Month: March 2024

America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators, Jacob Heilbrunn, Liveright, 264 pages

Jacob Heilbrunn’s first book was an attack on a faction of the right, and so is this one. The difference is that his earlier book, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (2008), was tempered by a grudging admiration for its subjects. The neocons were Heilbrunn’s sort of people, with whom he shared a sensibility, a demographic background, and professional connections. He feels no such fondness for the populists described in America Last. The tone of the book is one of unrelenting contempt.

Vituperation is the book’s biggest weakness. Abusive language abounds. Supporters of President Donald Trump are called “lackeys,” criticism of American policy is called “self-abasement before foreign tyrants,” opponents of open borders are credited with “simple hatred for migrants.” This editorializing tone would be forgivable if Heilbrunn made a solid case for his argument, based on facts, but he does not. He fails to draw any distinction between, for example, respectfully engaging with Hungary’s popular head of state and having “a man-crush on Orbán.” Can an American be curious about Fidesz’s domestic accomplishments without being a starstruck fanboy? The entire thesis of Heilbrunn’s book rests on a refusal to see any difference between the two.

Heilbrunn sees admiration for foreign strongmen as the primary motivation for conservative policy positions. On the Ukraine war, he writes, “The complaint about NATO was not about foreign policy realism. It was rooted in real admiration for Putin—for his disdain for LGBTQ rights, for his support for the Russian Orthodox church, and for his cult of masculinity.” In support of his contention, he cites an old column of Pat Buchanan’s and a few offhand remarks by Tucker Carlson about Putin, such as “He’s not Adolph Hitler.” (Does that qualify as admiration?) He ignores the literally millions of words published in this magazine alone explaining the folly of NATO expansion, not in terms of good guys and bad guys, but in terms of costs and benefits for each side of the conflict—small benefits for America, massive costs for Russia—and the likely result of this imbalance of interests.

Attempts to discredit foreign policy realism in this way are based on emotion, not reason. In 2019, journalist Bari Weiss, then still working at the New York Times, appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and said of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a skeptic of Syrian intervention, “She’s an Assad toady.” When Rogan asked her, “What does that mean? What’s a toady?” Weiss replied, “I think I used that word correctly. Jamie, can you check what ‘toady’ means? ‘T-O-A-D-I-E.’ I think it means what I think it means.” She connected the congresswoman to the Syrian dictator using a word she could neither define nor spell. It was a slur, not an argument. 

Heilbrunn can spell “toady” correctly, but otherwise the ploy is the same. The test is simple: Is there any imaginable objective assessment of Vladimir Putin’s leadership, one that tallies the pluses and minuses as dispassionately as possible without proceeding from facts to moral judgment, that Heilbrunn would not deride as the work of a Putin-lover? There is not. We know this because a preeminent example of such an assessment, Christopher Caldwell’s 3,000-word essay in Hillsdale College’s magazine Imprimis, “How to Think About Vladimir Putin,” is enough to put Caldwell on Heilbrunn’s list of America Lasters. Does Heilbrunn not see the danger in walling off vitally important topics from rational analysis? Is America likely to make better decisions if debate is conducted in the hysterical tone he advocates rather than the pragmatic tone Caldwell exemplifies?

The book projects this putative right-wing love of dictators back over a century of political history. Heilbrunn opens his story with World War I and continues through the rise of fascism up to the Cold War and beyond. The biggest weakness of these historical chapters is a fixation on minor characters. Was Merwin K. Hart really such a titan that his name deserves to appear almost a hundred times in America Last? Lonnie Lawrence Dennis was a mixed-race Harvard graduate who chose to pass as white and left a diplomatic career to become a public speaker and author of such right-wing books as The Coming American Fascism. A fascinating story, no doubt, but does Heilbrunn really believe that any conservative alive today was influenced wittingly or unwittingly by Dennis’s example? If not, then in what sense is he evidence of a “long-standing tradition” to which Donald Trump also belongs?

The thinness of Heilbrunn’s case has not stopped the book from being a media sensation. He has had promotional interviews on MSNBC and CNN where he has publicized his fear that Trump “fetishizes the strongman” and represents “creeping fascism” and “a new world order based on tyranny.” His book is popular among many of the same journalists who promoted the Russiagate hoax, which Heilbrunn to this day endorses. He claims that Trump in 2016 “was plotting against America—with the not inconsiderable help of Russian president Vladimir Putin” and refers to “the so-called Russia hoax, which was none at all.” 

Clearly there is an appetite for public intellectuals who will argue, in the face of all exonerating evidence and common sense, that Trump is a Russian agent. It’s a living, I guess. But what’s good for Heilbrunn’s career is bad for the republic. Tearing down Trump on this false basis will have the effect, among others, of strengthening the same foreign policy establishment that brought us the Iraq war, the Libyan intervention, and other costly errors. Ironically, few people know better than Heilbrunn, the one-time dissector of the neocons, how much damage that establishment has done to American interests.

Heilbrunn ended his 2008 book with a prediction that, despite all of their manifest errors, the neocons would maintain their hold on the conservative movement because the young people were on their side. “Unlike the neoconservatives, the realists have cultivated no successor generation,” he wrote. “There has been no real attempt to create new generations of realists to replace the Scowcrofts and Bakers and Schlesingers.” How different the scene looks today. The young talent is “behind populism and nationalism, and it is the NeverTrumpers whose ranks are notably gray.

The post Jacob Heilbrunn Returns to the Neocons appeared first on The American Conservative.

