PODCAST: Meet 17-Year-Old Conservative Activist Described as ‘Left’s Youngest Nightmare’

CJ Pearson says he has been conservative since second grade. Now a senior in high school, Pearson has gained national attention for his conservative activism.

On today’s episode of The Daily Signal Podcast, Pearson, 17, shares why he is fighting back against left-wing policies.

Listen to the full episode or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rob Bluey: We are joined by CJ Pearson. He’s a young conservative activist located in Georgia. CJ, thanks for joining us.

CJ Pearson: Rob, thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Bluey: Absolutely. We’re excited. It was great to see you recently at The Heritage Foundation, and appreciate you coming on The Daily Signal Podcast to share a little bit about your story.

I want to begin by introducing you as, of course, a high school senior. You’re somebody who’s gained national attention because of your conservative activism. In fact, you’ve been described as the left’s youngest nightmare. You were raised, though, in a liberal household. So, how did you become a conservative?

Pearson: You know, it’s an interesting story. And I do come from a house divided, which has certainly made for interesting dinnertime conversation and definitely has been the subject of much discussion. My videos are definitely the subject of much discussion within my household.

So, I think for me, when I was first embarking upon my journey in politics, I wanted to find myself. I wanted to find out what I believe, personally. I wanted to find my political values, and wherever that led, I was OK with it.

Where I started was with … [reading] the Federalist Papers, I read the Constitution, I studied the platforms of both of the major parties. I actually even read a couple white papers on The Heritage Foundation back then. And this was like when I was like 10 or like 12.

Of course my parents have always voted Democrat. But what I always tell people is that—and this is a common story within the black community—my parents may have voted Democrat, but the values they instilled within me from when I was a child were conservative values. They were pro-family, they weren’t traditional, they were about personal responsibility.

So moving toward conservatism wasn’t a difficult thing for me. It was how I was raised. And for me it was just about discovering the evidence and the things that support what I believe now. For example, pro-growth policies, fiscal conservatism, the right to life, all of those things. It took a thirst for knowledge for me to figure out, “Yes, these are my values.”

It all started kind of after the 2008 election. We had an assignment in class where … we had to do what every good citizen in the country was doing at the time, we had to research the candidates and then we would ultimately cast our vote.

I remember watching the debates, not necessarily understanding at that time—I was like 7—what Iran was doing that was so bad, or what health care reform [was]. But realizing that what they’re doing on that stage was really, really important. And that kind of gave me the political bug and I’ve been hooked ever since.

Virginia Allen: That’s great. You know, CJ, as Rob mentioned, you have gained so much national attention—largely in part due to your disapproval of left-wing policies. Was there maybe a specific policy or instance that really led you to engage in political discourse at such a young age?

Pearson: I think it was more so the debate story. … During that time, I was 7 years old. I had never thought about politics before in any way. I was your average 7-year-old kid. I was playing with Legos, watching cartoons every Saturday morning. I was living my best life as a 7-year-old boy. So, we get this assignment, I totally shrug it off in the beginning. I was like, “Oh my God, literally what is even politics? I don’t care.”

And then I just remember, though, watching the debate—this was back when Candy Crowley was back at CNN, so this was way back when. And I remember just watching it, hearing them talk about these really important issues, realizing that they were important.

But I think what really got me, like pushed me toward political activism … I don’t think it was a singular issue, but I think it was the overarching belief that I believe that young people have an obligation to fight for the future that we want in this country.

No one’s going to give that to us. No one’s going to hand it to us. And I think that unless we’re involved, we can’t complain. At the end of the day, the decisions that politicians today make are going to affect our generation for years to come. So we might as well have a seat at the table because if we don’t, we will most certainly be on the menu.

Bluey: And CJ, let me take you back to that period of time. How were you perceived among your classmates, teachers? What did they think of somebody who was not only well-educated and articulate about these policy issues, but also maybe coming from a perspective that differed from their own?

Pearson: I think when it first started out … I wasn’t really overtly political back in elementary school. It was something that interested me. I read the newspaper front to back every single morning with my dad. But that was pretty much it.

I didn’t really talk about it much in school because it never really came up. We were learning the Fact Families and things like that in math class. We weren’t really talking about politics yet.

But in fifth grade it was the 2012 election. We actually had another mock election. That year was Romney and Obama. And it was just a lot different.

So, we did have this political conversation, they did begin to start. And I think a lot of my classmates were just kind of baffled by the idea that I even found politics remotely interesting. But also that I kind of knew what I was talking about.

It’s definitely shifted now. … It’s not always easy, because people are more politically in tune now at this age. And they may not have the most informed opinion, but everyone has an opinion.

So, I think that there is a certain element of, I have to defend my beliefs more than I had to when I was younger. But there’s also the fact that I had to grow up doing that. I live in a household of card-carrying Democrats. If I have an opinion about Trump, I have to defend it. If I believe that this particular conservative policy is a good idea, I have to defend it.

It’s been something that I’ve welcomed. I welcome disagreement, I welcome people challenging my ideas. I think it makes me a stronger advocate for my ideas. It’s definitely been interesting growing up kind of in the spotlight, especially as it relates to politics. …

I think when … my first video went viral, all my friends were just kind of going crazy about the view count. And it’s very different, because it’s like most kids my age, they’re famous for snorting cinnamon and doing things like that. So, it’s like I kind of got internet acclaim for a very good reason. It’s definitely been an interesting journey.

Bluey: Walk us through your use of social media because I think that in many cases, you’ve certainly outmaneuvered a lot of people in … older generations in terms of your use of it and your ability to attract that following and generate some national attention.

First of all, tell us how our readers can find you, and how you were able to have so much success.

Pearson: For sure. You can follow me on Twitter, @thecjpearson, and also on Instagram, @thecjpearson. Or you can just go to my website, cjpearson.org, which will give you links to all of my social media profiles.

To answer your question about how I did it, really it was native to me. I know a lot of people sit around big conference tables in very important places and churn out long social media strategies. For me, I grew up using Instagram. I grew up using Twitter. I grew up using Snapchat. So, when I’m posting my ideas or I’m posting my beliefs, it’s really natural to me. There’s no strategy behind it, I don’t tweet a certain amount of times a day—I probably tweet too much.

I think what really benefited me was kind of knowing the contours of the platform in a way … that I’m uniquely able to do as someone who is my age, but also someone who didn’t take it too seriously and was more concerned about just the ability to take my message in places where it wasn’t before.

Yesterday I started using TikTok, which is like the crazy new app that everyone is using, everyone in Gen Z is using. So, everyone listening right now, … if you want your kid to think you’re really cool, download TikTok. Or if you just want to be in the know, download TikTok.

I started using TikTok for posting little funny political videos. And I did it because it’s a new audience, and everyone’s there. Everyone’s paying attention to that platform.

