Confront Evil, Protect the Vulnerable

There were signs of spring everywhere — in the bright morning sun, the pink flowers lining trees beside the parking lot, the signs for Easter services. As a small gray car rounded the bend, security cameras caught little children pumping their legs on swing sets in the background — the last carefree moment any of them will remember about this day. As they have in too many cities, Nashville’s moms and dads went about their days, not realizing they’d said goodbye for the last time.

For the seven families whose lives changed forever Monday morning, there is no making sense of the heartbreak. But for one set of parents, it’s a unique kind of pain — knowing their daughter is the one responsible. Norma Hale, whose Facebook page is full of proud mom moments, woke up Tuesday with the knowledge that her 28-year-old child’s last words to a friend were “I don’t want to live.” Moments later, Audrey Hale shot through the double glass doors she’d walked through hundreds of times as a Covenant school student, ready to kill.

Miles away, a stunned Averianna Patton sat holding her phone, rereading the text that something bad was about to happen. “Audrey!” she had frantically written back. “You have so much more life to live. I pray God keeps and covers you.”

But it was too late. Hale was walking the hallways of her old Christian school, gunning down anyone in her path. A beloved custodian. The revered head of the school. A favorite substitute teacher. The senior pastor’s only daughter. A nine-year-old boy and girl. In a split second, the buzz of classrooms gave way to sirens and school alarms.

Outside, officers grabbed rifles — listening to reports that some kids were unaccounted for. “Let’s go!” Officers Rex Engelbert is heard yelling to his men, who all take off running toward the gunfire. Unlike Uvalde, where police were paralyzed by indecision, Nashville’s team charged into the school and up the stairs, seeing Hale spraying bullets on the police cars below. Twenty-five seconds later, Officers Engelbert and Michael Callazo fired the shots that took her down — an act of pure and selfless heroism.

No one knows how many others might have died without these men sprinting into the face of evil. “The first call to 911 about shots being fired in the building came in at 10:13 a.m.,” Nashville Police Chief John Drake said. They saved lives. “Let us praise our first responders,” Mayor John Cooper urged. “Fourteen minutes,” Cooper said, referring to the time it took police to get to the scene and stop the shooter. “Fourteen minutes, under fire, running to gunfire.”

In the chaos that followed, children raced down the sidewalks in their school uniforms, holding hands with teachers. From every direction, panicked adults started to arrive, wondering if their child was one of the dead.

Inside, police tried to get a grasp on the casualties. Hale had “a significant amount” of ammunition, they discovered. And a manifesto. “There’s some belief that there was some resentment for having to go to that school,” Drake explained, as outlets started to pick up on the explosive news that Audrey identified as Aiden.

Immediately, the Left turned loose its attack dogs, savaging Drake and the media for “misgendering” the shooter that everyone had rightly described as a woman. Within hours, both USA Today and The New York Times apologized for calling Audrey a “female,” ultimately editing stories and headlines to appease the unappeasable mob who have fostered hostility for those who refuse to yield to their dangerous and destructive charade.

Hours later, the blame game began in earnest. None of this would have happened, activists said, if society were more accepting of the trans ideology, if Audrey’s parents had just been more open to her male identity, if states had just stopped banning drag shows and kids’ gender transitions.

One NBC reporter even went so far as to lay responsibility at the feet of conservatives for fighting to protect children from the transgender ideology that so obviously haunted Hale. “The GOP have decided that guns are more important than kids,” actor Josh Gad argued. “They have decided it is okay to let kids die.” If she was a victim of anything, others claimed, it was “intolerant … brainwashing” and “religious indoctrination.” Then came the ridicule. “Is it possible they weren’t praying enough?” talk show host David Pakman mocked the school. “If prayers alone worked there wouldn’t have been a mass shooting at a school where they pray…” one gun control activist scoffed.

Make no mistake. A storm is brewing in this country that screams, “Christianity is the problem!” The calls will come — if they haven’t already — for the faithful to step back from cultural engagement, to acquiesce on biblical truth where the battle is raging the fiercest: for our children. It’s the same argument the Left has been using on the parents of confused kids — give in or they’ll hurt themselves. To the church it will be: back off or they’ll hurt others.

The inclination will be to move away from biblical truth, the very source of hope and freedom that confused and troubled souls like Audrey need. But that’s not the way forward in a nation broken and bleeding. As much as the other side would like to manage the chaos by indulging these delusions and passing meaningless legislation, the problem isn’t the state of our laws; it’s the condition of the heart.

These tragedies, whether they’re in Nashville or Newtown, are the bitter fruit of a deception that’s destroying us. It’s time to address these lies with urgency, acknowledging that we are a broken people in need of the God that we keep pushing away. It is our moment to do what the brave officers in Nashville did: confront and engage the crisis. These aren’t men who sat on the sidelines, letting the shooter take aim at more children. They rushed straight into the face of danger and protected the weak. As Christians, we’re called to do the same: confront evil and protect the vulnerable so they may know Jesus.

That’s not easy in a society as hostile to truth as ours. But we do not honor the memories of Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs, Williams Kinney, Mike Hill, Cynthia Peak, and Katherine Koonce by abandoning the faith they died living. A spiritual battle is raging for this generation, and we will not win it with silence. We’ve been called, as Ezekiel was called, to speak the word of God in dark days — no matter the cost. “Be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words … [Y]ou shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house” (2:6a,7).

For now, we are a nation swimming in grief. But consider the timing of this tragedy, so near Easter. In this season of empty tombs, we cling to the only hope capable of holding the hurting together. “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet he shall live” (John 11:25). To those families suffering under the weight of unspeakable loss, we rejoice with them that Jesus’s death was not the end of His story — and it will not be the end of theirs either.


Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Poll: Americans Have Negative Views Of Preferred Pronouns And Trans Athletes

A new poll reveals that Americans tend to reject preferred pronouns, transgender ideology and allowing trans athletes to play on teams that align with their gender identity.

According to a poll conducted by NORC and The Wall Street Journal, a majority of Americans do not want transgender athletes participating in sporting events inconsistent with their biological sex. When polled on the issue, 56 percent of respondents agreed that trans athletes should play on teams that match their biological sex. Only 17 percent believe that transgender people should play on teams that align with the gender they identify with.

In addition, the poll found that many Americans believe that society has gone over the edge when it comes to trans issues.

The NORC-WSJ poll found that 43 percent of Americans believe that society has gone “too far” when it comes to promoting acceptance of transgender people, while 33 percent believe society has not gone far enough and 23 percent support the status quo.

Respondents also opposed being forced to use preferred pronouns or non-traditional pronouns.

Forty-two percent said they had “unfavorable” opinions about the usage of pronouns such as he/him or she/her in “email, social media communication, or conversations.” Only 21 percent had “favorable” opinions on others declaring their preferred pronouns.

Gender-neutral pronouns like they/them don’t seem to have much popularity either.

Fifty percent of respondents expressed “unfavorable” opinions about being asked to use non-binary pronouns. Only 18 percent viewed these pronouns favorably.





An obsession with diversity leaves plenty of room for hate

Hospital Assigned ‘Trans Buddies’ To Pressure Doctors Into Affirming Children’s Gender Identity

Med School Revamps ‘Anti-Racism Curriculum’ To Teach Students About ‘Intersectional Identities’

University Quietly Scrubs Website Of Anti-Racism Code Of Conduct After Allegations Of Free Speech Violation

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Does Truth Matter?

In our time, millions of Americans have shed many traditional values, including religious faith. reports, “The importance of traditional American values has plummeted in the U.S. in recent decades, according to a new poll from The Wall Street Journal….The poll found that just 39% of Americans say their religious faith is very important to them.”

In contrast to 39% of Americans today saying that religious faith is important to them, in 1998, the WSJ noted that that percentage was 62%.

Along with this drop in professed religious faith is a drop in the belief that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

But the founders of America affirmed that there is. In the Declaration of Independence, they declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” “Self-evident truth? Well, maybe that was their truth,” someone today might opine, “But my truth is different.”

