of Comedy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Today’s thinking is that American democracy is deeply polarized — so sharply divided into two groups, Red and Blue, that it cannot govern itself. People now rank polarization as one of the top three problems facing the country, behind only inflation and gun control. And this perceived polarization is making Americans lose trust in one another.  But research and facts on the ground suggest something different. In fact, the country’s political system is remarkably responsive. Over the last several decades, partisanship has gone down and bipartisanship is up. Political participation has risen. Political parties have adapted to demographic shifts and candidates have altered their long-standing views. And yes, the U.S. government still continues to function properly. Let’s look at the research first. Since “polarization” took center stage as a major issue over a decade ago, many studies have shown that it’s greatly exaggerated. In 2014, professors David Brady and Hahrie Han found that, if one counted the “overlapping” congressmen of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, “what becomes evident is that the present period of polarization is akin to the polarization we had for much of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.”  In 2019, Yale University researcher Daniel Yudkin’s study showed that the country was divided into seven “tribes” — progressive activists, passive liberals, politically disengaged, moderates, traditional liberals, traditional conservatives and conservative activists. He found that it was the behavior of the wing groups, the activists, “that is largely responsible for the perception that American politics is hopelessly polarized.” That same year, surveys by the New York Times confirmed that polarization was “overstated” and that “only 15 to 20 percent of Americans were truly polarized.” This past July, a Time magazine article, “The Growing Evidence That Americans Are Less Divided Than You May Think,” concluded that “American politics has grown more divided — but largely among people who live and breathe politics.” It referenced many studies, including one that showed people grossly overestimate — by 78 percent — the size of the most polarized group within each party. They also underestimate — by 77 percent — the number of moderates in the other party. Another study, the American Aspirations Index by former Harvard University Professor Todd Rose, “found ‘stunning agreement’ on national goals across every segment of the U.S. population.” Rose said it was a “shared illusion” that people are hopelessly divided. Many facts on the ground confirm that Americans are not nearly as polarized as the media doomsayers love to argue.  Take a look at the number of registered Independents. They now constitute the largest political bloc at 43 percent. Those who identify as Democrat or Republican are at record lows — 27 percent each. Granted, the majority of Independents lean toward one party or another, but there are still nearly 7 percent who show no partisan bent, according to Pew. These “true” Independents avoid politics, don’t speak up publicly, and are therefore barely noticed. They move in and out of Independent status depending on the election or issue.  Independent voters have helped fine-tune American democracy. Every election since 2004, except in 2012, has seen the president, Senate, or House of Representatives switch between parties. No wonder a full one-third of Independent voters believe that their vote does make a difference. The number of Independents is likely to rise since 52 percent of Millennials and Gen-Zers now identify as Independent. The polarization doomsayers miss another interesting statistic; political participation is way up. There is nothing hopeless about American democracy when 66 percent of its eligible voting population does vote in a presidential election. The 2020 Trump–Biden election saw a 7 percent increase in voter turnout over the 2016 election. America’s voter turnout has risen in every presidential election since 2000, with the exception of 2012. Another sign of a responsive system is that the two big political parties are both engaged in an intense battle to bring more people under their umbrella. The Democratic Party is winning elections because it adjusted to the country’s changing demographics more rapidly than the Republicans. In 2000, Al Gore lost to George W. Bush when the white voter bloc constituted 81 percent of the total. By 2020, the white voter bloc had dropped to 67 percent and a Democrat won the White House. Biden secured 87 percent of the Black vote, 65 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 61 percent of the Asian vote. Political parties are also quick to respond to people’s changing views. Consider the platform changes in the current presidential campaign. Trump has changed his stance on many issues, including abortion, gun control, vaccines, and criminal justice. Kamala Harris has changed her position on fracking, immigration, healthcare, policing, and guns.  There is also no sign of polarization affecting America’s governance. The country’s legislative activity continues, as it has for decades. Since World War II, Congress has typically enacted 4–6 million words of new law in each Congress. And, bills passed with bipartisan support is at a 20-year high. In 2022, Vox reported, “bipartisanship winds up being more common than people think it is — even when one party holds full control of Congress.” This year nearly two-thirds of all bills were passed with bipartisan support. Sure, there are still legislative issues that America hasn’t resolved. But that doesn’t mean that polarization has paralyzed the country. Keep the faith, America. Our democracy may be slow and loud, but it still works.  Bhanu Dhamija is the author of Why India Needs the Presidential System. READ MORE: To Be or Not to Be America — After Election Day Anne Applebaum’s Comparison of Trump to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini Is a Sign of Political Desperation on the Left Kamala Harris Is Melting The post American Democracy Isn’t Hopelessly Polarized — It’s Finely Tuned appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