Media reports indicate that the dictatorship in Havana is encountering serious unrest and growing political opposition from Cubans in the streets demanding life’s necessities, such as basic electricity and enough to eat. Under pressure and financially bankrupt, Cuba’s communist junta, led by Miguel Diaz-Canel, has even turned to the United Nations to ask for food supplies.

Regime apologists and fellow-travelers, as usual, rush to blame the long-standing U.S. embargo as the root cause of Cuba’s crisis, instead of the economic incompetence of the communist dictatorship. First in line to defend Havana, no surprise, is Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador, who regularly bestows Diaz-Canel awards and praises the “hope and future” that Marxism offers Cuba. 

The Mexican president lives in the same ideological fantasyland as the United Nations, which elected Cuba for the sixth time last October to the world body’s Human Rights Council. Few even comment on the UN routinely giving this responsibility to a ruthless dictatorship that currently detains some 1,020 political prisoners. 

Yet, despite the constant ideological pandering, the much-decried U.S. embargo is not the most consequential Washington policy vis-a-vis Havana. The most significant U.S.-Cuba policy concerns migration, and Washington’s robotic willingness to promote the never-ceasing exodus of Cubans who abandon their homeland to live in el Norte. This bad policy has been pushed into hyperdrive by Biden’s extreme open-borderism.

It is the departure of these frustrated and often desperate Cubans, the very people who would constitute a formidable opposition to the communist junta, that relieves pressure on Diaz-Canel and enables the regime to resist any change. The Fidelista maxim to these Cubans: “If you cannot sacrifice for the revolution, then go!”

Americans have always been generous to foreigners escaping tyranny, and Cubans, at the top of the list, have been fleeing their communist overlords for decades. But since the end of the Cold War, Washington strategists have never honestly addressed the direct connection between constantly expanding Cuba’s diaspora northward and the unintended impact of that policy on the broken-down regime’s survival.   

The Biden administration, obsessed with throwing open U.S. borders, has taken a dubious migration policy towards Cuba and turned it into a migrant tsunami, unleashing a human maelstrom of fleeing people. Just in 2021–23, under President Biden, more than half a million Cuban migrants have entered the U.S., representing an incredible 5 percent of the island’s total population.  

To understand the scale of what Biden is doing, consider that U.S. immigration law would have authorized a typical country of Cuba’s population size (11 million) about a total of 12,000 immigrant visas over those same three years.

Both the Diaz-Canel junta and Biden’s misguided policies tell disaffected Cubans they should abandon their country and come to the United States. The Biden approach promotes brain-drain on steroids as the island continues to bleed its greatest resource and hope for change: motivated young people. As they flee in the hundreds of thousands, homegrown political pressure on the dictatorship evaporates. 

The Biden administration has no other policy for dealing with Havana. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has no comments on Diaz-Canel’s dictatorship and says nothing about how totalitarian Marxism continues to strangle a forgotten nation.

Where are the American voices exhorting young patriotic Cubans to stay, resist, and struggle to make a better future for their forlorn country? Of course, encouraging Cubans to remain and join the opposition entails risks. Even peaceful acts of protest can bring out Diaz-Canel’s armed and deadly henchmen. 

Yes, the Cuban state-security service arrests and intimidates, but the alternative is to condemn poor Cuba to yet another half century of penury and oppression as corrupt ideologues like Diaz-Canel play at “making revolution.” During South African apartheid, American leaders regularly expressed solidarity with the oppressed, who were urged to resist, not to flee their country en masse.  

Opportunities abound for Biden to go to his bully pulpit. For example, Cubans protesting in the streets have changed Fidel’s fanatical motto “Patria o Muerte” (fatherland or death), long considered by Fidelistas as the country’s sacred watchword. Demanding a normal country, protesting Cubans instead proclaimed “Patria y Vida” (fatherland and life). Touche! Washington should speak in solidarity with these people, denounce Diaz-Canel’s dictatorship, and encourage patriots to stay on the island.

Today, hearing no demands from the Biden administration, Diaz-Canel is thrilled to continue pushing disgruntled Cubans off the island through Mayorkas’s open door right into the United States. Diaz-Canel knows that these frustrated Cubans, who tend to be young and ambitious people, would swell the ranks of protestors in the streets. 

Diaz-Canel also wants these Cubans in el Norte, where they can earn and send back billions in remittance dollars. Taxed by the regime, these remittances ($4 billion, or 26 percent of the economy) literally save the bankrupt communist system from imploding, just as Soviet subsidies were crucial in keeping Castro in power. These funds, mainly provided by family members, also have an outsized impact on the Cuban economy since they often go into creative private hands.

Meanwhile, the Havana regime is incapable of finessing a China-style mix of communist party state control that permits real commercial enterprise. Fearing he will go down Gorbachev’s path to doom, Diaz-Canel has not really advanced beyond Fidel’s basic economic principles, which were best illustrated by Castro’s decision, many years ago, to name Che Guevara as head of the Cuban central bank. Che famously joked that he agreed to run the bank because he thought Fidel had asked for a “comunista” instead of a “economista.” 

All of this is why Washington’s embargo (communist propaganda calls it a “blockade,” as if U.S. warships were right offshore) is far less significant in frustrating Cuba’s commercial activities as are the regime’s own nonsensical Marxist policies.