At this time of year, hundreds of millions of professing Christians the world over celebrate Palm Sunday, which initiates Holy Week—including Good Friday, and above all, Easter, the day Jesus walked out of His own tomb and changed history forever.

When He stood trial before the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Jesus said very little. Like a lamb to the slaughter, predicted Isaiah the prophet some 750 years earlier, He would open not His mouth.

However, He did mention that He came to “bear witness to the truth.” Pilate sneered, “What is truth?” Then he walked away, as he tried to weasel his way out of having to deal with this unusual Defendant.

To the Christian, standing before Pilate was Truth Incarnate. Jesus had told His disciples just hours before this, “I am…the truth.”

But Pilate was blind to this reality. In many ways, Pontius Pilate is like a modern man—not believing that there is such a thing as truth at all.

Dr. Jeff Myers, president of Summit Ministries and author of the book, Truth Changes Everything, writes: “America has passed a tipping point. A majority of young Americans now say that there is no absolute truth, rather it is up to each individual to define their own truth. People talk about ‘speaking my truth’ rather than ‘seeking the Truth.’”

I have spoken with Myers a few times on the radio about this whole idea of absolute truth. He told me, “This is, I believe, the core issue of our day. Will we stand for truth or not? Will we even recognize that truth actually exists or will we persist in this fiction that truth is up to every individual?”

For centuries people have spoken of “the Gospel truth.” There is a reason for this phrase. The Gospel refers to the Good News of the coming of Jesus Christ into our world, ultimately to save sinners through His death on behalf of others. Through faith in Him comes forgiveness and reconciliation to God and to our fellow man.

The recorded highlights of Christ’s world-changing life were written down in the first century in the four Biblical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But alas, there are those around who question the historical reliability of these sources.

Dr. Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., a Harvard-trained historian and bestselling author, is a retired professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University. In a television interview, he told me, “It seems that today there’s one attack after another on the reliability of the New Testament in general or the Old Testament and the Gospels in particular. Now these are four mini-biographies of Jesus Christ, as you well know, but they are immensely reliable when you compare their evidence with the evidence we have outside scripture from the ancient world.”

How so? Maier continues: “We find some of the same people and places and events that are mentioned inside the Bible, mentioned also in secular records, pagan records outside of the Bible and for a historian this is a remarkable demonstration that the sources that we have inside of Scripture are very reliable indeed.”

Dr. Sam Lamerson, one of my professors at Knox Theological Seminary, where I earned my doctorate of ministry, notes: “The Biblical Gospels are far more trustworthy than most people realize. They think that they’re myth, but in truth what we have are historically verifiable events that happened 2000 years ago that were written down very close to the time that they happened and that were preserved in over 5000 manuscripts that we have today.”

Our ultimate solution to get back to truth is to get back to Jesus, notes Dr. Myers, who. He says: “If we can understand how Truth really did change everything in the past, then we can more clearly see what we lose in abandoning it and what we could gain by reclaiming it.”

Truth is all that matters. Jesus is the Truth.

Dr. Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Are Liberals Preparing For A Civil War Here?

What Anne Frank and Dr. Christian Larson Can Teach Us about the Power of Optimism

Think the best, do your best.

Anne Frank may well be the most famous 15-year-old author of the 20th Century. She penned but one volume, a diary, while hiding from the Nazis during the German occupation of the Netherlands. “How wonderful it is,” she wrote, “that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.”

Imagine it. Living each day for two years crammed in the hidden rooms of an office building, knowing that at any moment you might be found and hauled off to near-certain death at a concentration camp. Barely a teenager, she managed to write those and many other words of remarkable inspiration before she and her family were discovered in August 1944. They were sent to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where Anne died in March 1945, just three months before her 16th birthday.

How is it possible for a youngster to see so much light in a dark world, to find within herself so much hope and optimism amidst horror? What insight! What power! That’s been the magic of Anne Frank for the past seven decades.

Anne Frank’s message will be remembered for many more decades to come, hopefully forever. It reminds us that no matter the circumstances, we can make a difference. Our attitude, as the old saying goes, determines our altitude. If you want to make a better world, start by making a better self; it’s the one thing you have considerable control over in almost any situation. Don’t let pessimism drag you down; look to the future with hope and a determination that with the right character and attitude, you can help make the world a better place.

I share here the words of another inspiration, the philosopher and teacher Dr. Christian D. Larson (1874-1954), who developed the Optimist Creed that is used by Optimist Clubs all over the world. He implored his fellow citizens to “Promise Yourself” the following:

  1. “To be so strong that nothing can disturb your peace of mind. To talk health, happiness, and prosperity to every person you meet.”
  2. “To make all your friends feel that there is something in them. To look at the sunny side of everything and make your optimism come true.”
  3. “To think only the best, to work only for the best, and to expect only the best. To be just as enthusiastic about the success of others as you are about your own.”
  4. “To forget the mistakes of the past and press on to the greater achievements of the future. To wear a cheerful countenance at all times and give every living creature you meet a smile.”
  5. “To give so much time to the improvement of yourself that you have no time to criticize others. To be too large for worry, too noble for anger, too strong for fear, and too happy to permit the presence of trouble.”
  6. “To think well of yourself and to proclaim this fact to the world, not in loud words but in great deeds. To live in faith that the whole world is on your side so long as you are true to the best that is in you.”


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Trans joy’ in Nashville

What can explain the demonic explosion of hatred?

What was in the head of the 28-year-old who meticulously planned a rampage in her old school? What inspired her to stockpile guns and barge into a school and kill three nine-year-olds and three adults? What rage? What darkness? What sickness?

That’s the question everyone is asking about Audrey Elizabeth Hale.

We’ll never know for sure what she was thinking; police shot her dead at the Covenant School in Nashville. Some clues may lie in her “manifesto”. It hasn’t been released by police but no doubt it’s a deranged connect-the-dots of hatred and self-pity. The Nashville police chief said that she “was under care – doctor’s care – for an emotional disorder”. She was also transgender and identified as a man named Aiden.

In the end horrors like these are inexplicable, unless you believe in the demonic. Apart from that, there are all sorts of theories.


“I don’t condone Audrey Hale’s actions,” tweeted one person, “though I understand their outrage against an intolerant state that brainwashes children through religious indoctrination. The reality is this human still identified as that child attending that school and carried that pain into adulthood.”

Too much testosterone as part of Audrey’s transgender medications.

Controversial conservative Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that “How much hormones like testosterone and medications for mental illness was the transgender Nashville school shooter taking? Everyone can stop blaming guns now.”

Too much Christianity:

The account of @TNDTracker was suspended by Twitter.

Unsurprisingly, President Biden and many pundits did blame guns and called for gun control.

Political point-scoring over the deaths of three children and three adults and the shooter at the Covenant School in Nashville yesterday is at best embarrassing, at worst despicable. But one thing must be said. This tragedy ought to put forever to rest the idea of “trans joy”.

“Trans joy” is a slogan that trans activists use to console each other. The idea is that becoming trans is achieving authenticity and peace with your own dreams. Despite discrimination and transphobia, trans people can draw on deep reserves of serenity and unspoken happiness: joy.

The American Civil Liberties Union declares: “When forces larger than us try to break our spirit, we can respond as forcefully and effectively with joy as we can with anger, defiance, and protest.”

You can expect to hear more about this cultish tosh on Friday, for March 31 is International Transgender Day of Visibility.

An obscure group called the Trans Resistance Network issued a statement after the Nashville shootings. It spoke of the “the inner strength and beauty of transgender people”. And then it defended Audrey/Aiden Hale. “[He] felt he had no other effective way to be seen than to lash out by taking the life of others, and by consequence, himself.”