California political figures should not be permitted to impose their regulatory preferences on American consumers. Consumers who should have the freedom and latitude to select the cars that best suit their particular needs. At least that is what free-market activists argue in an amicus brief that could quickly find an audience before the U.S. Supreme Court. House members provided further weight to the brief this past September when they passed a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would overturn Vice President Kamala Harris, standing in for President Biden, and the EPA administrators’ “de facto electric vehicle mandate.”  Tom Pyle, a founding member of the Save Our Cars Coalition, which includes 31 national and state-based free-market organizations, trade associations, and consumer protection groups, sees an opportunity for Harris to demonstrate that she has had an epiphany that would help explain why she now sees fit to reverse her prior support of anti-consumer regulations. As Pyle explained in an interview: Since becoming her party’s nominee, Vice President Harris has tried to walk back her long-standing support of EV mandates and other anti-energy and anti-consumer policies. If she wants to show the American people that she has changed her tune, and suddenly cares about consumer choice, now is the time for her to call on her former colleagues in the Senate to vote in favor of this resolution. Harris could also lean on President Biden to sign the CRA if it makes it to his desk. Otherwise, there’s no reason to take her policy reversal seriously. The congressional resolution would strike down the EPA’s new tailpipe emissions rule that reinstates a waiver the Obama administration granted to California under the Clean Air Act. The waiver enabled California’s regulators to set standards for automobile emissions that are even more rigid and burdensome than federal standards.  The Supreme Court Challenge Litigants representing 23 states, alongside industry groups and trade associations, are making the case that the EPA overstepped its authority in granting the waiver and that the EPA’s decision violates a constitutional requirement that the federal government provide the states with equal treatment. The three lead states in the case — Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia — achieved a critical victory this past June when the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the EPA rule in response to their petition asking for a stay in the new rule’s implementation. Writing for the majority in the court’s 5-4 ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch determined the state plaintiffs, and their allies in business and industry, would likely prevail on the merits of the case that the EPA overstepped its authority in how it applied the ‘good neighbor’ rule. The rule is a provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind states.”  In granting the stay, Gorsuch also observed that if the court allowed the EPA rule to remain in effect while the case gestated at the federal appeals court level it would cost litigants “hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.” Additional History and Sound Science  California’s power grab is based on the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards established and enforced through the Department of Transportation. The EPA comes into play by calculating the average fuel economy levels and setting greenhouse gas emissions standards that operate in tandem with the CAFE standards. The CAFE standards were initially enacted in response to the 1973 oil embargo in an effort to curtail U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But with the U.S. now positioned to be the top oil and gas producer in the world, the Harris–Biden administration notwithstanding, the original rationale for CAFE is anachronistic at best. That’s why the EPA regulations have been folded into the Harris administration’s “whole-of-government approach” to climate change with tailpipe Co2 emissions targeted for reduction. It’s worth noting that the repurposing of CAFE standards into a weapon to combat what Team Harris calls the “climate crisis” is not rooted in climatological observations. It is instead based on general circulation models purporting to project what temperatures might be in a few decades in response to Co2 levels. To call the projections specious would be generous.  What’s most relevant to consumers are the CAFE emission targets for “light-duty vehicles” since they include passenger cars and light trucks. As Pyle notes, the Harris–Biden administration is targeting traditional vehicles in favor of electric vehicles: What we are really talking about is a de facto electric vehicle mandate on the part of Harris, and other centralized planners, with California leading the charge. The goal is for the EPA tailpipe rule to set emissions requirements so high to the point where auto companies will be compelled to manufacture electric vehicles to meet these targets. The Harris regime is bent on destroying consumer choice as it prioritizes politics over personal freedoms. During the last administration, President Trump established a new rule, known as Safe Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE 1) standards, to roll back the Obama administration’s CAFE standards. SAFE 1 still raised fuel economy standards, but did so at a slower rate than what Obama had proposed. Trump’s