I think the biggest advice I can give to people is be receptive to the changes and the dynamic of the platform, but also just be natural. Your audience wants authenticity and they want simple, cool content. That’s definitely been something that I’ve strived to do.

Allen: Speaking of social media, on Aug. 20 you tweeted, “The left equates blackness with victimhood, but I chose to be a victor and it feels good.”

Can you elaborate a little bit on that tweet and what you meant by that?

Pearson: All the time the left is constantly talking about how black people have gotten the short end of the stick in this country. How we are the victims of the white man, and how we are still suffering the blows of slavery hundreds of years after and how we need all the help that we can get from the government. I disagree. I think what that has done is hobbled the black community to the point that we can’t survive without the government.

I had a great conversation with the president of The Heritage Foundation, Mrs. [Kay Coles] James. The point that she made was that after the Great Society, that’s really when we saw a type of dependency within the black community we had never really seen before.

The black community before then was very self-reliant. They were self-starters. They owned black businesses. It was a huge thing. They prided themselves upon their independence. But after the Great Society, it became a crutch.

For me, I think victimhood is laziness, and it’s just not something I ascribed to. I think that the way you advance in this world, the way that you move forward, is by putting in the work, grinding real hard, and just seeking opportunity.

I don’t need anyone to give me an unfair advantage. All I need is a fair shot. That’s all I need. That’s all I want. I don’t need the government to take care of me. I don’t need the government to pay my bills. All I need is opportunity. And I think that’s all a lot of people of color want. But all you hear from the left is ways for them to continue to … attach [the black community] more and more to government than actually freeing them from that dependency.

Bluey: Thanks for sharing that perspective, CJ. It’s really refreshing to hear you talk about that.

As a young person, I have to ask you about this recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which we’ve covered on The Daily Signal Podcast before. It involved the younger generation, as particularly compared to previous generations when they were the same age as you, and changing views when it comes to patriotism, the importance of raising families, commitment to a religious faith, for instance. And we’ve seen all of those numbers decline.

Whereas other polls show some alarming statistics about the rise of socialism and other concerning things on the minds of conservatives, and probably many of our readers.

So, what can you tell us about your peers, and how we as conservatives might do a better job of articulating those values that we hold so dear?

Pearson: For starters, what I would say is that I wouldn’t read too much into those polls because I’ve seen the socialism statistic and most kids my age really don’t even know what socialism is. So, I think that that’s an education issue, right? We need to be educating our kids about what socialism is, what it entails, and the fact that it has literally devastated countries like Venezuela, like Cuba. And that socialism kills. It’s not something that makes everything equal. If it does make anyone equal in any regard, it makes us equally poor and equally unsuccessful. …

Also, from my own personal observation, I see—as far as attitudes go—one of the most conservative generations that I’ve seen in a long time. This is a generation that hates PC culture. We hate political correctness. Our memes are the most offensive things I’ve ever seen, but we love them and we pride ourselves on them. And cancel culture, we hate cancel culture. It’s literally asinine that we are bringing up things from 15 years ago and holding it over the heads of people who have changed and evolved.

… My advice to the right would be, let’s educate our young people, right? Let’s teach them that socialism is a bad idea. Let’s teach them a little about why the free market is the greatest pathway to success for them, their families, and their communities. Let’s talk to them about why President Trump isn’t the racist that the media constantly tries to depict him as, but is actually someone who signed into law the First Step Act, has led on criminal justice reform, and has brought about the lowest black unemployment rate in our nation’s history.

No one my age is hearing that. They’re not at all because they’re reading BuzzFeed, they’re on Snapchat all the time, or they get their news from Taylor Swift. And, love Taylor, but I just don’t know if she’s the best source for political news.

I think the biggest thing that we need to do as conservatives is meet young people where they are. We need to be on platforms like TikTok. We need to be on Instagram, we need to be on Snapchat, all those places. And we need to start educating young people about these issues. These issues are not just fancy little taglines, they have ramifications. They have consequences.

Socialism isn’t cool. Socialism is something that actually has devastated, again, country after country after country. I don’t think enough young people know that and it’s our obligation as conservatives to educate them on what those ramifications are.

Allen: CJ, thank you for sharing that.

You’ve just begun your senior year of high school, and it’s so exciting to watch everything you’ve done already at such a young age. Do you have any plans or thoughts for what you’ll do after you graduate?

Pearson: I’m open to a lot of different options right now. … I got into my first university, [I got] my first college acceptance earlier this month, that was really exciting. I’ll hopefully be hearing back from a few more colleges after December. But I really kept an open mind about it. I’m super excited to continue my activism, continue to fight to ensure that my generation has a seat at the table and that conservatism is advanced.

I think that what’s so important more now than ever is for people my age to rise up and speak out. Our country is at a crossroads where we will really have to decide what type of nation we want to be. Do we want to be a nation of open borders, of socialism, or a country where babies are allowed to be aborted post-birth?

I think the answer to that question is “no.” And I think that the only way that we ensure that that answer remains “no” is by being vocal, by being active, by being involved, and by ensuring that this next generation of Americans knows that conservatism is not the dirty word that their teacher said it was. It’s not the dirty word that Taylor Swift said it was. It’s something that is intrinsic to what it means to be an American. It’s a reflection of the values of our Founding Fathers who did the most audacious thing when they set out to found this country so that we could self-govern, which is one of the hardest things for any civilized society to do, but we’ve done it.

That is really what my ambition is after high school, to continue that work, to continue that effort to ensure that conservatism lives on, and that more young people are informed, are aware, and are educated about the most important issues that are shaping our society and our culture for years to come.

Bluey: Well, CJ, we certainly need you out there fighting that good fight, that happy warrior spirit that you bring. So, thank you for doing what you’re doing and we wish you the best as you finish out high school.

Remind our readers once again, if they want to follow you on social media or learn more about the work you’re doing, how best to go about doing that.

Pearson: Sure. Rob and Virginia, I want to first and foremost thank you guys for having me. It’s been an absolute pleasure. Great conversation. If your readers want to follow me, they can check me out @thecjpearson on Twitter, Instagram as well. And my website is cjpearson.org.

Allen: That’s great. Thank you so much, CJ. Really appreciate your time today.

Pearson: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.


Rob Bluey 

Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fellow Millennials: Here’s Why We Must Reject Socialism

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


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

VIDEOS: A half-century of Democrat rule has foisted unmitigated havoc on the inner city

After America being led for eight years by its first black president, here are a few headlines about the deplorable state of affairs in our inner cities near the end of Barack Obama’s second term:

Black pastors endorse Trump: “What do black folks have to lose?”

Despite $22 trillion spent on anti-poverty programs since the 1960s, millions of people in urban America are surrounded by crime and mired in chronic poverty. When the decent people of the inner city finally realize what six decades of liberalism has done to them, Democrats will be faced with a massive defection of black voters.