If killing nine-year-olds is part of a trans programme for visibility, there must be something desperately wrong with being trans. It doesn’t resolve their unhappiness and loneliness; in the long run it will probably make them worse.  There may be no evidence that being transgender is predictive of violence. But it does seem to be predictive of misery.

Trans activists use the notion of “trans joy” and LGBTQI+ “Pride” to sell their ideology to teenagers. But the tormented life and death of Audrey Hale show that this is a gilt-edged fraud. There was no inner strength and beauty – only demons.


Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Do Conservatives Keep Praising Depraved Entertainment?

Over the last few years, I’ve noticed a phenomenon happening within the conservative movement that continually vexes me. It is this: Staunchly conservative commentators — who otherwise would be the first to condemn sexual immorality and abuse as well as murderous violence that happens in real life — are continually taken in by fictional movies and TV shows that prominently feature said content, so much so that they produce articles and videos that publicly sing the praises of these movies and shows.

Exhibit A is National Review culture critic Armond White’s latest review of the new film “John Wick: Chapter 4,” just published this morning. For those unfamiliar with the “John Wick” series, it revolves around a former hitman, played by Keanu Reeves, who is relentlessly pursued by a series of assassins trying to kill him. Each film in the series is basically a string of set pieces featuring stylized violence and brutality, in which Wick kills every killer who crosses his path. Arguably, the entire appeal of this movie franchise is to entertain through the use of stunning visuals, stunts, and action for the purpose of portraying bad guys being killed by a highly trained “hero” in a supremely stylized, ritualistic manner.

Now, I’m not here to play the part of the conservative spoilsport babysitter looking down at other adults who choose to watch action thriller movies. You’re not going to find me calling anyone a sinful, bad person for watching “John Wick: Chapter 4.” There are undoubtedly people out there who might have a good reason to spend three hours watching almost non-stop violence. Maybe you are the kind of person who can compartmentalize brutal violence and glean other small virtues from “John Wick” (I can’t do that, but perhaps others can). Or maybe you are a cinematographer and want to see the particular visual style of the film. Or maybe you have a family member who is an actor in the film. The point is, if you as a responsible adult have honestly vetted your motives for watching a movie like this, who am I to judge?

What I do have a problem with, however, are self-professed conservatives trying to claim that movies like these are in and of themselves edifying and good, and that the general public should watch them because they somehow have redeemable value and have something valuable to say about the human condition.

In his review of “John Wick: Chapter 4,” White admits that the film “takes the nonstop choreography of mano a mano combat, foot chases, car chases, and gun violence to delirious extremes.” But then, as if to justify its existence, he later claims the movie “isn’t sadistic; it’s about Wick’s survival. Reeves perfectly embodies emotionless killing — not an anti-hero, he’s our good-guy — while Stahelski [the director] leaves us guiltless, indulging the pleasure of risk and astonishment.”

Ah, I get it. So because John Wick’s character kills dozens of people robotically, free of “sadistic” glee, we as the audience should feel “guiltless” for indulging in it. Wait, what? Later, White’s continued attempts to rationalize away partaking in a three-hour kill-fest become almost comical: “Chapter 4 distills physical and mechanized antagonism to an abstraction that allows audiences to enjoy the mayhem without feeling the threat of reality and death.” Right.

But the real kicker is how White concludes his review. After acknowledging that the movie’s “cartoon violence” is “not my ideal cinema,” he suddenly imparts on the film a “higher sensibility” for teaching the audience that “weapons don’t kill people, people kill people.” But it gets worse. He then bizarrely claims in the review’s final sentence that “John Wick: Chapter 4” “fulfills the primal need to discharge our social frustrations about living in contemporary hell.” What White is claiming, in essence, is that the movie’s violence and killing is actually cathartic for the audience because it serves as an outlet for our frustrations, even to the point of fulfilling a “primal need.”

This is dangerous ground to tread on, and a particularly disappointing argument for a writer at National Review to be making. By this same logic, a movie with pornographic sexual content would also serve a “primal need” for the audience because it could serve as an outlet (to paraphrase White’s words) in which to “discharge our [sexual] frustrations.” Does this type of argument sound familiar? It’s exactly the kind of argument that many on the Left make to justify pornography.

Arguably an even more egregious example of a prominent conservative heaping praise on filth is Ben Shapiro’s multi-part video reviews of “Game of Thrones” a few years back. For those unfamiliar with the HBO series, “Game of Thrones” ran from 2011-2019 and became a massive cultural phenomenon largely because of its shock value. It became infamous as the first “mainstream show” to feature egregious amounts of nudity, sex, and a previously unseen level of brutal violence, including torture. Perhaps most infamously, it featured a violently graphic depiction of rape, in which the actress confessed to resorting to vodka in order to get through filming, all while crying in the bathroom and feeling “helpless.”

Still, Shapiro — arguably one of the conservative movement’s most articulate and staunch defenders — found the time to publicly display how much of a fanboy of “Game of Thrones” he was by meticulously dissecting the plots and character development of a number of the show’s episodes in a series of Daily Wire videos, garnering millions of views.

To a certain extent, I understand what’s going on here. Public conservative intellectuals don’t want to seem like old-timer fuddy-duddies who wag their fingers at what the kids are watching. They instead want to appear “culturally relevant” by showing that they too can appreciate the wider culture’s current entertainment obsession, no matter how debauched or depraved it actually is, because it’s just “entertainment,” after all.

It’s certainly true that the conservative movement must fully engage and analyze the entertainment industry and popular culture. But there’s a bright red line between giving largely positive reviews of depraved movies and shows and honestly critiquing the vile content in entertainment and warning against it. As conservatives, we must realize the glaring hypocrisy that is occurring here. On the one hand, we constantly rail against societal ills, particularly sexual perversion and rebellion in all its forms. But then we shrug our shoulders at the filth present in films and shows we happen to like. Sadly, it seems that this lamentable tradition started decades ago. National Review founder William F. Buckley on the one hand castigated Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner for rewriting the Ten Commandments but later had his articles published in Playboy as well as Penthouse.

An obvious blind spot exists here for conservatives, but we can easily start correcting it. When the conservative movement writes about entertainment that should be consumed, how about we recommend films and shows that are genuinely enriching? A few recent examples could include “Jesus Revolution,” “On a Wing and a Prayer,” “The Chosen,” “A Hidden Life,” etc. There are too many genuinely good shows and films out there for conservatives to be wasting their time writing about drivel like “John Wick 4.”

Fellow conservatives, I beg you: let’s stop drawing people’s attention to depravity just because it provides some cheap thrills. We must cure ourselves of “Yes, it has gratuitous sex and violence, but the acting is great!” syndrome. Let’s instead point people to films and shows that are genuinely edifying for the soul and have something beautiful to say about the human condition. As conservatives, we must do better.


Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden Administration: Just say anything!

My latest letter to Joey Kahn, Executive Editor of The New York Times

Dear Joey,

I hope today finds you well. I have been meaning to write to you for awhile now, to commend you and your staff on your superlative investigative reporting, which is synonymous with the iconic New York Times. Your laser focused determination to print honest, factual information puts you head and shoulders above the rest. I applaud your sense of human decency and ability to always show that there are two sides to every story. I can’t thank you enough, for the example that you set for the youth of America. Bravo Joey Kahn, Bravo!

Once again though Kahny, I have to be the bearer of bad news. It seems those right wing lunatics are up to their old tricks again. Yep, their endless congressional hearings, their mud-slinging, grotesque accusations and innuendos abound. Have they no sense of decency, like that which you and The Times exude day in and day out. Let’s take a look at some some of their accusations and see if there is an iota of credibility.

Like I said, right wing conspiracy theorists are always challenging the veracity of this administration, especially Joey Robinette himself. How they can attack a person who quite possibly could be the most genuinely honest and accomplished orator of all time, is beside me. Together with being a devout, deeply religious individual (self-proclaimed, much like the angelic Nancy Pelosi), how can anyone question his integrity.