goal was to relieve the auto industry of costly mandates set in motion under President Obama that effectively priced millions of U.S. households out of the market for newer, safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The efforts made under Harris to repeal Trump’s SAFE 1 rule and restore the Obama-era directives are ripe for review before the Supreme Court. Federalism and California’s Overreach Pyle, who is also president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), a free-market advocacy group that joined the amicus brief, sees “legalized grift” and the oversized influence of California at work where the tailpipe regulations are concerned. The favoritism California is receiving from the federal government cuts to the heart of what IER, and others, are arguing in court. He points out that Harris, a former U.S. senator and attorney general for California, is on the same team as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and long-time climate activist, in advocating for overregulation: They are helping each other out to the cost and detriment of everyone else. Not only does California have the largest congressional delegation in the country, but the state also has friends in high places in the form of Harris. The CAFE rule is all about power and money and self-dealing between the Harris–Biden EPA and Newsom’s California. They are operating in cahoots to make sure consumers have no say. IER, and its coalition partners, argue in their brief that the federal government must treat all states equally under the U.S. Constitution — an argument in line with the principles of federalism and a long history of jurisprudence: The agency, autonomy, dignity, authority, statutes, and of course sovereignty of California’s sister states — the very nature of being a state – seriously are undermined by the federal government’s unjustified bias in California’s favor. This EPA waiver irreparably has undermined ‘the federal sovereign’ constitutional duty to ‘govern impartially.’ Nor has the EPA advanced even a plausible justification for that special treatment. But it’s not just the legal questions that gum up the works as Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, explains:  Complementing the compelling constitutional arguments against EPA’s de facto EV mandates are the clearly stated choices of the American driving public. According to auto industry tracker Edmunds, EVs accounted for 6.8 percent of all new car sales in the last quarter. That means that just over 93% of buyers chose a gasoline-powered vehicle. These people shunned federal EV tax credit of up to $7,500 to buy a car that suited their needs. The nation is woefully unprepared for the government-driven transition to EVs, having neither electricity nor the recharging infrastructure to accommodate the millions of EVs elites in California and Washington, D.C. are force-feeding the rest of the country. In putting up a united front against California’s special waiver status, Pyle and crew astutely seize on the high court’s recent ruling overturning the Chevron deference, which had enabled federal agencies to usurp the judiciary’s Article III powers. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the justices ruled that the Constitution’s structural principles call for an independent judiciary free from executive influence. Loper effectively puts the kibosh on the ability of unelected bureaucrats to coercively inflict their policy preferences on to the public without congressional approval by way of vague statutes. The arguments that have been put into circulation by state and industry petitioners have the potential to bring the full force of the court’s reasoning in Loper to effect in California where Newsom and company seek to operate as a regulatory island. And, in Washington D.C., where Harris is leveraging the EPA to impose California rules on the rest of the country.  What next? Pyle anticipates that sometime in October the U.S. Supreme Court will “almost certainly grant the petition and hear the case … the legal questions are too big to ignore.” There is a scenario where the case could become moot — if Trump is elected and moves to reverse the CAFE rules. But that’s a big “if” heading into the next court term. As Pyle reminds us: Remember, the American people never voted on the new CAFE standards. This was done through unelected government agencies. California’s one-size fits all approach robs people outside of the state, and even inside the state, of having their say so. Ultimately, this is all about the restoration of self-government. Kevin Mooney is an investigative researcher with Restoration News. RELATED: Biden’s New Electric Vehicle Policy Will Drive US Auto Workers Out of Jobs Another Hurdle for the Electric Vehicle Union Opposition to Electric Vehicle Kickbacks Could Upend 2024 What Should Happen When Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Take Over the Roads The post The EPA’s ‘De Facto EV Mandate’ Faces Potential Supreme Court Scrutiny appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by James S. Spiegel, All News Pipeline: There has been a lot of analysis and commentary about last month’s presidential debate, regarding everything from the ABC moderators’ selective fact-checking to Harris’s statement that she is a gun owner to Trump’s reference to reports that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating dogs and cats. Also […]

When Hillary Clinton referred to Trump supporters as a Basket of Deplorables, she revealed what the Democrat Party thinks of the working class. In the same way, Obama did when he said they cling to their bibles and their guns. They have dismissed deplorables for years depending on them to remain demoralized and demeaned. Now... The post Deplorables of the US Unite! Reject Kamunism! appeared first on DogFacePonia.