If you think things aren’t all that bad in America’s Democrat-run cities, the jobless black men in the 2014 videos below will tell you who the real racists are.

Chicago Unchained: Black Activists Slam Democrat Plantation.

I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE’S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!

WBFF: Free Phone Frenzy – abuse of the federal Lifeline program

VIDEO: Who are the real racists?

When Kiara appeared in this 2014 video, she was a 30-year-old mother of four in Baltimore. An exceptionally attractive, well-spoken and intelligent young woman obviously capable of making a success of herself, Kiara, now 35, has been on welfare since she was 18.

When asked in the video if she felt bad about not working, she replied, “I don’t need to look for a job because I get a check from the government every month.”

Watch the video, and if you’re angry at her attitude, don’t be angry at Kiara. She’s merely another in the long line of inner city residents who have been lured into welfare addiction by the party of government dependency.

Who are the real racists? Democrats.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Whittle – Racism – Democrats and Republicans switch sides?


Obama USDA suggested holding food stamp parties to increase participation

To expand food stamp rolls in rural areas, the Obama USDA ran ads that denigrated and discouraged self-sufficiency

Obama USDA’s “outreach” used Spanish-language ads to boost food stamp use among citizen & illegal immigrant Hispanics

Republican Famela Ramos Announces Candidacy for California’s 53rd Congressional District

SAN DIEGO, Ca. /PRNewswire/ — The Famela Ramos Campaign announced today Candidacy of Republican Famela Ramos in the 53rd Congressional District as a result of requests from supporters encouraging her participation in her home District.

Famela announced her candidacy versus Nancy Casady and Scott Peters in July with endorsements from business leaders such as Peter Farrell, Chairman of ResMed a $20 Billion market cap medical device company, and Wes Chandler, an NFL Hall of Fame Football Player. The recent announcement of Susan Davis’ retirement has resulted in an extensive outpouring of requests asking Famela Ramos to run in her home district.

“It has always been my dream to represent the community that I grew up in, and that my children are now part of.  When my colleagues, neighbors and family asked me to run in my home District, I was humbled but highly enthusiastic,” said Famela Ramos.

Famela resides in the 53rd District and previously attained a strong voter base in her School Board run in 2018.  Famela is a nurse, researcher, mother of 4 children, and Founder of a healthcare non-profit.

As President of the Right to Try Foundation, Famela collaborated with Dr. James Veltmeyer and local biotech companies in providing access to experimental medication to dying cancer patients.  Famela has published 7 peer reviewed scientific papers with major universities and companies.

Testimony to Famela’s corporate and scientific leadership is the fact that she has co-authored 7 peer reviewed scientific publications.

The first paper was a collaboration with the Moores Cancer Center and several biotechnology companies, describing the state of the art in cancer immunotherapy, and proposing future directions.

The second paper discussed the possibility of stimulating regeneration of injured lung stem cells using specific types of laser and light based interventions, this was a collaboration between the University of Utah and the University of California, San Diego.

The third paper, a collaboration between a nutraceutical company and Indiana University, demonstrated the beneficial effects of a nutritional supplement on circulating stem cells in healthy volunteers.

The fourth publication was the first successful use of two different types of stem cells in a patient with heart failure, which resulted in a profound improvement.

The fifth publication is a report of 114 patients that were treated with umbilical cord blood stem cells and demonstrated safety and signals of efficacy in collaboration with a Chinese Biotech company.

The sixth publication was successful treatment of a spinal cord injury patient with stem cells.

The seventh publication was the basis for an investigational new drug (IND) application to the FDA, describing use of fat stem cells to treat aplastic anemia.

“I am very pleased that my daughter is following my advice to change Districts in which she is running.  Areas such as Paradise Hills, where we raised our family, will significantly benefit from having one of our own representing us in Washington,” said Pepito Ramos, Father of Famela and a US Navy Veteran.

To learn more about Famela Ramos go to here campaign website by clicking here.

VIDEO: Important LIVE speech by Boris Johnson

Posted by Eeyore

H/T Oz-Rita

A couple of thoughts about all this.

Unlike Italy, where undemocratic forces sought to thwart an election because they knew that Salvini and the forces for the preservation of the nation state and the polity of Italy would prevail, in the UK, Corbyn et al are attempting to force the existing government to stay in power because the opposition knows he does not have a majority able to put BREXIT through.

Corbyn now claims he wants one, but this is unlikely. However it could be possible he does via the second point.

The left opposes BREXIT not because they think the Right’s claims are wild and conspiratorial, even if they say they do. The want to REMAIN in the EU precisely because they know the Conservatives are correct and the left seeks the dissolution of the nation state and absolute control to be taken by unelected and unrepresentative supranational bodies like the EU and the UN.

So they may actually want a new vote because they think they can treat it as a second referendum on BREXIT. Which in practical terms it would be.

Despite the anti-democratic nature of such an act, (in fact it would be typical of the EU tactic of forcing vote after vote till they get their way) so long as the Corbyn communists can be prevented from rigging the vote, and we know this happens as I believe at one point fairly recently the entire city council of Tower Hamlets had to resign due to massive election fraud, Boris has a very good chance of getting the mandate he needs, even if he shares power with the BREXIT party.

All in all, it is a powerful expose on UK communists that they have so far managed to thwart the referendum of 2016 for so long and nearly derail it. And that they have managed to do it without people realizing who and what they really are, and why they are doing it.

Eeyore for Vlad.

Stop It, America. Politicians Can Not Make Our Lives Better

Here’s the deal, if you are looking to this president, or you were looking to the past president, or you are looking to a future president to make your life better you’re on a fool’s errand. It was the furthest thing from the minds of the Founders and Framers that any individual should have such power and sway.

If you are looking to Congress — this Congress or a past Congress or a future Congress — to make your life better you’re on a fool’s errand. It was maybe the second furthest thing from the minds of the Founders and Framers that any part of the federal government could so greatly impact your life.

There is very little government can do to make your life better. There are quite a few things government can do to make your life worse. (See: All of history.) Most of your problems in life are going to be up to you to solve, to improve or at least to deal with.

For instance, if you want to make more money you’re going to either have to work harder and/or longer, or get training or education to get a better paying job. And if you keep making the same decisions you’ve made all along, and you’re 35 and stuck working at Walmart at minimum wage, there’s nothing the government can or should do for you. You need to change your choices to change your future. If the government steps in to improve your future for you, it inevitably begins a cascade of events that makes many lives worse, including yours eventually.

When governments try to solve poverty by giving poor people a little more money each month, they actually end up keeping them subsistent on government largesse and locked in a hopeless cycle. This has been demonstrated for 50 years now. And the government forcibly takes other people’s money to do it; lose-lose.