It Doesn’t Matter, Just Say Anything

Well, conservatives have a much different point of view. They feel that the corrupt puppet occupying the White House and his entire administration, are corrupt, pathological liars—who know no bounds, and will do or say anything to stay in power. They site several examples of blatant lying and gaslighting. Let’s take a look a few recent whoppers.

Recently, bank records were exposed showing some financial transactions from Billy Walker who is an associate of the Biden Crime Family. It seems Billy-boy received approximately $3,000,000 from State Energy HK Limited, an company affiliated with the CHINESE Communist Party Why is this important Kahny, well I’m glad you asked. It seems soon after this, ole Billy wired over $1,000,000 to the Biden syndicate. Included in this payout were of course Hunter, crack addict/energy expert/military hero/world renowned painter (anonymous buyers, of course);his old girlfriend and brother Beau’s widow, Hailie; Jimmy Biden (the big guys brother); and another Biden, not named. Care to venture a guess who that might be Kahny? Possibly—Mr. 10% for the big guy? And people ask why Beijing Biden is so accommodating to the Chinese: never questioning them on the origin of Covid 19 and the killing of over 1,000,000 Americans; or the spy balloon roaming free across our nation’s military installations; or selling them gas from our strategic oil reserve. Is Joey compromised….c’mon man. Nothing to see here, move along.

I mean, is it possible that Hailie (Beau’s widow/Hunter’s ex-girlfriend) is also an energy expert like Hunter? You remember after he was discharged from the Navy due to using cocaine, he landed a job on the board of directors of a Burisma Energy company…..for $87,000 a month! That Navy training sure paid off, except for that whole cocaine thingy, getting in the way. Didn’t hurt that his father was the VP then either, I guess.

Well, reporters wanted answers to all of this. Reporter’s questioned the President when he was heading off to his usual 3 day long weekend at the beach (those 4 day weeks/4 hour days can be brutal). When asked about the over $1,000,000 going to family members, he replied, “that’s not true.” Ok, that is that then! He does get high grades though, as he walked in the right direction towards the helicopter, and climbed the whole 3 steps without incident. Networks were showering him with accolades of athleticism and such youthful vigor for traversing the stairs. Joy Behar had tears in her eyes describing the event. Reportedly, Mr. Behar had tears in his eyes also, this was due to the fact he knew Joy was coming home after the show.

Propaganda Queen

Then it was Press Secretary Karine Goebbels turn to answer for these transactions, and as usual she did not disappoint………..with her ineptness, that is. When posed with the money transactions to the crime family sorry, I mean Biden’s, she was having none of it. Usually, she just reads from her scripted binder, just flips to the right tab, for instance: Afghanistan debacle; runaway inflation; southern border catastrophe; Chinese surveillance balloons; Tara Reade (oops, not supposed to talk about that one)…well, you get the idea.

Well, she didn’t have her scripted response, so she shot from the hip. She said to the effect, “I’m not going to stand up here and address this now. This is an endless lie perpetrated by the Republican Party for a long time now.” Then finally, “I wouldn’t even know where to start.” Well, I’m no sleuth like you and your investigative reporters over at Pravda Kahny, but couldn’t she start with the black and white printed bank statements? The ones with all the Biden’s names on them—what do you think Kahny, you’re a whiz at this sort of stuff.

The True Kings of Propaganda

So you see Kahny, there seems to be a prevailing theme with this installed administration: Just say anything! Yep, just say anything, and why not—who is going to hold them accountable? You Kahny? Maybe WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Yes sir, not a peep from you unbiased “journalists.” No, you’re all too consumed with seeing if President Trump had any overdue books he never returned in high school. Hey, maybe Chardonnay Pelosi can get the gang together and have Impeachment #3 going! Plus I’m dying to see if unhinged Adam Schiff, will be providing us with that insurmountable evidence of Russian collusion, which he promised YEARS ago…..any day now, any day. No follow up story on that falsehood Kahny…..shocking!

They have Called in the Big Guns

It seems they have been able to lure New York City DA Alvin Bragg away from the buffet line, to take his turn attacking President Trump. Ole let ‘em loose Alvin, known for his revolving door of bail reform (a big part of the mass exodus from NYC); who is well known for turning felonies into misdemeanors, is doing the exact opposite with President Trump……..I wonder why Kahny? It seems the fed’s didn’t want to pursue the case, the former DA of NY didn’t want to pursue it—heck, even ole Alvin himself didn’t want to take it on…..initially, Hmmmmm.

Trump Must be Stopped at any Cost

The timing seems a little suspect, wouldn’t ya say Kahny old boy? Let’s see there are 2 schools of thought on this.

  1. It seems ever since President Trump made his intentions known, that he would seek the presidency, well that is when Alvin put the knife and fork down (momentarily, of course) and decided to pursue the case. I’m sure a call or two from Georgie Soros, or Barry (aka Barrack Hussein) didn’t hurt. Word is Beijing Biden tried to call, but he was found talking into the tv remote control, for hours. I believe, “Dr.” Jill, finally rendered him assistance, got him into his onesie, night cap and tucked him in, despite his pleas to watch cartoons.
  2. It seems there has been an endless conga line of congressional investigations going on, with many to follow I’m told. I guess it was things that ole Chardonnay wasn’t concerned about getting answers to like the weaponization of the DOJ, and FBI. Plus she had her hands full, bailing out Paulie Pelosi for his DUI, and then also when his escort service took a bad turn. I mean, when that bad guy broke into the house and attacked him…wink, wink. I think it was the same MAGA guy that got Jussie Smollett—darn MAGA’s. Do you think because the spotlight is being thrown on the corrupt, incompetent, installed administration, that they need a major diversionary tactic? Do you think that is why alleged multiple winner of the 76oz steak challenge Alvin Bragg is on the prowl?

I guess it is not fair to ask you, Joe Kahn, Executive Editor of the New York Times. There is barely a blurb about any of this in your tabloid. Usually if it is, it is to discredit the congressional committees as witch hunts, with sinister undertones. Always showing your journalistic integrity Kahny.

Beyond the Twilight Zone

I did just heard some encouraging news recently though Kahny. It seems the honorable Governor Kathy Hochul would like to get legislation passed— to ban gas stoves in new buildings by 2025, and new HOUSES by 2026, in New York State. That is fantastic news. Now, besides having parents dragged out or arrested from school board meetings over their children’s indoctrinating curriculum, labeling them domestic terrorists, we have this weapon— I mean solution. Maybe, we could have Merrick Garland have the FBI raid homes and start ripping out gas stoves—of course, this would apply to conservative households initially. I mean, why should she worry about rampant violent crime; ludicrous bail reform; shoplifting going unimpeded; people being flung in front of subway trains; out of control homelessness/mental illness; illegal immigration exploding—putting enormous strain on schools and healthcare facilities……obviously, the most pressing issue is gas stoves! Now, if we could only get China, India, and Russia to stop burning fossil fuels, we would be in great shape. I can’t understand why people are leaving New York in droves, it’s mind boggling.

Back to Gaslighting

Well Joey Kahn, I’ll let you get back to projecting, omitting, diverting, and of course lying in your tabloid, to what is actually going on. C’mon man there is a ton of gaslighting you have to do to cover for the real domestic terrorists, the ones installed to bring down, I mean lead our country. I’m sure Barry is smiling, sitting on a lounger, next to Michael at one of his seaside estates, doing his 3rd term by proxy. I look forward to tomorrows tabloid, and it’s 8-10 articles on President Trump—while ghosting the name Biden and the failed policies and corruption. You’re a good little servant for the cause Joey Kahn, yep, there’s that journalistic integrity we always talk about. Remember, the Old Gray Lady’s mantra—printing all the propaganda, that is fit to print.


Chris Cirino

©Christopher Cirino. All rights reserved.


Unlike These 9 Men, You, Ladies, Will Not Be Named ‘Woman of The Year’

These ladies have something you don’t …..