  In early November of even-numbered years, millions of Americans head to the polls to vote for federal, state, and local politicians. Typically, they see one candidate listed for each major political party, and many Americans vote based on party affiliation. But why and how do these parties only list one name? Fewer voters know about primary elections, which have been used since World War II to give voters a voice in determining party nominees for office. Primary elections are held Between February and August to determine party nominees for various elections on the ballot in November. How do these primary elections work, and what does it take to become a party nominee?   Before Primaries: The Convention System A photograph of the 1880 Republican National Convention, which nominated a delegate who had not sought the office of president before the convention. Source: American University Radio   Today, voters in America have a lot of say in their elected officials. However, until the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, US Senators were chosen by state legislatures instead of voters. Voters also did not have a voice in the selection of party nominees for office. Traditionally, political party leaders chose the nominees at conventions, and voters cast their ballots in November. This convention system began after the controversial 1824 presidential election, before which party nominees were chosen by congressional caucuses.   The convention system was supplemented by primary elections beginning in the early 1900s during the Progressive Era. Voters in some states received more of a voice in choosing nominees, though real power remained with state-level conventions. These early primaries were largely a show of support for candidates; party leaders could reject them. Controversially, some nominees would be chosen by party leaders at conventions without having run in primaries.   Local Elections and Independent Candidates: Ballot Access Instead of Primaries Local candidates and minor political parties must submit petition signatures to get on ballots in the general election. Source: Green Party US   It is important to note that not all political candidates have to win primaries and become party nominees to make it on the ballot. At the local level, many elections are nonpartisan, meaning candidates do not formally identify with a political party. To make it on the ballot, these candidates need to be granted ballot access, usually by submitting a certain number of signatures. This limits ballots to manageable sizes; otherwise, scores of candidates may be vying for votes for each elected position.   Independent candidates can also run in partisan elections above the local level, including for president of the United States. They may create their own party and submit it for ballot access in each state. This can be a difficult process and leads to relatively few independent candidates having a chance to win enough electoral votes (270) to become president. Throughout US history, relatively few independent candidates have received electoral votes in presidential elections.   50+ vs. One-and-Done: Presidential Primaries vs. District and Statewide Primaries An image showing multiple Republican candidates seeking the party nomination for Texas House District 19 (bottom left). Source: Travis County Republican Party   When many voters hear the term primary elections, they think about presidential primaries. However, most partisan elections above the local level have primaries. Presidential primaries occur in all US states and territories, while others occur only in the districts or states represented by that office. For example, US House districts hold primaries only in that district, while states hold US Senate primaries across those states.   Although presidential primaries occur within each state over several months, all others occur on a singular date within that district or state. Primary elections typically happen in the spring or early summer. According to state law, some can result in run-off elections if no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote. Whichever candidate wins a majority in the primary automatically becomes the party nominee. Presidential primaries, by contrast, have no run-offs and award delegates to candidates roughly in accordance with popular votes.   Post-WWII: Presidential Primaries Begin Monroe Sweetland’s article detailing the importance of the Oregon presidential primary of 1960, which occurred before presidential primaries were nationwide. Source: Oregon Historical Society   Modern presidential primaries began after World War II but were held at the discretion of individual states. From 1948 to 1968, the primary system expanded but was far from nationwide. Controversially, some nominees were men who did not even run in the primaries, such as Democratic governor Adlai Stevenson in 1952. However, these early primaries did serve the purpose of signaling a politician’s popularity. In 1952, a poor showing in early primaries convinced US President Harry S. Truman not to seek a third term.   By 1960, primaries were increasing in importance and influencing party leaders. US Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA), for example, received top billing at the Democratic National Convention in 1960 by performing well in the presidential primaries. In 1964, US Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) won the Republican presidential nomination by winning a majority of delegates during the presidential primaries. However, the ultra-conservative Goldwater’s thrashing in the general election at the hands of Democratic US President Lyndon B. Johnson made party leaders question the wisdom of common voters.   1968: Ignoring Primaries Leads to Uproar Vice President Hubert Humphrey (center) received the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 despite not running in all the primaries. Source: PBS Learning Media   The divide between common voters and party leaders broadened to a nationwide culture and generational clash during the Vietnam War. Although united and easily victorious in 1964, the Democratic Party was in disarray in 1968 after Lyndon B. Johnson unexpectedly announced that he would not seek re-election on March 31. Tragically, new Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, US Senator from Massachusetts, was assassinated on June 5. Vice President Hubert Humphrey was now the Democrats’ most well-known candidate, and he headed to the party’s National Convention in Chicago.   Controversially, Humphrey was nominated on the first ballot and won the nomination despite not winning any primaries. He had not even entered the race until April after Johnson had announced he would not run for re-election. Anger over Humphrey’s nomination influenced the DNC Riots that rocked downtown Chicago during the convention. After the violence-marred convention, both major parties decided to formalize their presidential nomination process by honoring the delegates who won at primaries and caucuses.   