The best overall situation is when we can all act freely; free people exchanging goods and services for money freely in markets that are both free and competitive. That simple, relational structure has lifted, literally, billions out of poverty in the past 40 years. Government’s primary role was to stay out of the way, with a small role in making sure there were no monopolies and there were courts to settle contractual disputes.

This is well-documented through our history, but it is not well-known among our population. Schools, universities and the media are the primary culprits in purveying this ignorance. There may be a role for a temporary safety net, but because politicians are politicians it always grows, such as what we have now with enormous entitlements and transfer payments.

But promising more giveaways often garners votes. Some would say buys votes.

So naturally, we have a lot of politicians saying that they can, and will, make things more fair for you, make things better for you and give you this, that and everything you want. Just vote for them. Well not to burst your bubble but there’s nothing they can give you except that they take it from someone else, through taxes now or taxes later to pay off deficit spending now. And eventually they’ll be taking it from you, too, unless you stay at the bottom in poverty, in which case the government will in due time run out of other peoples’ money and then you are lost, too. More lose-lose.

As Margaret Thatcher said: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The better way, the only proven way, is the collective intelligence of hundreds of millions of Americans, and even billions of people around the world. This is almost infinitely greater than any group of central-planning politicians. (See Russia’s five-year plans, East Germany’s junk new cars, Maoist China’s everything, Venezuela’s oil.)

So when you hear all these politicians promising a plan for this and a plan for that, trillions here and trillions there, remember that the Great Society government plan to end poverty starting in the late 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson resulted in the transfer of $22 trillion from working Americans to poor Americans. It was not charity. It was government force, benefitting politicians along the way, but no one else. The result was that as of today, there is virtually no change in the poverty rate. More welfare programs will have the same net effect until all of the money is gone.

No politician is going to improve your life. That is going to be up to you and your choices. The American dream does not come from government; it relies on a constrained government. It then comes via each American exercising their individual God-given natural rights in liberty.

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

September 17th Israeli Election: Will the Right snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…again?

The continued existence of the Left as a viable force in Israeli politics, despite the manifest failure of its political credo, is the gravest indictment of the Israeli Right.

For by… faith more firm in their unhallowed principles, the bad have fairly earned a victory over the weak, the vacillating, inconsistent good. – William Wordsworth (1770 – 1850).

Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of the upcoming September 17 elections is the fact that they are taking place at all—after the “ Right” managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory . But no less astounding is the fact that the “Left” actually has plausible chance of winning them!

(Of course, in the Israeli political context, the Left- Right rift is not along the usual welfare state vs free market divide in the socio-economic sphere; but more along the dove-hawk split on security and foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—with the former advocating Palestinian statehood and far-reaching territorial concessions by Israel, and the latter opposing them.)

Lack of intellectual depth and daring

Indeed, there can be no greater indictment of the political incompetence and impotence of the “Right” than fact that the Left still remains a viable force in Israeli politics. After all, not only has their entire political credo been proven, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, to be a disastrous blunder that has wrought death and devastation on Jew and Arab alike, but the Right has been totally vindicated in warning of the calamitous consequences that the “Left’s” patently ill-founded folly would precipitate.

Perhaps more than anything, its failure to vanquish the “Left” reflects the lack of intellectual depth of the Right—and even more so, a lack of intellectual daring.

It is true that Israel has progressed and developed almost beyond recognition under Likud-led coalitions, which had held power the for first two decades of this century—except for the five years of the brief Ehud Barak incumbency and the slightly longer one of Ehud Olmert. In terms of its physical parameters, its architecture, its infrastructure, in terms of its economic stature, its cultural achievements, its diplomatic relations and its military prowess, it is almost unrecognizable from what it was in the last decade of the preceding century.

Yet despite all of this, the “Right” has not been able to inflict strategic defeat on its failed political rivals on the “Left”. In this regard, it is important to note that the point is not merely to defeat the “Left” at the polls but to remove any thought of implementation of its perilous prescription from the political discourse.

Inexplicable ideological capitulation

Indeed, in the wake of Oslo and up until recent years, the “Right” focused its energies (rightly) in condemning the dangerous defects of the concessionary policy of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal that the “Left” had embarked upon—without ever offering an actionable prescription of its own.

As a result, it found itself unable to respond effectively to the pointed and pertinent question from its adversaries on the “Left”: “So what’s your alternative?”

With no comprehensive, countervailing policy paradigm to promote or defend, the “Right” found itself gradually forced to give way under the weight of this irksome question, and to adopt increasing portions of the failed formula it had once rejected.

This process culminated in 2009 at Bar Ilan University, when Palestinian statehood was officially—albeit under duress—embraced.

Having crossed the ideological Rubicon into the “Land of the Left,” the “Right” found itself in what, for it, was largely uncharted territory.

This ideological capitulation by the “Right” is totally inexplicable—for it came about after all its censure of the “Left’s” wildly reckless doctrine had proven totally justified.

After all, by 2009, the jury was no longer out—or at least, should not have been. None of the promises of sweeping benefits, pledged by the architects of the land-for-peace initiative, launched by the “Left” over a decade and a half previously, had been fulfilled; while all the perils, warned of by its opponents on the “Right”, had indeed materialized.

Lebanonization or Balkanization?

Unwilling, or unable, to base its own strategic paradigm on an independent analysis of Israel’s strategic imperatives and deriving a consequent comprehensive policy prescription from that analysis, the “Right” took the “Left’s”  paradigm as a conceptual point of departure and attempted to formulate its alternative as a negation thereof.

The result was an unfortunate and unconvincing batch of proposals that were easily exposed to be either a formula for:

(a) The Lebanonization of Israeli society (by annexation of all of Judea-Samaria, together with is Arab residents remaining part of Israeli society); or

(b) The Balkanization of Judea-Samaria (by partial annexation—with the overwhelming bulk of the Arab population left encapsulated in disconnected, quasi-autonomous enclaves, whose orderly administration would be all but impossible).

Indeed, any dispassionate assessment of Israel’s minimal strategic needs will reveal that, to endure as the nation-state of the Jewish people, it must adequately address at least two imperatives—the geographic imperative and the demographic imperative.

This is almost a self-evident truism since if it does not, it will either be untenable geographically, or demographically—or both.

The former precludes any withdrawals west of the Jordan River, significant enough to facilitate a self-governing Palestinian entity; while the latter precludes the inclusion of a large, recalcitrant Arab minority within the permanent population of Israel—whether fully enfranchised or not.

For more details of the perils of full and partial annexation—see here and here respectively.

Dangerous & detrimental symmetry

Clearly then, the geographic imperative rules out the “Left”-wing prescription for a Palestinian state; while the demographic imperative rules out the alternatives usually proffered by the “Right”—for full or partial annexation of Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population resident therein.