Rachel Levine, Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox, MJ Rodriguez (born Michael Anthony Rodriguez Jr., a male stage performer who “identifies as an Afro­Latina trans woman”), Ebony Harper (executive director of a group called “California TRANScends), Cecilia Chung (Chung successfully pressured San Francisco officials to make their city the first in the country to pay for uninsured residents’ mutilative sex surgeries), Lia Thomas (displaced his female competitors from the top swimmers winners’ podium.

You’ve Probably Never Been ‘Woman Of The Year,’ But These 9 Men Have

By: Elle Purnell, The Federalist, March 24, 2023

Nothing says ‘we respect women’ like elbowing them out of their own awards to laud a man who makes a mockery of womanhood.

After naming Richard/Rachel Levine, a man who parades around in ladyface, as one of its 2022 “Women of the Year,” USA Today is back to remind us that it doesn’t know — or doesn’t care — what a woman is.

Earlier this week, the outlet released its list of 2023 honorees, and the name getting the most attention is that of Minnesota state Rep. Leigh Finke, a pink-haired man who dresses like a woman and has been in office for less than 12 weeks.

Nothing says “we respect women” like elbowing them out of their own awards to laud a man who makes a mockery of womanhood. Finke isn’t the only man coopting the “woman of the year” pedestal. Here are eight other men who have displaced women at their own game.

Keep reading.



13-Year Old ‘Drag Queen’ Performs at Event as Adults Cheer Him On — Graphic Images

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Uncomfortable’: Students Slam School That Threatened To Punish Those Who Protest Trans Kids In Bathrooms

VAIDA: Censorship Royale — ‘Sensitivity Readers’ Came For James Bond, And They’re Not Stopping There

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘The Ministry Of Inclusion Has Decreed That These Books Must Be Excluded’

Inclusion is the virtue of our time and all literature making the path to inclusion a bumpy one must be bulldozed.

In the last month, three news stories out of Britain have seized the attention of book lovers. First, with the approval of the Roald Dahl Story Company, holder of the rights to the late author’s works, the publisher Puffin Books (a Penguin Random House imprint) announced that Dahl’s celebrated children’s books would henceforth be published in revised editions reflecting the changes recommended by “sensitivity readers.”

The result would be to eliminate references “to fatness, craziness, ugliness, whiteness (even of bedsheets), blackness (even of tractors) and the great Rudyard Kipling,” among other changes, as Meghan Cox Gurdon wrote in the Wall Street JournalChristopher Scalia added in the Washington Examiner that “this compulsion not to offend is especially strange regarding Dahl, whose work is distinctively unsettling. His publishers were once proud of that.”

Subsequent reports informed us that purchasers of eBook copies of Dahl’s children’s stories would see these changes made in the copies they had previously bought but that were stored on vendors’ servers—yet another reason to own paper copies of books. Puffin later announced that “classic” editions of Dahl’s books—with unchanged texts—would continue to be available for future purchase. But the bowdlerized editions have not been withdrawn, as they should be.

The second story, which did not get much attention in the United States, was that a similar “sensitivity revision” has been performed on the James Bond books of the late Ian Fleming. The sexism of Agent 007, and his retrograde racial views, were gone over with a fine-tooth comb, with the approval of Ian Fleming Publications. Henceforth James Bond, of all people, will try hard not to disturb the prejudices of a typical humanities professor of 2023. It’s a wonder he’s still licensed to kill.

The third story, which I did not see any US media outlet notice, was that the Research Information and Communications Unit, part of Prevent, itself an arm of the UK’s Home Office charged with enforcing the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, had identified certain books, films, and television shows that were on favored “reading lists” of right-wing terror groups the unit was keeping tabs on.

The list included works by Tolkien, Conrad, Kipling (again!), Tennyson, Chesterton, Huxley, Orwell, Milton, Chaucer, and Shakespeare, as well as films such as The Great Escape, Zulu, and The Bridge on the River Kwai, and the Kenneth Clark art history series “Civilisation”. Suffice it to say one could begin to build a pretty good education on the foundation laid by works the British government is concerned about.

Orwell and Huxley would have understood perfectly what’s going on in these stories. Orwell’s Winston Smith, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, works in the Ministry of Truth, which busily rewrites history from day to day, in accordance with what the Party needs people to believe, regardless of whether it is true. Huxley’s Brave New World doesn’t need a daily rewriting of history. Unlike Orwell’s Oceania, Huxley’s World State has no external enemies, and has achieved a complete break with humanity’s distant past. The few remaining copies of “obsolete” and otherwise forgotten books such as the Bible and the works of Shakespeare are locked away in the possession of the elite World Controllers. And in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, books of every kind are simply forbidden, and are immediately burned by the government’s firemen wherever they are found.

These dystopias all feature one form or another of a war on knowledge and truth by those in power. Their victory in that war can only come if the works of the past are revised to suit present needs, or rendered irrelevant and forgotten, or simply banned altogether. It is alarming that the impulse to treat the past as the enemy of the present, rather than as a precious inheritance, is rising to a commanding position at the heights of our culture.

I don’t mean to suggest that the deeply stupid revisions of the works of minor authors such as Dahl and Fleming represent the advent of a dystopian tyranny. In these cases they will only succeed in making the original works more valuable to preserve, while the insipid revisions will not attract the new readers whose “sensitivities” are being catered to. It is the spirit of the revisionists that is repellent and tyrannical, however.

It is the same spirit identified by George Packer in his recent Atlantic article “The Moral Case Against Equity Language,” where he describes the top-down, flattening, and stultifying dictates of various “inclusive” language guides, crafted by busybodies with no appreciation for plain speaking and no ear for metaphor. It’s the spirit of the “new Roundheads” critiqued by Jonathan Sumption, who simultaneously—and without any apparent discomfort caused by holding two incompatible ideas in their heads—believe both that “knowledge and truth are mere social constructs” and that they know their own countries’ histories are a dreary tale of unrelieved evil.

The impulse to censor—to revise the history and literature we inherit, to ban what we think the worst of it, to banish certain ideas—is as natural to human beings as any of the seven deadly sins. In fact, properly understood, censorship is an essential element of education. There are ideas and books that are fit for children, and others fit for adults. Parents, who have the primary and direct responsibility for the rearing of their children, are right to take an interest in what is assigned to them to read, and what is available to them in the school library.

The publisher’s revisions of Dahl’s books might be well intended, with the best interests of children in mind. But they do both the author and responsible parents an injustice—the former by converting a talented author’s genius into mush, and the latter by usurping their role of controlling what their children should read. Should children be prepared for a robust, open-minded adulthood, or should certain windows in their minds be permanently obscured by blackout curtains?

The first work in western philosophy to take up the matter of education in the formation of a political community was Plato’s Republic. No sooner does Socrates begin to sketch the education of the “guardians” who defend and rule his perfectly just “city in speech” than he finds it necessary to demand the revision or banishment of much of Greek culture’s poetic inheritance, because it depicts the gods as variously warlike, vicious, and deceitful. The guardians of the best city must be paragons of virtue, and so poetry that might harm the development of their virtue must go. Finally, at the end of the work, returning to this subject, Socrates argues that the great poets—above all, Homer—make false claims to knowledge of the virtues, in contrast to the philosophers, who are the poets’ great rivals. Homer must go; he and his ilk are to be banished for the sake of justice.

My own view of the Republic, which I have taught on and off for four decades, is that Plato is ironically highlighting the impossibility of perfect justice, because it requires (among other absurdities explored in the dialogue) an iron grip on the dissemination of ideas, a grip that no one but omnicompetent authorities could maintain. Plato can no more banish Homer from Greek culture than we can banish Shakespeare; these poets have put an indelible stamp on their civilizations. To say they merit our study and engagement is to state the obvious; to say they loom so large we have no choice but to reckon with them would be more accurate.