The most common Cuban aspiration, of all those banned by the communists, is not to read the New York Times online or debate with their ruling ideologues, but to undertake their own free-enterprise commercial activities—in traditional trades, tourism, farming and fishing, construction, and small-scale production. As I observed as a U.S. diplomat during three years on the island, interacting with countless unofficial Cubans, they are remarkably creative, hardworking, and entrepreneurial people. They must be in order to survive.

That is why, under strict control, the communists channel this economic creativity into the hands of small-time entrepreneurs, known in Cuba as cuentapropistas. Otherwise, the regime would have long ago starved the country to death. Today, the cuentapropistas make huge contributions to the country’s fragile economy, and in no serious way are hampered by the U.S. trade embargo. If allowed to flourish without the government on their backs, the cuentapropistas could remake Cuba. 

But it is not going to happen under communist rule. Instead of ramping up this kind of commerce, the Diaz-Canel junta keeps it on a knife’s edge. The regime always keeps cuentapropistas and their commercial activities vulnerable to the whims of arbitrary communist state planners, who can decide, by fiat, to declare their business activities illegal and prohibit them. This devious tactic also drives frustrated Cubans to Miami. 

Cuban Marxists, of course, outlaw such unregulated commerce in the theoretical name of “preventing exploitation.” The reality, of course, is that Havana’s communist overlords fully understand that robust private economic enterprises on the island will bring about countless small power centers the regime cannot control. With economic strength comes political power. 

That is why the Diaz-Canel junta has no higher priority in its engagement with Washington than to ensure that disgruntled Cubans continue to have an option to abandon their country and move north.  

While many of our Cuban-American anti-communist friends may disagree, the time has clearly come to end this exodus. It is not because Americans do not have great sympathy for Cubans fleeing a corrupt tyranny, but a new approach, for both countries, is very much needed.

A new American president must terminate the parole programs that admit hundreds of thousands of Cubans. These programs began with the 1994–95 Washington-Havana migration accords and were vastly, irresponsibly expanded by the Biden administration. It is also time to end the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that fast-tracks Cuban arrivals to U.S. legal permanent residency and provides federal financial subsidies. This is a magnet for Cubans to come here, and the act is unfair to other immigrants also fleeing tyranny.

It is way past midnight in Havana. New U.S. diplomacy and policies must encourage Cuban patriots to stay and resist, to find their future in a new, free Cuba, and not in Miami.  

The post Immigration to the U.S. Strengthens Communism in Cuba appeared first on The American Conservative.

The recent murder of Corey Lewandowski, a prominent political strategist, has sent shockwaves throughout the conservative community. As details of the case continue to emerge, many are left wondering what truly happened on that fateful night in Las Vegas. In this article, we will delve deep into the circumstances surrounding the tragic event, shedding light on the real story from a conservative point of view.

At the center of this tragedy is Dan Rodimer, a former professional wrestler turned political candidate. According to reports, Rodimer was involved in a physical altercation with Lewandowski’s friend, John Odom, at a bar in Las Vegas. Odom, who was later found dead, allegedly suffered a fatal head injury during the scuffle. While the media has been quick to label Rodimer as the aggressor, a closer look reveals a different side of the story.

Remember when the “votes” were being counted in Pennsylvania after the 2020 Presidential election? Corey Lewandowski and Pam Bondi showed up at a Philadelphia “vote” counting facility demanding entry. The had a warrant signed by a judge allowing them entry. They were turned…

— Steve Ferguson (@lsferguson) March 11, 2024

From a conservative perspective, it is important to note that Odom was no innocent victim. In fact, he has a history of criminal behavior and was known for his aggressive and violent tendencies.

This begs the question: could Odom have been the one who initiated the fight? And if so, was Rodimer simply acting in self-defense? These are crucial factors that cannot be ignored in the pursuit of justice for Lewandowski’s death.

Trump team also discussing a GOP convention role for Lewandowski, in addition to Manafort https://t.co/L4ifozZtfD

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) March 19, 2024

Furthermore, let’s not forget the role of alcohol in this tragedy. It is no secret that excessive alcohol consumption can impair judgment and lead to irrational behavior. As a conservative, it is important to acknowledge personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions. While it is tragic that a life was lost, it is also important to consider the impact of Odom’s own choices and actions that may have ultimately led to his untimely death.

Unfortunately, the media has been quick to exploit this tragedy for their own agenda, painting Rodimer as a villain and Odom as an innocent victim. However, as conservatives, we must not be swayed by biased narratives and instead seek the truth. We must also demand a fair and unbiased investigation into the events that led to Lewandowski’s death, without jumping to conclusions or passing judgment.

In the wake of this tragedy, it is important to remember Corey Lewandowski not only as a political strategist, but as a beloved friend and family member. He dedicated his life to fighting for conservative values and making America great again. As a community, let us honor his legacy by standing united and demanding justice for his senseless death.

In conclusion, the murder of Corey Lewandowski is a tragic event that has left the conservative community mourning. But amidst the sorrow, we must not lose sight of the facts and the need for a fair and unbiased investigation. Let us not allow biased narratives to cloud our judgment, but instead seek the truth and demand justice. As conservatives, it is our duty to stand for what is right and never lose sight of the values that we hold dear.

The post Exposing the Dark Side: The Real Story Behind the Murder of Corey Lewandowski appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In a shocking revelation that has stirred considerable controversy, Leonel Moreno, a Venezuelan illegal immigrant, has been instructing illegal aliens on how to invade American homes and invoke squatter’s rights, all while being on the run from authorities.

Moreno, who has gained notoriety for his audacious advice shared on social media platforms, is now evading law enforcement, as confirmed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) according to reports from the New York Post.