Thus, while the “Left” is prepared to imperil Israel geographically to preserve it demographically; the Right is prepared to imperil it demographically to preserve it geographically.

It has been the Right’s inability to eliminate this perceived vulnerability to the charge of promoting a policy that exposes Israel to no less a peril than the concessionary policy of the “Left”, which has breathed life into what should have been, by any rationale criterion, the long lifeless shell of its political adversaries.

For, unless it breaks away from unlikely proposals that entail “domesticating” an addition to Israel’s permanent population of around two million hostile and recalcitrant non-Jewish inhabitants, drenched with decades of incandescent Judeocidal hatred, the Right will not be able to dispel claims of a detrimental symmetry between the dangers entailed in its policy prescriptions and those of the “Left’s”.

For that, it is not enough to point out the flaws, however fatal, of the “Left”.  It must present the public with a plausible and persuasive alternative that does not merely replace a geographic peril with a demographic one.

Until it does that, the “Left”, in defiance of all rationality and reality, will remain a viable political force, with a tangible chance of retaking the reins of power. That is the gravest indictment of the political “Right” in Israel.


Of course, one need not be endowed with exceptional powers of deductive analysis to reach the inescapable conclusion that the only non-kinetic policy that can effectively address Israel’s twin imperatives of geography and demography—in order for it to survive as the nation-state of the Jewish people—is that of a large-scale initiative for incentivized emigration of the non-belligerent Palestinian population to third party countries.

Happily, the necessity of such a policy seems to dawning on increasing sectors of the political “Right” in Israel—see here, here, here, and here – although, regrettably, it is doubtful whether its promotion will play a significant part in the upcoming elections.

(Just how the Right should go about advancing this crucially important policy—and the public discourse on it—in an upcoming column.)

Sadly, until September 17, there is little to do in this regard but to wait and see whether, once again, the “Right” will snatch defeat from what should be, without a shadow of doubt, the jaws of certain victory.

© All rights reserved.

The “D” in Democrat stands for “Delusional”

A friend sent me the following in an email:

When one tries to “reason” with a lefty democrat, remember you are dealing with a person that believes that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man and that such a delusion should be encouraged, not discouraged.  Discouragement of the delusion is considered immoral and bigoted. Thus our society has unnecessary dilemmas concerning bathrooms,  athletic competition at all levels, and “pronoun” controversies subjecting ourselves to all manner of laws, rules, regulation and more needless government control.

Here is a suggestion to break the left’s ridiculous gender ideology and denial of biological reality.  President Trump should make a declaration that he is identifying as a woman.  The left will have to admit the absurdity of their gender ideology or accept and celebrate “Donna Trump” as the first woman President, thus beating Hillary, Liz Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand to the glorious goal of one of their “female firsts”.  Furthermore, if he remains married to Melania he will also be the first gay president and the first lesbian president. He will also be the first lesbian president married to an immigrant! What a most glorious event for the democrats to celebrate.

This, in a nut shell, explains just one of the many delusions that have become part of the Democratic Party’s platform. Ask any Democrat, and even some Republicans, about “gender identity” and you will get as many different answers as their are gender pronoun choices on Facebook.

Why there’s even going to be the second annual International Gender Pronoun Day on October 16, 2019. International Gender Pronoun Day, seeks to make respecting, sharing, and educating about personal pronouns commonplace.”

One can lose their job, be arrested and even be fined up to $250,000 for addressing someone by the wrong gender pronoun.

Science is clear, there are two sexes XX (female) and XY (male). There is no gay gene.

But science only counts when Democrats want it to count, like in climate change.

The Delusion of Gender Politics

I recently wrote about identity politics. Identity politics began with Black feminists in 1977 as a socialist movement to further the “destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy.”

Gender politics has the same goals but adds to it the destruction of scriptural beliefs of the three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Here are quotes from the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur’an on homosexuality:

  • Genesis 19:4-7 Before they could lie down, all the men of Sodom and its outskirts, both young and old, surrounded the house. They called out to Lot and asked, “Where are the men who came to visit you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!” Lot went outside to them, shut the door behind him, and said, “I urge you, my brothers, don’t do such a wicked thing.”
  • Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
  • Amir ul-Mu’minīn ‘Ali (a.s.) has said: “Sodomy is a Greater Sin and carries punishment when a man mounts upon another man but does not penetrate. If he penetrates, it is kufr”.

Destroy God and replace Him with government is the ultimate goal. One of the minority groups (less than 4%) that want to destroy every culture and its religious foundation are gays. They do it in the name of “equal rights.” They use words such as “pride.”

Equal rights, pride and gender pronouns are oxymoronic.

The LGBTQ community wants equal rights for them but not for you. The LGBTQ and their allies (i.e. Antifa) protest against straight pride parades being held in cities like Boston. The LGBTQ community wants you to guess what is their preferred pronoun and if you get it wrong they want to punish you.

Each of these oxymorons violates the U.S. Constitution.

Destroy the U.S. Constitution bit-by-bit and you will eventually destroy America. Once this is done you can then fundamentally transform the culture as you wish.

Making personal pronouns commonplace requires that the idea of heterosexuality be erased.

Just as identity politics has destroyed the nuclear family (especially in the black community) so to does gender politics destroy the traditional family, defined as marriage between one man and one woman.

Destruction of the traditional family means that the new patriarchy is government.


The primary outcome of this socialist/LGBTQ identity politics is the destruction of the nuclear family.

Delusional right? But happening.

© All rights reserved.


Government Shouldn’t Force Teachers to Use Transgender Pronouns

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality – Nature: International Journal of Science

Student Group Flags Top 5 Instances of Campus Censorship of Conservatives

Ruling in Minnesota Wedding Videographers’ Case Properly Prioritizes First Amendment Rights

The Black Roots of Identity Politics

Identity politics began with the the 1977 publication of the Combahee River Collective Statement. The statement was written by “black feminists” with this goal:

Above all else, Our politics initially sprang from the shared belief that Black women are inherently valuable, that our liberation is a necessity not as an adjunct to somebody else’s may because of our need as human persons for autonomy.

The Combahee River Collective Statement reads:

We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy. We are socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses. [Emphasis added]

Merriam-Webster defines identity politics as:

politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.

The Democratic Party has fully embraced identity politics in all of its forms.

Those who embrace identity politics are fickle and can, and many times do, either turn against one another or their political party. We are seeing this happen since the 2016 Presidential election.

My Way or the Highway

My way or the highway is a predominantly American idiom that dates back to the 1970s. It is an ultimatum like “take it or leave it.” You’re either with me or against me.

Identity politics is tearing the Democratic Party apart.