1972-Present: Presidential Primaries Strategy A map from the 2010 work of J.T. Putnam detailing the increasingly early presidential primary dates. Source: Semantic Scholar   Once both parties vowed to honor the primaries and caucuses, candidates had to strategize to win them instead of relying on favor with party bosses. Because of the lengthy stretch of primary contests, candidates often could only afford to campaign in early primary states, hoping that victories would win free publicity that would carry them into later states. States would front-load their primaries to attract media attention and the presence of candidates. This would force candidates, one of whom would inevitably become president, to focus on issues of importance to those early primary states.   Critics of front-loading argue that it distorts democracy by amplifying the voices of a small percent of the national electorate—those residing in a handful of early primary states. Traditionally, the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina have been the earliest voting in presidential primaries, meaning their issues receive far more candidate and media attention. To win these states, candidates from both major parties have tailored their campaigns to focus heavily on these issues, potentially ignoring issues faced by states with greater populations.   Strategy Continued: Types of Primary Contests A map of states with closed primaries, meaning only registered members of that political party can vote in that party’s primary or caucus. Source: Unite America   In addition to using the presidential primary calendar to know where to focus their time and money, candidates must pay attention to the type of primary contest held in each state. States have open primaries, closed primaries, or caucuses to determine their delegate allocation for presidential nominations. Open primaries are traditional elections where all registered voters can vote; they must pick one party’s ballot. Independent voters, with no pledged party affiliation, may pick either party’s ballot.   An image of a voter casting a ballot in a primary election. Source: United States Embassy & Consulate in Thailand   Closed primaries and caucuses, by contrast, are only open to members of that political party. Non-party members cannot participate, with the rationale being that members of an opposing party could use the primary or caucus to support the most radical or unpopular candidate and saddle the party with an unwinnable nominee. Caucuses are different from primaries in that they are not traditional elections and are instead public meetings. Party members physically line up in support of a candidate and are counted, which places some peer pressure on attendants to line up for the most popular candidate.   Complex: Superdelegates and Winner-Take-All Primaries An image explaining down ballot candidates, who demanded an additional voice in the Democratic Party after the 1980 election and led to the creation of superdelegates. Source: PBS Learning Media   Delegates are awarded in presidential primaries and caucuses roughly in proportion to the popular vote, meaning that a candidate who wins forty percent of the popular vote receives roughly forty percent of the state’s delegates for that party. However, both major parties have some undemocratic elements in their presidential primaries. In 1984, the Democratic Party created the position of unpledged superdelegate to give additional voice to elected office-holders. These hundreds of superdelegates were not attached to any state and could vote for any candidate at the Democratic National Convention.   The Republican Party, although it has far fewer superdelegates, created winner-take-all primaries, similar to the general election’s electoral college, where the candidate who received the most popular votes won all the state’s delegates for that party. Both parties also have minimum thresholds for delegate allocation to prevent minor candidates from bogging down the process. Typically, candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the popular vote in any state to receive delegates. This leads most noncompetitive candidates to drop out of the primaries quickly, lest they burn through all their campaign funds.   What If Nobody Wins a Majority of Delegates? US President Gerald Ford (left) and California Governor Ronald Reagan (right) at the last contested convention in 1976. Source: National Public Radio (NPR)   Usually, a candidate wins the first few primaries and becomes a frontrunner who enjoys a snowball effect of positive media attention. Rival candidates drop out, and the frontrunner wins enough delegates to clinch the nomination by the middle of March. Sometimes, however, no candidate achieves true frontrunner status, and the primaries remain competitive through the late spring. Rarely do the primaries end in June, with no candidate receiving enough delegates to clinch the nomination outright.   If no candidate has enough delegates to clinch the nomination when the National Convention rolls around in late summer, a contested convention, sometimes erroneously called a brokered convention, occurs. A brokered convention occurs if no candidate wins the presidential nomination on the first ballot, forcing party leaders to “broker” a deal to shift delegates. The last brokered convention occurred in 1976 when neither US President Gerald Ford nor California Governor Ronald Reagan arrived at the Republican National Convention with enough pledged delegates.   Last Step: Party (Re)-Unification A photograph of the Democratic Party presidential and vice presidential nominee, along with their respective spouses, ahead of the general campaign, 2024. Source: Brookings Institution   Primary elections can be intense and cause bitter feuds between members of the same political party. When it comes to the presidential election, however, there are typically at least three months between the official nomination and election day in November. To win, both major parties need to be unified behind the nominee. Mending feuds and hurt feelings is one of the goals of each party’s National Convention, during which time candidates from the primaries can speak and receive public congratulations.   Sometimes, the National Convention is where the presidential nominee announces their running mate, or vice presidential nominee. This is often the most highly-anticipated part of the four-day event. If a candidate clinches the nomination early by winning enough delegates, they may announce a running mate in advance of the National Convention. Media outlets cover both parties’ conventions thoroughly to get a sense of voter support and how popular the nominees’ policy positions are. Historically, the intense media coverage of each convention has given that party a temporary bump in the polls at the outset of the lengthy general campaign.