Gaming the system—A Venezuelan migrant who went viral for bagging about “free money” and encouraging others to squat in homes across America is reportedly on the run—He’s not the only one taking advantage of the system and laws—In Ohio—A 46 y/o illegal immigrant from Mexico is… pic.twitter.com/uTtfNld1j0

— Ali Bradley (@AliBradleyTV) March 29, 2024

Moreno’s journey into the United States began when he crossed the border illegally at Eagle Pass, Texas, in April 2022. He quickly became part of the Alternatives to Detention program, which was designed to monitor migrants through ankle monitors and other technologies. However, Moreno soon violated the terms of this program and became what ICE officials refer to as an “absconder.”

The Venezuelan migrant’s activities came to light when his TikTok account, boasting over 500,000 followers, was suspended for violating the platform’s policies against promoting criminal behavior. In one of his videos, viewed nearly 4 million times, Moreno elaborates on his plans to squat in the U.S., suggesting that the law allows for the takeover of dilapidated and poorly maintained homes, which can then be repaired, lived in, or even used to secure credit lines.

This is the Venezuelan migrant who advised others to squat in people’s homes to abuse the law. He was banned on Instagram and TikTok, losing millions of followers. So he’s crying about it and using his child as a prop. He could at least clean up his snot. pic.twitter.com/1ngPn5ryed

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 24, 2024

This revelation has sparked a vehement outcry across various platforms, with users accusing Moreno of promoting illegal activity and some going as far as to label his advice as ‘promotional terrorism.’ The backlash has led to calls for intervention by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Despite facing significant criticism and his fugitive status, Moreno has continued to post content online, including a video of himself in front of a Gahanna police car, though local police have professed ignorance of his whereabouts. His audacity doesn’t end there; Moreno has also boasted about receiving $350 weekly from the federal government and encouraged his followers to panhandle instead of working, claiming work gives him allergies.

Moreno’s case highlights significant flaws within the U.S. immigration system, particularly within the Alternatives to Detention program. John Fabbricatore, former ICE field office director and current candidate for Colorado’s Sixth District, condemned the program pushed by the Biden regime as a “failure,” citing the million-plus individuals enrolled and the high rate of those who abscond.

As the mainstream media repeatedly fails and loses public trust, it’s crucial to spotlight these issues accurately and timely. Moreno’s actions not only undermine the rule of law but also insult the hardworking immigrants who come to the United States seeking a better life through legal means. It’s time for a comprehensive review and overhaul of the immigration system to ensure that it upholds the nation’s laws and values while providing a fair and efficient process for those wishing to enter the country legally.

The post Venezuelan Migrant’s Guide to Squatting Sparks Outrage and Highlights Immigration System Flaws appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In a shocking display of disrespect and intolerance, a pro-Palestine group recently overran a Berkeley city council meeting dedicated to Holocaust Remembrance Day. The protesters, armed with anti-Semitic slurs, not only disrupted the proceedings but also targeted individuals sharing their personal stories of anti-Semitism, including a Holocaust survivor and a mother discussing her son’s experiences with bigotry at school. This reprehensible act has sparked outrage across the community and beyond, underscoring the alarming rise in anti-Semitic incidents that threaten the fabric of our society.

The protesters accused the council members of being financially influenced by Jewish organizations, a baseless claim that echoes the dangerous and historical anti-Semitic trope of Jewish financial control. Such accusations are not only unfounded but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes that have no place in our discourse. The disruption escalated quickly, with protesters shouting down speakers and preventing the council from conducting its business, which included discussions on local issues related to Jew-hatred and the situation in Berkeley.

Heckling a Holocaust survivor is bad enough, but these antisemitic, Holocaust denying, Hamas supporting, city business disrupting, protestors who are assailing people are evil & need to be condemned as such.

Public officials should unite in condemning their outrageous behavior. https://t.co/4a31OpETHY

— Democratic Majority for Israel (@DemMaj4Israel) March 29, 2024

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin expressed his shock and condemnation over the hateful and disruptive behavior witnessed at the meeting. He emphasized that such actions would not intimidate him and denounced the deeply anti-Semitic behavior displayed. The mayor’s response is a beacon of leadership in confronting hate and bigotry head-on, ensuring that it has no place in our communities.

This incident is a stark reminder of the horrendous surge in anti-Semitism that we are currently witnessing. As noted by one of the speakers, Jews are now under existential threat, with recent events such as the invasion of Hamas breaking a ceasefire in 2029 leading to the murder of 1,200 Israelis and the brutal torture and rape of women. These atrocities cannot be ignored, and the need for Holocaust remembrance and education is more crucial than ever.

Shocking moment pro-Palestine protestors shouting anti-Semitic slurs overrun California city council meeting that was discussing Holocaust Remembrance Day https://t.co/94bkyCINYL . #Trump2024 pic.twitter.com/lGYURHSPcP

— NahBabyNah (@NahBabyNah) March 29, 2024

Amidst this backdrop of growing intolerance, it’s essential to highlight the broader context of entertainment news, celebrity scandals, and other distractions that often dominate the media landscape. While these stories may capture the public’s attention, they should not overshadow the critical issues of hate and bigotry that demand our focus and action.

Kenan Thompson’s call for a Nickelodeon investigation, King Charles’ Easter message, and Hailey Bieber’s modeling for Victoria’s Secret are examples of the diverse news that competes for our attention. However, the seriousness of the Berkeley council meeting disruption and the underlying issues of anti-Semitism it reveals must not be lost amidst the noise.