Yet the attempt to control thought can do incalculable damage, however doomed it is ultimately. And just as Plato’s guardians are to be kept on the path to virtue by the elimination of all examples of vice, so the self-appointed guardians of contemporary culture have decided that “inclusion” is the virtue of our time, and all literature that might make the path to inclusion a bumpy one must be flattened, bulldozed, paved over. No fat or ugly people in the children’s books of Roald Dahl; no Asian stereotypes in the mind of Ian Fleming’s 007. Readers of Kipling are suspect; Kenneth Clark’s exaltation of Chartres has a whiff of chauvinism about it.

A much-noticed piece in The New Yorker recently concerned “The End of the English Major.” Nathan Heller’s lengthy and depressing overview of the decline of student interest in the humanities, literature in particular, only once or twice barely touched upon what may be the most important cause of the malady it richly described. Students’ interest in the humanities has waned for multiple reasons: careerism in a tough economy (but without a corresponding rebound, as in the past, when conditions improve); the impact of the smartphone on reading habits and attention spans; an increasing emphasis by universities themselves on STEM education (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).

But the humanities have neglected the age-old maxim “know thyself.” At one point Heller quotes a Harvard dean and English professor saying, “Young people are very, very concerned about the ethics of representation, of cultural interaction—all these kinds of things that, actually, we think about a lot!” There speaks, not a student mind genuinely curious about literature, but a young drone—with that “ethics of representation” bushwa—already thoroughly schooled by the Ministry of Inclusion. That is, if anyone is actually saying that to the dean at all, which may be doubted.

Later in the article, for just a moment, other voices “suggest that the humanities’ loss of cultural capital has been hastened by the path of humanities scholarship itself.” But it is not simply that it has become too specialized and obscure, as these voices say. It is the relentless drumbeat, in countless English and other humanities departments, for “representation,” and “inclusion,” and the “interrogation” of literature through a “critical,” ideologically focused lens.

No one becomes a scholar of the humanities—of literature, language, philosophy, history—without first becoming a lover of books. And this passion is fed, not by “representation” and “inclusion” of the reader, or by hacking off the sharp corners of square-pegged works of art to fit them into the round holes of our ideological commitments. It is fed by strangeness—by the encounter with worlds hitherto unknown to us, where we begin by feeling disoriented, groping for a sense of direction, and finally getting our “book legs” under us by patient reading and study.

To acquaint students with works great, good, or merely instructive, it is incumbent on teachers not to flatter them with promises of their “inclusion” in the world of ideas, or to assure them that their ideological priors will be built up and reinforced. It is necessary instead to emphasize to them how they will benefit from being taken out of themselves into places where they do not feel at all included or represented, but where by dint of effort they can come to feel they belong after all.

As in the encounter with Roald Dahl’s grotesques, who have simultaneously repelled and fascinated children for sixty years, the future students and scholars of literature must leave behind the comfy confines constructed by the Ministry of Inclusion and begin again with the experience of strangeness.

This article has been republished with permission from The Public Discourse.


Matthew J. Franck

Matthew J. Franck is Contributing Editor of Public Discourse. He is also Associate Director of the James Madison Program and Lecturer in Politics at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Witherspoon… More by Matthew J. Franck.


Don’t let women speak, especially not Moira Deeming

Australia has a problem with neo-fascists because it has a problem with liberals

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

When Leaders Get Scared

While it may look like the United States is being tough and forceful in Ukraine, the reverse is true. The US is showing incredible weakness, and it is wearing it on its sleeve.

Let’s start with Ukraine. The US has gone all out to try and help Ukraine win a victory over the Russians.

The Biden administration wants this to happen for two reasons: to show that Biden is not a wimp and won’t cut and run like he did in Afghanistan (and on this the 20th anniversary of the War in Iraq, like his predecessor Obama did by pulling US forces out of Iraq) and that he wants to “strengthen” NATO by eventually putting a NATO army in Ukraine.

The reason for not wanting to look like a wimp is self-evident and does not need any further explanation, other than to say that Washington elites have bought into the false narrative that Ukraine is a glowing democracy and we should defend it. Of course, the US disrupted Ukraine’s free politics and pushed the rebellion against a properly elected government.

Likewise, the US also has kept its mouth shut about the political repression in Ukraine, the jailing of political opponents, and the complete takeover of all the media in the country. Ukraine also has mistreated the Russian-speaking population, essentially putting pressure on Russian speakers to leave the country.

The latest twist on this highway of suppression is Zelensky-led attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church, with the most recent manifestation closing a centuries-old monastery and forcing out the Orthodox Monks from the property. Zelensky, to make Washington happy, is pretending to go after corrupt officials in a country famous for corruption (both under the old Soviet leadership and the post-Soviet Ukrainian regimes).

But, as anyone could quickly grasp, expanding NATO is a liability for the United States and the other NATO members. By creating a border that is to be extended by thousands of miles without actually expanding NATO’s military capabilities, is a disaster in waiting.

Moreover, NATO expansion is unnecessarily destabilizing for Europe and the world, because it jacks up the tension between the two big nuclear powers in Europe, the US and Russia. While no one has honestly done the math, a target-rich NATO is dangerous.

Right now, neither the US nor its NATO partners (rather, it should be said, very junior partners) have the wherewithal to defend the territories of NATO before the latest expansion to Finland and Sweden; and when Ukraine is added the situation becomes even riskier.

Indeed, perhaps the key accomplishment of Biden and his friends in Europe, has been to put huge sanctions on Russia. This has removed Russia as a trading, commercial, and resource partner for Europe, meaning the Russians have little to protect in Europe by way of investments and supplier and trade agreements.

Even more critically, Russia has reoriented its economy to China and India, which together are well over 2.2 billion people (not counting Russia which adds another 150 million). Russia is strong on raw materials, including natural gas and petroleum, important minerals such as titanium, agriculture, especially wheat, and military technology, including rockets and nuclear. What Russia does not have is semiconductor technology, but China does.

A second major consequence of US and EU sanctions on Russia is that Russia’s strategic partnership with China has now expanded, and will continue to grow. This is a challenge to the United States which saw itself as the world’s Hegemon, as the sole Super Power.  Whether this was ever true is open to doubt, but in the minds of Washington’s policy-makers, it was indelibly implanted. It still is, but now it is demonstrably not true.

In a recent meeting of former senior military officials, almost all of them wanted to send far more weapons to Ukraine and maybe NATO forces. This kind of thinking is a great example of not understanding the US strategic position objectively, instead of ideologically and myopically.

One of the first big byproducts is the China-brokered Saudi-Iran deal restoring diplomatic ties between the two states. We do not know the full extent of the deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but part of the arrangement is likely economic, Saudi help for Iran in getting its economy back on track, something critical to the Iranian regime’s survival.

The Saudis also agreed to shut down the anti-Iran propaganda they support, and the Iranians agreed to slow down, if not stop, shipping weapons to the Houthis in Yemen, probably also pushing them to take part in peace negotiations in the country. Almost instantly, Iran’s status in the region has been raised yet again.

The icing on the cake was a meeting at the Ben Gurion airport in Israel between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  While Austin affirmed that the US would “never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon” he made no concrete commitment and, according to unauthorized accounts from the meeting, told Netanyahu the US would not support any attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, a major setback for Israel’s security.

Exactly why Austin retreated isn’t completely clear: it could be that US assurances to Israel are non-functional (i.e., fake). It could also be that the US has never been weaker, and any military action in the Middle East is insupportable because of Ukraine.

The Saudis of course did what any country would do if it thought its main ally had taken a hike.  The course the Saudis are following as a result does not necessarily augur anything good for peace and security in the Gulf region, more so after Iran has put in place a credible nuclear force with which to intimidate its neighbors.

There are some indications that Taiwan may be looking for a way to accommodate China, lest the US not support them in crunch time as China moves more forces around the island.  Former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, from Taiwan’s Kuomintang (Nationalist) party, once headed by Chang Kai-shek, is off to China, the first visit to the Chinese mainland by a former Taiwan President since 1949.