  The Malleus Maleficarum, or The Hammer of Witches, is one of the best-known texts on how to identify a witch and how to punish them. This book was written by Heinrich Kramer and published in 1486. Witchcraft in Western Europe before this time was seen as eccentric, rather than criminal. Perhaps this was because many people believed in magic or superstition, and religion, especially Catholicism, was a large part of their life.   While witches might have been regarded with some degree of suspicion or considered misfits, it was rare for people to be prosecuted for witchcraft in Western Europe before the 14th century. However, Kramer’s text marked a watershed moment when witch trials were beginning to take place, and it emphasizes the cruel and unjust treatment of women who existed on the fringes of society.   Who Were the So-called Witches? The Witches’ Sabbath, by Francisco Goya, 1798. Source: Google Arts and Culture   Many of the so-called witches in Kramer’s guide were ostracized female members of society—widows, elderly, alcoholics, mentally ill, or outspoken. It’s important to understand what Early Modern Europe considered witchcraft to be and what they feared about witches. While the trials convicted a person of witchcraft, the true crime was the heresy they were committing by being witches.    Witches supposedly consorted with the devil, who to Early Modern Europe wasn’t just a figure or impulse that the devil is often considered to be today, but a living flesh manifestation you could physically touch and have carnal relations with. In their minds if you consorted with the devil, you were deliberately turning your back on the church and God, which at that time was a crime.   Kramer & the Hammer of Witches Illumination depicting the two witches on a broomstick and a stick, in Martin Le Franc’s “Ladies’ Champion”, 1451. Source: Wikipedia   Heinrich Kramer was born in the 1400s in Schlettstadt. He was an inquisitor (an official of an inquisition), whose job it was to hunt out heretics. There were several main inquisitions in history, including the Roman Inquisition, the French Inquisition, and German Inquisition. These were mainly put together by the Catholic Church, but occasionally rulers like Queen Isabella would have a hand in them. Kramer was sometimes considered extreme in his own circles, and was even reprimanded for his behavior during some witch trials.   Let’s discuss the actual text of the Hammer of Witches. There were five distinct sections: 1. justification, 2. papal bull, 3. approbation by professors of theology at University of Cologne, 4. table of contests, and 5. the main body. Some descriptions of witches within the text give them a “crone-like” and hobbled appearance, with wrinkles, hair in the wrong places, and scolding tongues.    Witches were also described as having odd behaviors such as talking to themselves, weird rituals, and odd pets. All of which sounds like elderly women who talk back, or women who have diseases of some kind. Kramer discusses the theory behind witchcraft and its connection to heresy, and the theology of witches and their association with the devil. He discusses actual trials that took place and dedicates an entire section on how to conduct a proper witch trial.    Witch Trials Witch Trial Victim Locations Map. Source: Maps on the Web   Unfortunately, the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ maxim didn’t apply to witch trials. Instead, they were reliant on the guilty party proving their innocence, something hampered by the fact that trials could be brought by witnesses claiming witch behavior. Torture was frequently used to press victims to confess. The Hammer of Witches outlined exactly how to go about extracting confessions from the accused using torture.   This general map of victims of witch trials highlights where the majority of witch trial activity occurred. While witch trials took place across Europe, the concentration was in the area that is now Germany and at the time was the Holy Roman Empire. The further you were from the center of the bullseye the better the chances if you were on the outskirts of society.   Despite this, there were some who were outspoken against Kramer’s work. Theologians of the Inquisition at the Faculty of Cologne—a university in Cologne, Germany that was established in 1388, condemned the book for being unethical and containing illegal procedures.   The Salem Witch Trials Lithograph representing a witch on trial in Salem by Joseph E. Baker, 1892. Source: Library of Congress, Washington DC   Hammer of Witches was used primarily in Europe and had nothing to do with the one of the biggest witch hunts in America – the Salem witch trials of 1692, which were drastically different. Rather than a specific hunt for heretics, it started in Salem with some children who had fits, blamed it on residents, and created mass hysteria.    Unlike what many types of media portray, burning witches only took place overseas – witches were not burned in the United States. Most of the Salem so-called-witches were hung for bearing false witness and committing perjury by lying that they weren’t a witch. Such victims were in an impossible situation – if they had stated they were a witch and found to be lying, they would have also been punished. One unfortunate man (one of the few ever accused of witchcraft in America) was pressed to death by rocks after refusing to claim or deny being a witch.   Does the Myth Persist Today? Witch trial scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Source: The Source   While the actual witch trials eventually tapered off, the damage was done. A lack of surviving documents hampers the true numbers, but at least 12,000 executions from witch trials can be positively verified. Scholarly estimates are between 35,000-50,000. Other texts were published about specific trials and accounts of witches, and texts about how to deal with witches, but Kramer’s text remained on the most well-known and widely published.   Following its success, Kramer published several texts through his lifetime and died sometime in the year 1505 in Moravia. Meanwhile his legacy lives on – The Hammer of Witches is used in many college classes to highlight the devastation of the witch trials.   Kramer’s text played a key role in defining what a witch looked and behaved like, and while few would believe in real witches today, his stereotype is still a key part of contemporary culture, appearing in children’s stories, Halloween costumes and television shows. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, for example, they play up the myth by having the townspeople try to convict a woman for looking like a witch with her dirty appearance and hooked nose (which she states they put on her).