Furthermore, the scrutiny surrounding Diddy in a sex trafficking probe and Kendall Jenner’s fashion spotlight serve as reminders of the complex and often troubled world of celebrity. Yet, it’s vital to remember that the fight against hate and prejudice transcends fame and public interest in high-profile figures.

In conclusion, the disgraceful interruption of the Berkeley city council meeting on Holocaust Remembrance Day is a wake-up call to all who value freedom, tolerance, and respect. It’s a call to action against the rising tide of anti-Semitism and a reminder of the importance of standing together in solidarity against all forms of hate. As a society, we must ensure that such displays of bigotry are met with unwavering opposition and that the lessons of the Holocaust continue to guide our path towards a more inclusive and compassionate world.

The post Outrage as Pro-Palestine Protesters Disrupt Holocaust Remembrance appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In a striking display of public dissent, President Joe Biden’s high-stakes fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall, aimed at amassing a substantial $25 million for his re-election campaign, was marred by significant disruptions. The event, which saw tickets being sold for as much as $500,000, was not just a gathering of Democratic elites but became a stage for vocal protesters to air their grievances. This incident, occurring on March 29th, 2024, underscores the growing chasm between the political establishment and the concerns of the American people.

The presence of former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton alongside Biden was intended to solidify support and showcase a united Democratic front. However, the convergence of these political heavyweights also attracted the attention of activists, particularly those advocating for Palestinian rights and expressing fears over escalating tensions with Russia. Their bold interruption of the event sends a clear message: significant segments of the population feel their voices are sidelined in the national discourse.

Biden’s $500,000/seat NYC fundraiser with Obama, Clinton, heckled by a protester yelling “GENOCIDE!” at the stage.

pic.twitter.com/wKyxHHTZqG

— 1776 (@TheWakeninq) March 29, 2024

Critics argue that the exorbitant ticket prices for the fundraiser epitomize the disconnect between the Democratic leadership and the average American. While the party champions policies purportedly aimed at the middle and working classes, events like these suggest a preference for courting wealthy donors over engaging with grassroots supporters. This perception of elitism could potentially alienate voters who feel their interests are being overlooked in favor of big-money interests.

Moreover, the choice of venue and the high-profile guest list highlight a concerning trend of prioritizing spectacle over substance. As the country grapples with pressing issues such as economic instability, social unrest, and foreign policy challenges, the optics of three former presidents participating in a glitzy fundraiser can seem tone-deaf. It raises questions about the Democratic Party’s commitment to addressing the real and urgent needs of its constituents.

#BidenHarris2024 donors heckled by Palestine protesters as they leave Joe Biden’s $25M New York fundraiser at Radio City featuring Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Lizzo, and Queen Latifahpic.twitter.com/klagH37NKX

— Brendan (@BrendanMcInnis) March 29, 2024

The protest also brings to the forefront the contentious issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a topic that has historically divided Americans. The demonstrators’ accusations of Biden having “blood on his hands” reflect the deep frustrations over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. This incident serves as a reminder of the complexities and sensitivities surrounding America’s role on the global stage, and the need for a more nuanced and empathetic approach.

Additionally, the mention of a potential nuclear war with Russia by protesters underscores the anxiety permeating American society regarding international relations and security. In an era where geopolitical tensions are at a boiling point, the public’s fear of escalation into conflict cannot be dismissed lightly. The administration’s handling of these fears will be a critical test of its diplomatic acumen and commitment to peace.

The disruption at Radio City Music Hall is emblematic of a broader dissatisfaction with the current political landscape. As the 2024 presidential election looms, the Democratic Party faces the challenge of reconciling its pursuit of high-dollar donations with the imperative to remain accessible and responsive to the electorate. The incident serves as a stark reminder that genuine engagement with the concerns of ordinary Americans is indispensable for maintaining political legitimacy and trust.

In conclusion, the protest at the Biden fundraiser is a microcosm of the larger issues plaguing American politics today. As the nation moves closer to another election cycle, the Democratic Party must heed the lessons from this episode. Bridging the gap between the political elite and the populace, addressing the root causes of social and economic discontent, and fostering a more inclusive and transparent dialogue are essential steps toward healing a divided nation.

The post High-Profile Fundraiser Disrupted by Protesters Amidst Spiraling National Concerns appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Is the Food and Drug Administration immune to challenges from the highest court? The solicitor general of the United States says yes. In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—“the abortion pill case”—Elizabeth Prelogar demurred in response to justices’ questions of who, if not the plaintiff doctors, could be permitted to contest FDA’s decisions regarding drug safety. 

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine has climbed the levels of the judicial system in the last year, bringing with it questions of federal agency overreach and the limits of standing. Those questions are now on the public tongue, too, due to the sensitive subject matter at hand: curtailing federal approval of mifepristone, the drug now responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States. After Tuesday’s oral arguments, a revocation of FDA approval looks unlikely: The court seemed to agree with the solicitor general that the plaintiffs, a group of doctors who cite conscientious objections to assisting in an abortion, have narrow grounds for challenging the drug’s use.

But agency overreach, the unchecked ability of the FDA to approve and disapprove drugs as it sees fit, consequences notwithstanding, loomed large. Associate Justice Samuel Alito pushed the question repeatedly. 

“So your argument is that it doesn’t matter if FDA flagrantly violated the law, it didn’t do what it should have done, endangered the health of women, it’s just too bad, nobody can sue in court?” Alito said. “There’s no—there’s no remedy? The American people have no remedy for that?”