Identity politics died on November 8th, 2016 according to the Left Voice’s Albert L. Terry III. In his column A Few Words on Marxism and Identity Politics Terry wrote:

The year 2016 will be remembered as the year that identity politics, as it is commonly understood, began the long descent into irrelevancy. The first Black President that saw conditions grow worse for Black Americans and Clinton’s corporate identity politics saw electoral defeat. We must build a Marxist identity politics, which recognizes the special oppression that comes with race and the consequent importance of fighting racism head-on. [Emphasis added]

Terry says identity politics is irrelevant but believes that only Marxism will help restore identity politics to its glory. What Terry wrote on January 8, 2017 is coming true today in the Democratic Party.

The Black Rot that has Infected Identity Politics

The key question: What are the outcomes of the effort to “liberate” the black feminists.

According to according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data:

The share of U.S. children living with an unmarried parent has more than doubled since 1968, jumping from 13% to 32% in 2017. That trend has been accompanied by a drop in the share of children living with two married parents, down from 85% in 1968 to 65%. Some 3% of children are not living with any parents.

The Pew report notes:

More than half (58%) of black children are living with an unmarried parent – 47% with a solo mom. At the same time, 36% of Hispanic children are living with an unmarried parent, as are 24% of white children. The share of Asian children living with unmarried parents is markedly lower (13%).

The primary outcome of this socialist/black feminist/identity politics is the destruction of the nuclear family.

Socialism, true to form, equally shares the life long misery of single parenthood. We are now in a time when there is no real liberation, rather there is government patriarchy in the form of welfare programs. Welfare is dependence and not freedom. Only jobs, created by capitalists, and a Constitutional Republican form of government can defeat imperialism.

The single parent family is neither valuable nor autonomous, rather it is dependent on government largess. 

The black roots of identity politics has infected the entire family tree, which is now rotten to its core.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: About one-third of U.S. children are living with an unmarried parent

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Whittle – Racism – Democrats and Republicans switch sides?

Rep. Omar Declares Support for Terrorist Financier’s Company in her native Somalia

A controversial Minnesota congresswoman known for racially inflammatory anti-Semitic views has publicly declared her support for a terrorist organization in her native Somalia. Democrat Ilhan Omar is demanding that a telecommunications company founded and operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter.

The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of alShabaab, an east African-based jihadist group that serves as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia. In her social media account, Omar writes that Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the telecom firm with terrorist ties. The Israeli article includes the links to a pair of United Nations Security Council reports documenting Hormuud’s direct support for al-Shabaab.

According to the first U.N. report:

“Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’ale (Jim’ale) has served in leadership roles with the former Somali Council of Islamic Courts, also known as the Somali Islamic Courts Union, which was a radical-Islamist element. The most radical elements of the Somali Islamic Courts Union eventually formed the group known as alShabaab.” The document also identifies Jim’ale, a prominent businessman who controls Hormuud, as one of al-Shabab’s chief financiers. “Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and these payments toal-Shabaab were facilitated by Jim’ale,” the U.N. report says, adding that “Hormuud Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and ammunition.”

The second U.N. Security Council report, published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. “Two employees of the principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack, for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the outskirts of Mogadishu,” according to the U.N. report.

Considering this documented history of terrorist activity, it’s outrageous that Hormuud is endorsed by a member of the United States Congress. Omar has been plagued by controversy since becoming one of the first—along with Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib—Muslim women elected to Congress. The mainstream media has praised the legislators for being part of a “historic freshmen class with more women and minorities than ever.” The reality is that there is more than enough credible information for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to open criminal investigations into Omar. Back in July Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint with the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to allegations that Omar may have married her biological brother.

In the complaint Judicial Watch documents substantial, compelling and unrefuted evidence that Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud and federal student loan fraud. At the very least, such violations constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics for Government Service which subject officeholders to a higher standard.


AOC Shows Support for Antifa-Associated Protesters

Judicial Watch Files Complaint with Rhode Island Supreme Court against U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for Unauthorized Practice of Law

Judicial Watch Gets Bruce Ohr FBI 302S

Ilhan Omar Asked for Protection of Somali Company Linked to Terror

RELATED VIDEO: FITTON: IT’S About Time the DOJ Prosecuted McCabe.

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

Are American Voters Helpless?

There is not a day that goes by that I read comments from all over the social media on major issues that threaten this land of the free. Many Americans know what the problems are, but they are helpless in solving them alone. Why? Because we are a Representative Republic and expect our elected Representatives to know the problems and solve them. Americans love courageous leaders like President Trump and Senator Ted Cruz and despise weak politicians whose only art is playing with nonsocial words.

When was the last time you witnessed a courageous and knowledgeable representative stand up in the US Congress to address the vital issue of Islam’s stealth jihad or Islamic subversion currently exploiting all aspects of American life? I do not remember.

Well, let’s ask a few questions. Aren’t these people elected to keep America safe? Don’t these elected officials work for their constituents? Haven’t they sworn that they “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and that they “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same?”

They did, they promised and they lied. So, now what? We, the People, elect our leaders, and must hold them accountable. So, what happens when they refuse to stand by their oath of office and defend the Constitution they swore to? Fire them you might say!! That’s one way. How can we be sure the next guy isn’t any better or different than the former? Hard answer.

The reality is, We the People live in a fantasy world and are under the assumption that everything will be all right. But it won’t be. Who is right? We, individual Americans, often, are outmanned and outgunned against the powerful globalists who are in charge. Lone rangers win only in make-believe movies. In real life, governments, institutions and organizations are the ones who prevail. They have the funds to buy the services of the media; employ lawyers, politicians, and mercenaries of all stripes.

Let us keep in mind that there are not many differences among the D.C. Beltway elitist class politicians of either party. The elitists have crafted their own version of the universe and want you to see our world through their lenses, a political deception and tactic that they have prescribed for you to see. Political elitists despise patriotic Americans as they did the Tea Party Activists. They have carefully manufactured smoke and mirrors for their subjects where citizens think and act as though they have political choices, thus perpetuating the myth of democratic participation. Commentator Walter Lippmann on numerous occasions spoke of this type of control over the masses.

You may ask yourself, how do we know that? Well, it is obvious. Just ask yourself, why is the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate like the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) have not been placed on the list of terrorist organizations? Most of us know that Islamic law is practiced in some parts of the US and we know that Sharia law is incompatible with our laws and the U.S. Constitution. Again, nothing has been done to stop it in its tracks! Islam, like Communism, Nazism and other isms, is ideological to its core. It still retains its poisonous ideological connection with Nazism and the Arabic version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and its fictitious propaganda.

We also know that the American educational system has been invaded by Saudi Arabia as well as other rich-oil Arab nations of the Persian Gulf region. Well, we know that Islam is a religion of war, not peace. Again, no elected official has made a single attempt to stop this. In many US States, schoolchildren are indoctrinated and taught propaganda that praises Islam, while Christianity, Judaism and other true religions are squelched. Once again, those who we elected into office are silent. Perhaps they do not like to rock the boat for fear of losing their chances of being reelected.