  Switzerland is as famous for its neutral position in international affairs as it is for banking, chocolates, and alpine landscapes. Indeed, within Europe, Switzerland and Sweden stood at the forefront of longest-tenured neutral states. In modern terms, both countries emerged as neutral states after the Napoleonic Wars in 1814-1815.   Sweden, however, gradually joined international organizations and became a member of NATO in March 2024. On the other hand, Switzerland only entered the United Nations in 2002 amid intense debate and has thus far resisted any effort to join institutions like the European Union or NATO. But what is the history behind Switzerland’s enduring neutrality?   Early Swiss Neutrality: From Military Power to Neutral State A Swiss Guard by Hortense Haudebourt-Lescot c. 1810-1812. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Swiss were not always neutral. In fact, the Old Swiss Confederation or Confederacy was considered one of the most warlike states in early modern Europe. According to Douglas Miller and Gerry Embleton, their military successes had many admirers, including Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, who dubbed the Swiss “the New Romans.”   However, the Swiss were not destined to forge a new Roman Empire. For example, the 1515 Battle of Marignano severely damaged Switzerland’s military mystique.   Until Marignano, the Swiss extended their territory into several areas of northern Italy. However, the bloody battle, which took place outside Milan, ended in a Franco-Venetian victory over the Swiss.   In the battle’s aftermath, the Swiss Confederation embraced neutrality. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which marked the end of the devastating Thirty Years War, officially recognized Swiss neutrality.   While the Confederation observed a neutral stance in international conflicts, this did not stop the Swiss from fighting. For instance, many Swiss continued to pursue military careers either individually in foreign armies or as part of mercenary units purchased by foreign rulers.   For example, France’s King Louis XVI’s ill-fated Swiss Guard during the French Revolution and the Vatican’s Swiss Guard are the two most famous examples of Swiss soldiers in the foreign service.   French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Switzerland  Battle of Zurich, 25th September 1799 by François Bouchot, 1835. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Neutrality could not stem the tide of the French Revolution from reaching Switzerland. Indeed, the country became a battlefield as the French Revolutionary Republic’s armies battled Austrian and Russian opponents across Switzerland in the late 1790s.   General Andre Massena’s victory over a combined Russian and Austrian army at Zurich in September 1799 secured French influence in Switzerland.   Revolutionary France also oversaw the creation of a Helvetic Republic in 1798 with enthusiastic Swiss supporters. Yet, this did not guarantee Swiss support for French interests.   In fact, Napoleon believed the Swiss posed a challenge to French interests, especially involving access to Italy. As Andrew Roberts notes, Napoleon wrote in September 1802 that either a new pro-French Swiss government should be formed or there would be “no Switzerland.”   As a result, Napoleon announced the Act of Mediation in 1803. Alexander Grab explains this transformed Switzerland by creating a fragile central government and nineteen cantons. The following month, in October 1803, one of Napoleon’s future marshals, Michel Ney, led an army through Switzerland to impose French authority.   For example, Andrew Roberts says Ney’s army quickly occupied Zurich and crushed a rebellion in Bern. At the same time, Ney oversaw the installation of a pro-French government in the Swiss capital, Bern. Moreover, Ney extracted a hefty sum from the government to pay for this military operation.   While Switzerland remained officially neutral, the country was a French satellite state. For example, Switzerland furnished Napoleon’s army with thousands of troops. Alexander Grab says that 9,000 Swiss troops served in Napoleon’s army alone during the 1812 invasion of Russia. Only about 700 of those soldiers returned from Russia.   Renewed Swiss Neutrality Henry Dunant in 1855, ICRC. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Swiss support for Napoleon ended after the battle of Leipzig in 1813. The following year, Austrian Chancellor Clemens von Metternich was furious that the Swiss decided to embrace neutrality rather than join the fight against Napoleon.   The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814-1815 brought sweeping changes to the map of Europe. Switzerland duly underwent considerable territorial and political change after the Napoleonic Wars. This change was set out during the Congress of Vienna, organized by the so-called Great Powers who had defeated Napoleon, namely Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia.   The recognition of Swiss neutrality was one of the many developments to emerge from the Congress of Vienna. Europe’s Great Powers, which came to include post-Napoleonic France, recognized Swiss neutrality largely thanks to the diplomatic efforts of Geneva’s Charles Pictet de Rochemont.   A New Switzerland in the Revolutionary 1840s The Battle of Airolo during the Swiss Sonderbund War, 1847 by Jakob Ziegler, 1848. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the decades following the Napoleonic Wars, Switzerland endured internal turbulence and conflict within the diverse cantons. Indeed, much of Europe experienced economic, social, and political turmoil in the 1830s and 1840s.   Political and religious divisions within Switzerland ultimately led to a brief civil war in 1847. Although Otto von Bismarck dismissed it as nothing more than a “hare shoot,” the short war was significant for Switzerland. Although it lasted less than thirty days, the fighting produced a new constitution in 1848.   The new Swiss government, established in the aftermath of the civil war, was a federal system that retained traditional privileges and authority for the country’s diverse territories known as cantons.   