“The government has been routinely resisting standing because we think that that would essentially mean that any advocacy organization could say it opposes what the federal government is doing and so, therefore, has to devote resources to that opposition. If that were enough, then every organization would have standing and it would be a vast expansion of ordinary Article III principles,” Prelogar responded.

Drugs became the go-to method for the majority of women seeking abortions only in 2020. Mifepristone use was on the rise before the pandemic, but it was the strictures of lockdown that gave the FDA pretext to expand access to chemical abortifacients, under the guise of making “life-saving” medicine available in desperate times. Where once a woman had to have an in-person visit with a doctor before aborting, she could now receive the drug by mail after a telemedicine call. By the end of 2020, mifepristone abortions accounted for 53 percent of all abortions nationwide; just four years later, they comprise 63 percent.

The ability to mail this drug is significant for abortion regulation as well as for drugmakers’ bottom line. It is also significant in light of the Comstock Act of 1873, which prohibits the mailing of lewd or indecent materials, including those used for abortion. The abortion piece of Comstock was effectively rendered useless by the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, but legal scholars say Dobbs may have changed that. One Texas district judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, certainly believed so, and argued as much when FDA v. Alliance reached his desk. (The FDA itself remains immune to Comstock, as a federal agency that merely approves the abortion drugs for mailing but does not mail them. Danco Laboratories, mifepristone’s distributor, would be at risk.) There is also another reason mail-order abortion drugs are so consequential: The FDA’s own review of studies in which women were given the pill without seeing a doctor showed 7 percent more women visiting the emergency room for side effects.

The trouble with a mail-order kill pill is that unborn babies are not so easily gotten rid of. Women who take mifepristone often experience excruciating pain and profuse bleeding. These can hardly be called side effects, since a miscarriage is the purpose of taking the drug. While not all women who go to the ER need treatment, many do; it is not uncommon for women to need a “D&C,” or dilation and curettage, in which a doctor manually dilates her cervix to scrape her womb of pregnancy tissues and fetal remains, to prevent deadly hemorrhage. All of this does not top mifepristone’s intended purpose as a drug, which boasts dead subjects in 95 to 99 percent of uses.

The FDA fears granting this case standing would allow hundreds of organizations to sue the agency for its approval of various drugs, a prospect which is understandably concerning for the agency. The FDA has been caught in corruption in the past—allowing Purdue Pharma employees to draft the FDA’s own language in the approval of OxyContin, for example, or allowing Danco to cite a “<0.5%” adverse reaction rate to mifepristone on its label, when FDA knew the real rate was as high as 20 percent, or four times the complication rate of a surgical abortion. Due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, however, pharmaceutical companies have been the ones to feel the burn. With the exception of the occasional scapegoat, the federal bureaucracy typically remains unscathed. No court, according to Tuesday’s hearings, has ever second guessed the FDA’s judgment about access to a drug. 

Alito’s questions are answered in the negative for now. The Administrative Procedure Act has previously been used to make such challenges to FDA judgment nearly impossible. But should the FDA be immune to such challenges, especially where the lives of mothers and children are at risk, is another question entirely.

The post The Supreme Court Mifepristone Case Isn’t Just About Abortion appeared first on The American Conservative.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is back in the American news. At his March 22 daily news briefing, the populist Mexican president declared that he was not interested in fighting the cartels on behalf of the United States. 

“We are not going to act as policemen for any foreign government. Mexico First. Our home comes first,” he said. He added that Mexico would help fight the cartels on “humanitarian” grounds: “Of course we are going to cooperate in fighting drugs, above all because it has become a very sensitive, very sad humanitarian issue, because a lot of young people are dying in the United States because of fentanyl.”

He followed these inflammatory statements with a contentious Sunday interview on the CBS longform staple 60 Minutes. “You know why we don’t have the drug consumption that you have in the United States? Because we have customs, traditions, and we don’t have the problem of the disintegration of the family,” he said, insisting that the cartels pose problems mostly for Americans.

Let us lay aside the recent press investigations that have found evidence that AMLO’s rise to the presidency was backed by the cartels. (What a surprise! The man whose crime policy was “hugs not bullets” supported by organized crime—who would have thought!) The question: Could AMLO do anything about the cartels, even if he wanted to?

Mexican law enforcement is inefficient at best and corrupt at worst. Dissatisfaction with the police and the courts, and their inability to monopolize force, fuel Mexico’s largely undiscussed lynching problem, which, as we emphasized when writing about it last year, is concentrated not in the northern wastes but in the most central and populous parts of the country.

The Mexican Army and Marines have had better success against the cartels, due to their relatively lower penetration by corruption and organized crime. (“Better” is not, however, “invincible”—the cartels have shown themselves able to hold their own in the field on at least one occasion.) The difficulty is that sweeping military operations tend to give short shrift to due process and are, by their nature, volatile and dangerous; this gives an opening for human rights NGOs, in some cases funded by and coordinating with the cartels themselves, to kick up a ruckus at such operations with the support of uncritical media in the U.S. (The same sort of hand-wringing accompanied Nayib Bukele’s mass arrests in El Salvador.) This threatens to make life difficult for the politicians who support these measures. 