The Kuomintang is not the ruling party in Taiwan, but Ma’s visit is nonetheless highly significant. He is briefing Taiwan officials before he arrives in China during the last week of March, and he has agreed to brief them on the way back.

Obviously, his visit is more than a private, sentimental journey to see old relatives and visit family temples; he almost certainly will be carrying messages both ways.

In the meantime, despite US rhetoric, critical defense equipment isn’t being delivered to Taiwan, either because we don’t have it to deliver, or the Biden administration has decided to hold up deliveries. By far the more egregious is the failure to deliver new F-16 aircraft on time, with delays said to be between two and five years. The Biden administration says this is a manufacturing hold-up, nothing more.

But Taiwan’s officials won’t believe the excuse – and should not in any case. Meanwhile, US$14 billion in defense equipment for Taiwan is delayed. Taiwan’s leaders can’t be happy or feel secure.

Ma Ying-jeou met with Mainland top leader Xi Jinping in November 2015 in their capacity as the leader of Taiwan and Mainland China respectively. In short, this is what happens when allies and friends see the handwriting on the wall. How long will it be before NATO countries start to run for cover?

Originally published by Asia Times


Stephen Bryen

Senior Fellow.


The Syrian Civil War: How a country was completely destroyed

Beijing’s subversive political warfare in the Pacific

Securing America – Why should Americans care about Israel?

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

AZ Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Kari Lake In Election Case

The Arizona Supreme Court rules in favor of Kari Lake, forces lower court to look at signature verification issues.

This is a fight that must be waged. Without free and fair elections, nothing else matters. We’re done.

Kari Lake Gets Update From Supreme Court on Her Arizona Election Lawsuit

By: Katherine Fung, Newsweek, March 22, 2023:

The Arizona Supreme Court breathed new life into the election lawsuit of former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake but dismissed most of the Republican’s arguments as insufficient.

On Wednesday, justices on the state’s high court accepted Lake’s argument that lower courts erroneously dismissed her challenge to the application of the signature verification process in the 2022 midterm election. However, the court sided against Lake in six of her seven claims in the suit.

Lake, who’s become a prominent voice in the Republican Party, maintains that voting irregularities and misconduct potentially cost her the election. Her Democratic opponent, Katie Hobbs, had won by more than 17,000 votes and has been in office since January……

Read more


RELATED VIDEO: Kari Lake Reveals Huge Updates to Legal Challenge in AZ- This is How to Ensure Election Integrity

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ISRAEL: Obviating Elections

If the so-called “champions of democracy” succeed in obstructing the judicial reforms, democratic rule will be replaced by mob rule—and Israel will be teetering on the brink of an Orwellian dystopia.

The starkest indicators [of erosion of democracy] which presumably underlie the country’s downgrading in international democracy ratings, involve elite decisions about rejecting election resultsJames NDruckman,  Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University, Misperceptions, Competition, and Support for Democracy, p. 24, Dec 2022.

If the copiously funded mob succeeds in compelling the Israeli government to back away from its much-needed policy of reigning in the rampant legal establishment in general, and the unbridled judiciary, in particular, it will be the end of an era in Israel.

Blatantly absurd

For if they succeed, democratic rule will have been replaced by mob rule, in which a highly motivated and abundantly financed minority can impose its will on the elected majority and compel it to abandon a policy, which in the elections, it pledged to implement. In this regard, the accumulating signs of the government buckling under the relentless pressure of the increasingly raucous and unruly street demonstrations are profoundly perturbing.

There are at least two remarkable aspects of the ongoing protests. One is just how manifestly ludicrous their professed motivation is; the other is how astonishingly effective their well-oiled, well-executed, and well-funded promotional campaign has been in hoodwinking well-off, well-educated echelons in Israeli society.

As for the alleged motivation—defense of democracy from descent into dictatorship—the demonstrators have yet to present a persuasive causal chain linking the proposed changes in the judicial system to the demise of democracy in Israel. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that they—or anyone else—could.

After all, it is plainly absurd to claim that a system, in which a dozen or so unelected officials, with no accountability to the public, have the ultimate authority on matters of vital importance, is more democratic than one, in which that authority is vested in the hands of 61 (or more) elected parliamentarians, regularly answerable to the public.

“Democracy is Dictatorship”: Decent into dystopia?

So, are the opponents of judicial reforms claiming that, if the reforms are implemented, Israel will metamorphize into a “dictatorial democracy”…or is that “democratic dictatorship”? Indeed, the allegation is no less oxymoronic than “tolerant tyranny” or “treacherously trustworthy”.

Disturbingly, the opposition’s calculated abuse of language is strongly reminiscent of the abuse of language chillingly depicted in Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen-Eighty-Four. In it, “Big Brother, the totalitarian regime, imposed the use of a contrived language, NewSpeak,designed to diminish the range of thought“. Typical of the elements employed in NewSpeak is the juxtaposition of diametric opposites as in the official motto of the totalitarian regime: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.  

In perturbingly similar vein, the promoters of the anti-reform protests are in effect asserting that  “democracy is dictatorship“, when decisions are shifted to accountable democratically elected forums from unaccountable, unelected ones.

Thus, although the opponents of the judicial reforms are in the Opposition, their modus operandi is imposing a dystopian aura on the dispute over those reforms, in which truth is cast to the wind—precluding any chance of sincere dialogue to reduce acrimony and reach some consensual resolution.

Brazen, blatant hypocrisy  

Of course, the claim that the implementation of the proposed judicial reforms will imperil Israeli democracy is clearly the pinnacle of hypocrisy. After all, those who today vociferously oppose the reforms, previously endorsed precisely the same measures.

Arguably, the most brazen, blatant display of barefaced double standards behind the anti-reform demonstrators is that of Opposition leader, Yair Lapid. On February 27, 2023, during a plenary debate on judicial reform,  Lapid railed: “Stop this insane legislation.”

However, in a 2016 address to Kohelet Policy Forum, the organization that played a pivotal role in the formulation of the proposed judicial reforms, Lapid laid out his views on the legal system, which mirrored almost identical measures to those in reforms put forward by today’s coalition: “I have opposed, and I still oppose, judicial activism of the sort introduced by [former Supreme Court President] Justice Aharon Barak. I don’t think it is right that everything is justiciable. I don’t think it is right for the Supreme Court to change fundamental things in accordance with what it refers to as the judgment of ‘the reasonable person.’ That’s an amorphous and completely subjective definition that the Knesset never introduced to the legal code. It’s not right in my mind that the separation of powers, the sacrosanct foundation of the democratic method, should be breached by one branch of government placing itself above the others.”

No accommodation possible 

From the foregoing analysis, one thing should be depressingly clear: There can be no consensual resolution to the ongoing clash—because the clash itself is not only contrived, but is, in fact, the objective of the demonstrators—rather than a means to achieve an end.

Paradoxically, there can be no consensual resolution to the dispute because there is no real substantive difference on the issues in dispute—as evidenced by the prior support for the reforms by those who now oppose it—see for example here, here, here, here
and again here.

This absence of real substantive differences is underscored by the fact that, although opponents of the reform almost uniformly concede that the judicial system does need some form of overhaul, they assiduously refrain from stipulating what measures they have in mind—thus averting any chance of comparing what the differences are between their proposals and that of the current coalition.

Democratic rule replaced by mob rule

It should thus be clear that the ongoing dispute, allegedly about a substantive difference of opinion is nothing but a façade, a stage prop in a visceral fight for control of the reins of power, in which there is no place for any rational debate. Nothing will be acceptable other than abject surrender. (For greater detail on this, see my recent article here)

This is why the government must not, and cannot, back away from the reform proposal. For if does, there will be no point in any elections in the future. Indeed, every time the elected government decides on something of which the opposition disapproves, they will take to the street until it yields to opposition demands—and democratic rule will have been replaced by mob rule.

©Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

The Rise and Fall of ERIC

Recent news shows it’s possible to undo the Democrats’ weaponization of our elections apparatus.

Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia joined Louisiana and Alabama in leaving ERIC, the voter registration data clearinghouse conservatives say is really a get-out-the-vote drive for Democrats.  ERIC is the Electronic Registration Information Center, initially funded with George Soros money [more documentation here] and, until recently, overseen by a high-profile Democrat election lawyer.  ERIC is supposed to help member states scrub their voter rolls of deceased and moved-away voters, but one of the complaints is that ERIC does a bad job, leaving the rolls bloated and elections vulnerable to fraud as a result.

Ohio and Iowa are the latest states to leave ERIC.  Alaska and Texas may follow.  States are leaving for many reasons.  One of the reasons Louisiana gave was the overall Democrat tilt to the entire operation.  Alabama was worried about a private group having access to voter data, among other things.  Ohio had asked for changes and left when none were forthcoming.  At this point, ERIC only serves the interests of the Democrats, Ohio’s Secretary of the State said in a letter.

These are not the only problems with ERIC.  It recently came to light ERIC has been sharing data with a left-wing nonprofit – the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) – run by the very same high-profile Democrat election lawyer mentioned earlier (David Becker) who founded and only recently departed ERIC.  The data pinpointed likely Democrat voters who had not yet registered to vote so they could be targeted for partisan registration drives.

As if illicit data sharing were not enough, ERIC also restricts states from acting against noncitizens registered to vote and tells states to keep their list maintenance data secret even though federal law requires it be made public.  Other critics point out states are legally obligated to maintain their voter rolls and nothing in law allows them to outsource that function to outside private third parties, to begin with.  In addition, according to an election integrity activist in my network, ERIC also requires member states to move to “online only” voter registration to eliminate signed voter registration documents.  This completely frustrates signature verification requirements between registration documents and mail-in ballots in those states that require such verification.  Still other critics reinforce the perception, stated at the outset, that ERIC is far more effective at identifying potential voters for the Democrats than keeping the voter rolls up to date.

States are scrambling for alternatives.  Texas is developing an interstate crosscheck system to eliminate duplicate registrations.  There used to be such a system, but the left-wing ACLU sued it out of existence, clearing the field for ERIC.  Activists in Maryland point to one piece of the puzzle, a free service from the Post Office that standardizes addresses and tells you whether mail is deliverable there.  Then there is the Omega4America operation that hopes to be in 15 or 20 states in 2024.  It checks voter rolls against publicly available information to sniff out problem addresses in the records like hotels, RV parks, and prisons where felons are not supposed to vote.  It can also ferret out fraud by elections officials if, for example, they change inactive voters to active status in the records wholesale, mail them ballots that get intercepted, then change the records back to inactive status.

ERIC is just one way the Democrats have weaponized elections.  I’ll show you more when I return to the subject of election integrity next week.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

Bowman Defends TikTok Amid Calls to Ban the Chinese Spy App

Radical New York Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who has called moves by both parties to ban the China-controlled social media platform TikTok “fearmongering,” reportedly will host a press conference on Wednesday on Capitol Hill that will feature “dozens of TikTok content creators to make the case for protecting the app in the U.S.”

“This is a space where these creators have found a platform to share their ideas, their inspirations, their thoughts, their voices with the rest of the country and the rest of the world. And why do we want to take that away?” Bowman told NBC News. “Why do we need to ban a platform that 150 million Americans now use?”

Maybe because it’s a Chinese spy program that is also rotting the brains of millions of American teens?

“There are many apps on our phones right now that are Chinese apps. And so the idea that, ‘Oh, TikTok is the boogeyman’ — it’s just part of a political fearmongering that’s happening,” added Bowman. “I haven’t seen any hard evidence that TikTok is committing some form of espionage,” he added. “What I’ve heard is speculation. And what I’ve heard is innuendo.”

Bowman addressed statements made by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), chair of the Intelligence Committee, who told reporters on Monday that TikTok can be used for propaganda and manipulation by China. Bowman felt the same scrutiny should be applied to Facebook: “When we look at American companies like Facebook looking the other way in 2016 when Russia colluded to impact our election — Facebook is a national security risk. We’re not talking about a ban on Facebook.”

Maybe we should be, even though Russian election collusion has been proven to be a Democrat lie. Facebook is a far-Left tool for censorship and election influence.

“I think the more we learn, the more you’ll see people stand up and defend TikTok,” Bowman concluded. “Let me say this: If information comes out that clearly shows TikTok as a problem, I will say I was wrong. I have no problem saying that. I just haven’t seen that information as of yet.”

Oh, the proof is there, all right — Bowman just doesn’t want to rock the boat with China, which owns the Biden administration and the Democrat Party.

Jamaal Bowman

66 Known Connections

Equating Capitalism with Slavery

In December 2020, Bowman said in an interview with The Root “I believe our current system of capitalism is slavery by another name. We’ve moved from physical chattel enslavement and physical racial segregation to a plantation economic system. One that keeps the majority of Americans unemployed, or underemployed and struggling just to survive, while the power elite continues to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, and allow large corporations to pretty much run the world as multinational corporations. The pandemic has revealed it. With almost 300,000 dead from the pandemic, disproportionately black and brown, and Jeff Bezos is the first $200 billionaire. In the next six years, he might become the first trillionaire. That’s slavery by another name. It’s a system that’s not working, so we need a new system.”

To learn more about Jamaal Bowman, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dems Fear TikTok Ban Could Makes The Kids Mad

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

J.K. Rowling: ‘There is something dangerous’ about transgender movement ‘and it must be challenged’

Despite vicious woke attacks against acclaimed Harry Potter author J.K Rowling, she refuses to back down from her warranted criticism of the trans movement, which has gone out of control.

It shouldn’t be a movement to begin with. Some obvious examples of how the trans movement has become so “dangerous,” as Rowling says: the rape of women by men identifying as women; the trans takeover of female sports; the potential physical harm to females in prisons and to youngsters in schools; the sexualization of small children during what should be innocent reading and learning time, not drag shows; vulgar exhibitionism at pools in full view of young girls; and increasing incidents of outright weirdness that threaten women to an extent never previously thought possible, such as the male who identifies as a woman with a birthing fetish, who has now been arrested for fraud and sex assaults.

No limits is what makes this movement scary and so dangerous, as the rights and safety of others are trampled. Too many weak politicians have surrendered to special interest groups.

J.K. Rowling: ‘There’s Something Dangerous’ About the Transgender Movement

by Paul Bois, Breitbart, March 17, 2023:

Author J.K. Rowling continued to prove she will not back down in her criticism of transgender radicalism in a recent podcast episode in which she called the movement “dangerous.”

Speaking on the Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling podcast, the acclaimed Harry Potter author said she tried listening to transgender activists to better understand their views but ultimately concluded that something “dangerous” lurked within.

“I can only say that I’ve thought about it deeply and hard and long. And I’ve listened, I promise, to the other side,” Rowling said. “And I believe, absolutely, that there is something dangerous about this movement, and it must be challenged.”

The British author addressed the trolls who say she somehow “betrayed” the values espoused in her books.

“I’m constantly told that I have betrayed my own books, but my position is that I’m absolutely upholding the positions that I took in ‘Potter,’” Rowling said. “My position is that this activist movement in the form that it’s currently taking, echoes the very thing that I was warning against in ‘Harry Potter.’”

“I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious misogynistic movement that I think has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless,” she continued.

In the summer of 2020, J.K. Rowling said that transgender ideology could lead to the erasure of womanhood as we know it by denying the basic biological functions that differentiate women from men.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted….

Read more.



House Republicans Probe Preferred Pronoun Role Play At West Point

Kentucky Legislature Affirms Parents’ Rights, Bans Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

Mortality Rates for U.S. Children and Teens are Rising for the First Time in 50 years

Missouri AG Moves to Curtail Gender Transition Procedures for Minors


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.