Switzerland became well-known as a neutral state and a major hub for discussions surrounding international humanitarian law. Genevan Henry Dunant’s co-founding in 1863 of what would become the Red Cross would further strengthen Switzerland’s credentials as a neutral power.   Dunant lobbied for international agreements regarding sick and wounded soldiers. This led to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. For his role in organizing the Red Cross and Geneva Conventions, Dunant became a co-recipient of the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.   Neutrality Tested Equestrian Statue of General Henri Guisan in Lausanne by Otto Bänninger, 1967. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Switzerland’s geographic position and external events continued to test the country’s neutrality in the twentieth century. For example, the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914 shook Switzerland as it did much of the rest of Europe.   Indeed, many Swiss volunteered to join one of the opposing armies. Today, across Switzerland, one encounters memorials to Swiss soldiers who served and died in the two world wars. The country, however, remained neutral and helped organize Red Cross initiatives. Moreover, at times, Swiss troops became involved in border clashes.   The interwar years (between WWI and WWII) strengthened Switzerland’s neutral and international image. For example, Swiss cities like Lausanne hosted important treaty negotiations, such as the one that ended the Greco-Turkish War in 1923.   Geneva also became the headquarters of the forerunner to the United Nations, the League of Nations, in November 1920.   Switzerland’s neutral status and these interwar international peace initiatives did not prevent the country from being a possible target during the Second World War.   However, the army’s commander, General Henri Guisan, was determined to defend Swiss neutrality. In June 1940, Switzerland’s sovereignty and neutrality appeared in grave danger. For example, Fascist Italy’s entry into the war and Nazi Germany’s conquest of France meant that the country was now virtually surrounded by the Axis Powers.   According to Regula Ludi, in July 1940, Guisan gathered high-ranking Swiss officers in a highly choreographed ceremony at the Rütli meadow in central Switzerland. Rütli is the place in Swiss lore where the first Swiss Confederation was born in the thirteenth century.   At Rütli, Guisan declared his intention to defend the country in the event of an attack. The symbolism was clear: the Swiss commanding officer announced his resolve to save Switzerland from foreign invaders on the same site where the country’s history began.   Controversy Schaffhausen, Switzerland. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Guisan’s declaration made him a national hero. His plan, known as Réduit national, called for concentrating over 400,000 Swiss troops into impregnable positions deep within the Alps.   However, General Guisan’s efforts did not wholly isolate Switzerland from the violence and destruction of the Second World War. For example, several Swiss towns and cities, including Schaffhausen, were bombed. Controversy long swirled around whether bombings of Swiss territory were intentional or accidental.   Moreover, the war gave rise to multiple controversies regarding Switzerland’s neutrality. Indeed, by the war’s end, Swiss neutrality became a massive diplomatic issue for the country. Regula Ludi explains that the Swiss ignored Allied warnings about Nazi looting as early as 1942. Even more damaging, according to Ludi, was the Swiss refusal to cut ties with Nazi Germany even after the latter no longer posed a military threat to Switzerland.   However, the most enduring wartime controversy involved the extent of Swiss cooperation with Nazi Germany. The refusal to sever diplomatic ties with the Nazis only opened additional questions internationally about Switzerland’s role in the Second World War.   Lawsuits against several leading Swiss banks in the 1990s by organizations like the World Jewish Congress brought international attention, renewed scholarly interest, and a historic settlement. As Ludi points out, the outcome damaged both Swiss banks and the country’s image as a neutral power. Scholars found that Swiss banks and Swiss authorities had not followed through on promises to identify heirless assets of Holocaust victims and transfer the funds to Jewish reconstruction organizations as agreed upon in 1946.   Further revelations included the extent to which Swiss authorities during the war suppressed information they deemed would be controversial domestically, including reports of Nazi atrocities. Ultimately, the lawsuit brought by the World Jewish Congress was settled in the summer of 1998.   Legacy United Nations Office, Geneva. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Post-WWII Switzerland retained its neutral and international character. Indeed, it became a hub for international organizations as it had been in prior decades. For instance, one of the United Nations‘ four major offices is in Geneva today. The UN building there is the former headquarters of the League of Nations.   Regula Ludi points out that Switzerland’s history of neutrality and economic prosperity gave rise to the myth of Sonderfall Schweiz, or “Special Case Switzerland.” This view argues that Switzerland and its national history stand apart from the rest of Europe, mainly because of the long history of neutrality and support for humanitarian initiatives.   However, the 1990s scandals concerning Swiss banking and Holocaust victim assets called this story into question. What is more, Ludi says this controversy helped prompt a broader reexamination of different European governments’ relationships with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.   Moreover, the overview above makes it clear that while Switzerland’s experience in many significant events may differ from others, the country’s story remains deeply linked to that of Europe.   In other words, the Swiss have not been on the sidelines of Europe’s history, whether that story involves the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the two world wars, and beyond.