And there isn’t much motivation to stomach those kinds of difficulties. AMLO, populist though he may be, is speaking for the Mexican political elite when he says the cartels are a problem for Yanqui. The northern provinces are simply too remote from the capital for the good and great of Mexico DF to care that much—think of the attitude of well-off New Yorkers or Washingtonians toward disasters in Kansas or Oklahoma. So, while the answer to our question is probably yes, AMLO could do something about the cartels, he has little incentive to do so.

American efforts to bring the Mexicans to heel on crime and border control issues have mostly been pushing on string. Our earlier efforts to work directly with Mexican law enforcement, modeled on interventions in Colombia, have proved catastrophically expensive and have left the cartels as strong as ever. (Indeed, arguably stronger, as our reform-and-uplift efforts in the Mexican justice system destroyed the traditional networks of corruption, which, unappealing as they were to American eyes, bought a certain amount of restraint from organized crime.) Mexico has been a weak state from its inception, and no matter how hard the U.S. tries, that isn’t going to change overnight. Nor does it make much sense, from the theoretical perspective of sovereignty, for American law enforcement to be performing operations in Mexico directly.

Hence, American policy toward Mexico should focus on realigning incentives rather than getting involved directly (although force is always the backstop in international relations and must not be categorically excluded). Happily, some of AMLO’s initiatives, which will presumably be continued by a PRI successor, fit nicely with such realignment. Counterintuitively, the recent program of renationalizations is the most promising cornerstone. The increased state revenues will increase state capacity, a chronic problem for the Mexican federal government, and it will encourage Mexico to take security concerns more seriously in relatively far-flung physical locales; there is precedent for the Army to serve as the security forces at sites operated by Pemex, the state-owned oil company. The nationalization of the country’s lithium reserves, which are concentrated in cartel territory, will serve as a particularly helpful move. (This has the added benefit of doing down the Chinese state-backed company that has a controlling interest in Mexico’s lithium.)

The U.S. has historically pressured Mexico toward a more open economy, which benefits American investors and importers. (This is in large part how Mexico has grown to be the States’ biggest trading partner.) Yet, in a choice between easing capital investment and national security, the latter must always have pride of place. A pragmatic-minded president—a Trump, perhaps—would see the benefits of getting out of AMLO’s way.

The post Mexico’s AMLO Will Control the Cartels If We Let Him appeared first on The American Conservative.

Russia’s “Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Area of Nuclear Deterrence,” a high-level strategic document, says that Russia “hypothetically” could allow the use of nuclear weapons only “in response to aggression using WMD [weapons of mass destruction]” or if there is “aggression using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.”

Responding to France’s President Emmanuel Macron’s February 6 statement that “no option should be discarded” in ensuring the defeat of Russia, including “troops on the ground” in Ukraine, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that “we are ready to use any weapon, including [tactical nuclear weapons], when it comes to the existence of the Russian state and harm to our sovereignty and independence. Everything is spelt out in our strategy, we have not changed it.”

Macron replied that France is also a nuclear power. “We must first and foremost feel protected,” Macron said, “because we are a nuclear power.” He then added, “We are ready; we have a doctrine [for the use of nuclear weapons].”

France is ready to send troops into Ukraine “to counter the Russian forces” and even to prepare for nuclear war. In a March 19 opinion piece in the French paper Le Monde, General Pierre Schill, Chief of the French Army Staff, declares that “nuclear deterrence safeguards France’s vital interests.” Reminding the world of France’s “international responsibilities” and “interests” and “defense agreements,” he says that “the French army is preparing for the toughest engagements, making this known and demonstrating it.”

But what do the French really mean by saying they are “preparing for the toughest engagement” and that Europe must be “ready” to have “troops on the ground” in Ukraine?

Macron has said that NATO must not discard the option of “troops on the ground” to ensure that “Russia does not win.” But win what? Does Macron want to ensure that Russia does not defeat Ukraine for Ukraine’s sake, or does he mean that Russia should not win in Ukraine for the subsequent defense of Europe?

Macron said that the time was coming “in our Europe where it will be appropriate not to be a coward” and that it is time for a “strategic leap.” He pressed Germany to send their long-range Taurus missiles, reminding them that they once said, “‘Never, never tanks; never, never planes; never, never long-range missiles’…. I remind you that two years ago, many around this table said: ‘We will offer sleeping bags and helmets.’” 

When it came to the option of sending troops into Ukraine, Macron said that anyone who advocates “limits” on how the West helps Ukraine “chooses defeat.” He insisted that “if the situation should deteriorate, we would be ready to make sure that Russia never wins that war.” Europe must be “ready,” he said, “to reach the means to achieve our objective, which is that Russia does not win.”

It sounded as if Macron was talking about Russian victory in Ukraine again when he considered the threshold for sending troops. “We’re not in that situation today,” he said, but “all these options are on the table.” Following a March 7 meeting with parliamentary parties, Fabien Roussel, national secretary of the French Communist Party, reportedly said that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odessa or Kiev.” 

Macron’s objective again seemed to solely be Ukraine when he said in a March 14 interview, “We are doing everything we can to help Ukraine defeat Russia, because I will say it very simply: there can be no lasting peace if there is no sovereignty, if there is no return to Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including Crimea.”

But, against all these apparent narrow references to Ukraine, Macron’s subsequent discussions of the threshold for troops sounded more as if they were about the defense of Europe than of Ukraine. He said that “war is back on our [i.e. Europe’s] soil” and that Russia is “extending every day their threat of attacking us even more, and that we will have to live up to history and the courage that it requires.”

On March 14, Macron, again expressing his position that sending troops from NATO countries is an option that should not be discarded, said that “to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak.” This time, he gave as his reason that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “existential for our Europe and for France.”