We are living in a “Soft Jihad” period and you do not even notice it because it is not “hard jihad.” Islam, with the help of leftist media and the Democrat Party are using our Constitution against us. America is in a state of Islamic subversion and it is far much more dangerous for us to defend America here than to go overseas and fight the enemy there. We are about to lose America’s identity and freedom without even noticing it and our own elected officials are either ignorant or play the political correctness game. We aren’t even allowed to name the enemy that is Islam.

The time will come when your children and grandchildren will ask: how did all this happen and nothing was done to stop it! Our representatives must represent the people of America rather than catering to Muslims and Muslim organizations.

In short, America the land of the free, is under assault by the deadly ideology of Islamic subversion and most of us are comatose.

© All rights reserved.

Democrats go full Marxist: Officially embrace the “religiously unaffiliated”

Democrats are now officially the party of the nonbelievers. Merriam-Webster defines a nonbeliever as “especially an atheist.”

How did this happen?

Karl Marx wrote in Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Democrats Come Full Circle on Going Godless

Remember that during the 2012 Democratic National Convention delegates opposed adding language on God and Israel’s capital to their platform. Watch this Fox News report:

On January 30, 2019 The Epoch Times  reported that a key House of Representatives committee has voted to remove the phrase “so help you God” in an oath used in its proceedings. Watch:

In a press release the Secular Coalition for America notes:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) this past Saturday embraced American nonbelievers for the first time, adopting a resolution that recognizes their contributions to society and to the Democratic Party.

This move by the DNC, which was unanimous absent one abstention, demonstrates that they are living up to the big-tent inclusive values they regularly espouse, though it also shows they recognize the value of courting the largest, fastest growing religious demographic in the nation.  It was first passed in the DNC’s Resolutions Committee on Thursday [August 26, 2019]. [Emphasis added]

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Resolution Regarding the Religiously Unaffiliated Demographic states:

WHEREAS, nonreligious Americans made up 17% of the electorate in 2018 and have the potential to deliver millions more votes for Democrats in 2020 with targeted outreach to further increase turnout of nonreligious voters; and

WHEREAS, a record number of openly nonreligious candidates are running for public office;


1. The value, ethical soundness, and importance of the religiously unaffiliated demographic, a group of Americans who contribute in innumerable ways to the arts, sciences, medicine, business, law, the military, their communities, the success
of the Party and prosperity of the Nation; and

2. That religiously unaffiliated Americans are a group that, as much as any other, advocates for rational public policy based on sound science and universal humanistic values and should be represented, included, and heard by the Party.


The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It is now the party of Karl Marx.

Thomas Jefferson the founder of the Democratic Party wrote:

“Under the law of nature [God], all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature [God], because necessary for his own sustenance.”

The Democratic Party may have just signed its own death warrant.

According to Pew Research Center’s data on Religion & Public Life the five largest religious groups that are Democrat/lean Democrat are:

  1. Historically Black Protestant – 80%
  2. Buddhist – 69%
  3. Jewish  – 64%
  4. Muslim – 62%
  5. Hindu – 61%

Affiliated (religious “nones”) are 54%.

The denial of God, in order to garner votes and create a Socialist/Marxist state, is now the official policy of the Democratic National Committee. What is most interesting is that Muslims (62% of Democrat/lean Democrat) can never accept religious “nones.”

You can’t make this stuff up. We have truly entered the Democratic theatre of the absurd.

© All rights reserved.


Democrats say ‘nones’ are largest religious group, warn against religious liberty claims

DNC Resolution Celebrates Religiously Unaffiliated

Today’s Democratic Socialism Versus the Age-Old Version: A Comparison – Law & Liberty

Trump Pushes Back Against Anti-Christian Bullies and Bigots

Ted Cruz Launches a Tweetstorm on Alyssa Milano Over Guns, Bible 

Democrats Put Their Faith in the Faithless

How the Sexual Revolution Gave Us Identity Politics

The Left Can’t Stop Lying About the Tea Party

Second Holocaust or road to oblivion?

American Jews should acknowledge that they are mired in an existential crisis that is largely self-inflicted.

When Israeli Minister of Education Rabbi Rafi Peretz recently likened intermarriage in the US to a second Holocaust, he was roundly criticized by liberal Jews, including the ADL and representatives of the Conservative movement.  Some claimed his remark was contemptible or somehow constituted “Holocaust denial.” But despite the outrage and continuing controversy over his stark analogy, liberal and non-Orthodox organizations may really have been angered by the implicit indictment of their apparent inability to ensure Jewish continuity among their followers.  Their indignation was incongruous, moreover, considering how often progressives misapply Holocaust imagery to the US southern border crisis or falsely compare the Trump administration to Nazi Germany.

Instead of condemning Rabbi Peretz, American Jews should perhaps acknowledge that they are mired in an existential crisis that is largely self-inflicted.  Though assimilation and intermarriage are certainly not genocide, they could if unabated decimate Jewish culture just as surely. And no matter how strenuously Jewish liberals might disagree, they cannot alter the fact that the progressive philosophy they cherish so dearly has been enabling assimilation since the days of Voltaire – a confirmed anti-Semite – and subverting Jewish tradition and national aspirations to the present day.

Anger at the messenger should not negate the seriousness of his warning, which merely echoes the findings of the Pew Research Center survey showing a US intermarriage rate of 58% overall and 71% among the non-Orthodox.  The collective rate is significant in unaffiliated, Reform, and Conservative demographics, suggesting to many a correlation with lower or alternative standards of observance and education.

The real picture might even be worse given Pew’s finding that “intermarriage is much more common among Jewish respondents who are themselves the children of intermarriage” and that “among married Jews who report that only one of their parents was Jewish, fully 83% are married to a non-Jewish spouse.”  Specifically, because those who identify by patrilineal descent are not Jewish according to Halakha (Jewish law), their marriages to Halakhic Jews would also constitute intermarriage.  The situation has probably not improved since these data were first published in 2013, as Jewish literacy remains comparatively low in secular and nontraditional populations.

The likelihood of intermarriage clearly increases as observance and educational standards decline.  For Reform Jews, this may stem from their movement’s early rejection of the mitzvot (commandments) as binding, its ambivalence regarding the divinity of Torah, and the conflation of Judaism with progressive ideals.  Such themes distinguished the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, which contained among others the following statements of principle:

“We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God…[and consider] the Bible [as] reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men in miraculous narratives…

“We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress…fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation…

“We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason…”

Though the movement tempered its initial radicalism somewhat over the years, its discomfort regarding traditional observance and Judeocentrism continued to mold Reform thought and practice – and influence assimilation.  Indeed, many in the Reform rabbinate acknowledged and attempted to address the problem twenty years ago by advocating greater observance; however, their recommendations were ineffective because they viewed the commandments as advisory rather than mandatory.  And while Reform clergy have continued to bemoan intermarriage within their congregations, they have little authority to discourage it now that 84% of them officiate at such unions, as reported by the JTA last year.