He proceeded to say that “it wouldn’t be us” who would trigger such a move and that France would not lead an offensive into Ukraine against Russia. “It would be Russia’s sole choice and sole responsibility,” he said. And then he added, “If war was to spread to Europe,” it would “be weak, to decide today that we would not respond.”

But even if Macron means defending Europe from Russia, does he mean from an actual attack or simply a potential attack?

With several of his aforementioned statements, Macron sounds like he means that Europe must be ready to defend against an actual attack from Russia after it defeats Ukraine. Yet elsewhere, Macron sounds like he is referring only to a potential attack, saying that Russia must not be victorious in Ukraine because that “would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero” and would mean that “we have no security.”

Interpreting Macron’s motives may be even more difficult than ascertaining his statements’ bare meaning. Why would Macron express the previously inexpressible and risk crossing the red line of a third world war?

It is of course impossible to know Macron’s mind, so any analysis is speculative. But there are at least three possibilities.

The first is that the intended target of his comments is not Russia at all, but the U.S. and Germany. With American war funding struggling against a congressional dam and Germany refusing to send Taurus long-range missiles, Macron may be trying to apply psychological pressure to his allies to send Ukraine more money and weapons assuming they would find that option more palatable than going even further and sending troops.

The second is that the intended target of his comments is Russia. In this possibility, the goal is to create “strategic ambiguity.” The purpose would be, as explained by one French diplomat, so that Russia, as it advances west in Ukraine, cannot rely on the assumption “that none of Ukraine’s partner countries will ever be deployed” to Ukraine. 

The French newspaper Le Monde reports that “Macron’s office explained that the aim is to restore the West’s ‘strategic ambiguity.’ After the failure of the Ukrainian 2023 counter-offensive, the French president believes that promising tens of billions of euros in aid and delivering—delayed—military equipment to Kyiv is no longer enough. Especially if Putin is convinced that the West has permanently ruled out mobilizing its forces.”

The third possibility is that the intended target of his comments is Europe. Europe must prepare for the possibility of a Trump administration weakening its commitment to Europe and NATO. That would leave Europe with more responsibility for the defense of Ukraine and of itself. While Germany has been the economic leader of Europe, France has seen itself as the security leader. 

One diplomat told Le Monde that while Germany “is afraid of escalation…. France wants to give the impression that it isn’t afraid.” Macron “may have wanted to make it clear to Scholz that their two countries are not in the same league” as Macron positions France to be the security leader of Europe in a post-Biden Trump-led world. 

Macron has opened the door to the discussion of Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. With the risks that come with opening that door, it will be important for everyone to clarify both Macron’s threshold and his motivation for sending troops to Ukraine.

The post Is France Ready to Fight Russia? appeared first on The American Conservative.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, investigative reporter Lara Logan reported that the crash of the Dali cargo ship into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was not an accident but rather a “strategic attack.”

Hours after the Dali cargo ship crashed into the Key bridge, taking the lives of six men, the Democrat Governor of Maryland, in a press conference, stated, “The preliminary investigation points to an accident. We haven’t seen any credible evidence of a terrorist attack.”

Many believed Moore and the NTSB’s quick assessment to rule out terrorism raised red flags, considering the NTSB’s preliminary analysis of the Dali’s VDR (Black Box) was yet to be revealed.

The Biden administration has been preparing for possible cyber security attacks on U.S. ports in recent months.

In February, Biden signed an executive order that aimed to “To bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to directly address maritime cyber threats, including through cybersecurity standards to ensure that American ports’ networks and systems are secure.”

The executive order stated its main objective was to “improve maritime cybersecurity and supply chain security.”

President Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order and created a federal rule aimed at better securing the nation’s ports from potential cyberattacks. https://t.co/wl6bpQ0MQy

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) February 21, 2024

Per White House:

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration will issue an Executive Order to bolster the security of the nation’s ports, alongside a series of additional actions that will strengthen maritime cybersecurity, fortify our supply chains and strengthen the United States industrial base. The Administration will also announce its intent to bring domestic onshore manufacturing capacity back to America to provide safe, secure cranes to U.S. ports – thanks to an over $20 billion investment in U.S. port infrastructure under President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda. Today’s actions are clear examples of the President’s work to invest in America, secure the country’s supply chains, and strengthen the cybersecurity of our nation’s critical infrastructure against 21st century threats – priorities his Administration has focused on relentlessly since taking office.

America’s prosperity is directly linked to maritime trade and the integrated network of ports, terminals, vessels, waterways, and land-side connections that constitute the Nation’s Marine Transportation System (MTS). This complex system supports $5.4 trillion worth of economic activity each year, contributes to the employment of more than 31 million Americans, and supports nearly 95% of cargo entering the U.S.

The security of our critical infrastructure remains a national imperative in an increasingly complex threat environment. MTS owners and operators rely on digital systems to enable their operations, to include ship navigation, the movement of cargo, engineering, safety, and security monitoring. These systems have revolutionized the maritime shipping industry and American supply chains by enhancing the speed and efficiency of moving goods to market, but the increasing digital interconnectedness of our economy and supply chains have also introduced vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could have cascading impacts on America’s ports, the economy, and everyday hard-working Americans.

https://t.co/h0nT0XZULE

— Jeff Buongiorno for Congress (@JeffBuongiorno) March 27, 2024

The post Biden Last Month Issued Executive Order To Bolster Cybersecurity at U.S. Ports appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.