The Reform movement’s inability to assure Jewish continuity was perhaps inevitable given its heterodox educational standards, enforced primarily through part-time Hebrew schools and youth programs that teach little in the way of substantive Jewish language or traditional law and ritual.  Indeed, curricula often emphasize progressive political values (which frequently regard ethnocentric loyalty and attachment to homeland as antiquated or intolerant), but fail to impart traditional basics or the linguistic skills necessary for understanding sacred text.

The Conservative movement has not fared much better, particularly as it has become more identified with progressive political causes since the 1960s.  Whatever its standards of practice may have been fifty years ago, most congregants today are nonobservant and lead ritual lives indistinguishable from their Reform contemporaries.  The majority do not keep kosher, observe Shabbat or speak Hebrew, and many identify as “social justice warriors” first and foremost. Moreover, congregational leaders are often neither observant nor well-versed in traditional rabbinics.  Conservative day schools are no match for traditional yeshivas, and twice-weekly Hebrew schools (where most education occurs) are ill-equipped to teach substantive Jewish law and text. Few students of such supplemental programs can read or understand Tanakh (Jewish Bible) in the original Hebrew.

The non-Orthodox movements tend to equate political activism with ritual observance and sanctify progressivism as innately Jewish despite its frequent conflict with normative tradition.  And many of their members praise unbalanced criticism of Israel while portraying Jewish nationalism as chauvinistic. Though Reform and Conservative stalwarts would disagree, the institutional embrace of liberal politics has not advanced Jewish thought or practice, but rather has alienated many followers from their roots.

Paradoxically, nontraditional Jews often seek acknowledgment of their movements’ legitimacy from Orthodox institutions, though it seems that genuine confidence in their rectitude would preclude their need for approval from a religious establishment whose standards they reject.  And while they demand recognition from the Orthodox, they do not regard Torah or Halakha with the same degree of reverence, but instead discount subject matter that offends their political sensibilities.

Their disregard for Torah content inconsistent with their partisan worldview is illustrative.  They are troubled by Parshat Zachor (Devarim, 25:19), for example, wherein Israel was commanded to obliterate the Amalekites for their surprise attack in Rephidim after the Exodus, because it defies the concept of progressive universalism.  Likewise, they minimize the significance of Parshat Acherei-Mot (Vayikra, 16:1–18:30), which prohibits certain sexual relationships, because it undermines their sanctification of such relationships today. However, they cannot selectively disclaim portions of Torah while claiming to affirm its eternal values or divinity.

The nontraditional movements seem to have traded normative Torah beliefs for political and temporal priorities that are extraneous to Judaism.  And they are abetted by secular communal organizations that emphasize political virtues over Torah values and by Democrats who attack conservatives while defending anti-Semites within their party.  However, those who promote progressivism as the sine qua nons of Jewish existence are often not familiar with classical Torah principles; for if they were, they would have to acknowledge that much of their partisan agenda contravenes traditional Judaism and enables assimilation.

Nevertheless, the tendency to intermarry does not necessarily signify self-rejection, but is often a passive outcome for people with weak Judaic backgrounds who never internalized the value of cultural self-preservation.  They may not consider intermarriage a goal, but neither do they view it as unacceptable or undesirable.

Distinct from such passive assimilationists are those who willfully renounce their heritage in favor of non-Jewish belief systems.  This demographic includes people raised with little connection to traditional practice or spirituality, who seek to fill the void with supernal substance of any kind.  Some are drawn to so-called “messianic Judaism,” which is nothing more than evangelical Christianity falsely portrayed as “Jewish” despite its fundamental incompatibility with Torah law and belief.  Others succumb to the blandishments of missionaries who target poorly-educated Jews for conversion.

Those who embrace other religions generally have limited Jewish education and possess neither the knowledge nor skills to withstand spiritual predation.  They typically do not understand Hebrew, are unfamiliar with Tanakh, and thus are incapable of countering evangelists who misrepresent, misquote, and mistranslate the Jewish Bible.  In particular, they are unable to compare original Hebrew text to supposed “fulfillment citations” frequently cited by Christian missionaries to see that none comport with what Hebrew Scripture actually says.  They are also unaware that theological concepts like trinitarianism and vicarious atonement are irreconcilable with Torah law.

Similar naivete characterizes secular progressives who claim that Jewish tradition validates leftist social policy, but who are unable to articulate why because they cannot read or understand Hebrew Scripture or Rabbinic literature.

The American Jewish community is clearly in crisis and Rabbi Peretz was correct about the danger, regardless of his choice of metaphor.  The risk of spiritual and cultural decline – whether through intermarriage or the adoption of heretical beliefs – is very real. Thus, rather than attacking him, US Jewish leaders should be heeding his admonition and reorganizing their educational and ritual priorities to prevent exile from turning into oblivion.

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Whittle on President Trump’s statement about Jewish people and the Democrat party.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Comey and the De-class According to Plan

When you look up in the dictionary the words “Bad Cop” you see a picture of James Comey. I believe that Comey will be indicted, prosecuted, charged and justice will be served. Do not be swayed by the former FBI Director’s smug comments or by the fact that AG Barr has not YET, indicted Comey. I believe it is coming in the next phase of the de-class and all according to plan.

The DOJ and the President have barely begun. Remember, please, we are at war to resurrect America and restore power back to the people. This is an intelligence battle of which we are winning. The pendulum has now shifted. They have gone from being the hunters to the hunted. Team Trump is creating the awareness with the release of the IG report, that James Comey is as corrupt as they come. His behavior indicates that he believes he is above the law. Comey continues to further bury himself. He and others, are falling for the trap. FISA brings down the house. Get ready.

The IG Report

In this 79 page IG report, you will find that Comey violated FBI policies 25 times. This shows in part, that this was not an oversight nor an error, nor a coincidence. What it does indeed show is a series of premeditated and calculated moves, (violation of FBI policy), of a political agenda to remove a duly elected and most popular President in what turned out to be a failed illegal and treasonous coup d’ etatattempt which has come to be known as the Mueller witch hunt. And what is the punishment for treason? Have a look and listen here from President Trump. When you get to the video of the President got to marker 42:19 for the biggest news story of the century that never really made the news. It’s an intel battle. Timing and optics. Remember that. We are now winning this battle.

And remember, there are three things that cannot long be hidden. The sun, the moon, and the truth. This is the age of Trump transparency. We are winning. Stay the course. Trust the plan and remember, freedom, it’s up to us.