Once Again, Having No Faith in the Smartest Guy in the Room

/in , , , , , , , /by

Oy vey! The glass is not half empty—it’s completely empty!

Oy gevalt! The sky really is falling!

That’s what our purportedly most astute and seasoned political commentators would have you believe about the ceasefire agreement that was reached just a day or so ago between Hamas and Israel.

These pearl-clutching, handwringing, anxiety filled savants have now become 2025’s Doomsday Squad. But it sounds to me like they all participated in the same Zoom session, so similar are their dire messages and predictions.

And so wrong-headed!

The esteemed Harvard Law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, opined that “it wasn’t a deal; it was  a crime.”

“This was not the result of a negotiation between equals. If an armed robber puts a gun to your head and says, ‘your money or your life,’ your decision to give him your money would not be described as a deal,” he said.

“Would you call it a deal if somebody kidnapped your child, and you ‘agreed’ to pay ransom to get her back? Of course not. The kidnapping was a crime. And the extortionate demand was an additional crime,” Dershowitz continued.

The estimable Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and prolific author, asked “How bad is it? It makes a replay, and quite likely more than one replay, of Hamas’ massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, a very real possibility…the deal also involves ‘the release of 50 Palestinian Arab terrorists serving life sentences. These are essentially convicted murderers with Jewish blood on their hands who are likely to murder Jews again.’”

The widely known commentator and President of the Middle East Forum, Daniel  Pipes, called the deal “momentous” and “horrific.”

“The deal, Pipes concluded, “releases many hundreds of hardened Islamist criminals, now free to return to their murderous ways. It nearly assures continued Hamas rule in Gaza. It boosts Islamist morale worldwide. It humiliates the West’s foremost Middle Eastern ally.”

The prolific British writer Melanie Phillips also weighed in, writing that negotiating with Qatar was “dealing with the devil,” and that the jubilant Arabs were ecstatic because they believed that the deal “would enable them now, finally, to destroy Israel and the Jews.”

In addition, the formidable Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) issued this stern warning: “No responsible Israeli government should agree to such a dangerous surrender deal. Didn’t the government learn from the 2011 Gilad Shalit deal, in which Israel received one Israeli hostage for releasing 1,027 Palestinian Arab terrorists (including October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar) who were collectively responsible for killing 569 Israelis? The Shalit deal resulted in October 7, numerous other terror attacks, the murders of more than 2,000 innocent Jews and the maiming of many thousands of innocent Jews and others.”

And to top it off, several high-ranking members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition threatened to leave if he signed the deal, which was predicted to result in total chaos in the Knesset. They include National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who called the deal “reckless,” as well as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amihai Chikli.

Bottom line, each of these critics––and dozens of others––denigrated both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump for agreeing to and participating in one of history’s worst deals!

OTOH

My question to these critics: What do you think the conversation was when the Israeli Prime Minister visited the President-elect at his Mar-a-Lago estate last July? Do you suppose they discussed the poetry of Emily Dickinson?

Do you think they studiously avoided discussion of the ongoing and escalating war not between but among Israel and Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Iraqi groups, and what to do about this existential threat to the tiny Jewish state?

Do you think they wished each other well and parted ways with handshakes and smiles?

I don’t.

THE PLAN OF ACTION

I think that President-elect didn’t pressure PM Netanyahu at all, that he simply suggested a strategy that would work.

And it did!

Given his solution-oriented nature, Mr. Trump told the PM that he would threaten to annihilate the mass murderers who not only threatened to obliterate the entire state of Israel but to extinguish the lives of every Jew in the world. That this threat…this promise…was actually written down in their charter and mission statement and boasted about by like-minded advocates of this death cult.

Well…. POOF! As soon as Mr. Trump posted those “hell to pay” words––because they believed him––magic! Hamas agreed to negotiate and Israel, wisely, agreed.

Why wisely? Because Mr. Trump never took back his original words––there would be “hell to pay” if the hostages were not released before his inauguration….in just a couple of days…. January 20th, 2025!

SOME PEOPLE “GET” IT

Right off the bat, U.S. Representative Mike Waltz, President-elect Trump’s choice for National Security Adviser, announced that he vowed that the Trump Administration would support Israel resuming operations in Gaza if Hamas violated the ceasefire deal.

US Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) speaks on Day 1 of the Republican National Convention (RNC) at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US, July 15, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar.

And Douglas Altabef, Chairman of the Board of Im Tirtzu and a Director of the Israel Independence Fund, writes that “it is too soon to be too distraught about the hostage deal.

“Again,” says Altabef, “I would urge us all not to jump to a definitive conclusion quite yet. Hopefully, as happened in November 2023, we will look back and say, yes there was disruption, yes, our job got more difficult and complicated, but we were able to secure the release of (most, all, many??) hostages, and then got back to the required task of dismantling Hamas.

“We need to remember,” Altabef continues, “that Trump has appointed very pro-Israel people to key leadership roles in his government. The Secretaries of State and Defense, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth (who is likely to be approved despite initial concerns), are both firmly in Israel’s corner, and are knowledgeable about the situation in this neighborhood.

“I believe that Trump himself is very much with us and will regard supporting Israel as part of a key strategic construct needed to face down China, Russia and Iran.

“He now is starting off his tenure with the geo-political wind at his back, and he knows that Bibi and Israel helped him to get exactly where he wanted to be. Getting Trump to have a latter-day version of the 1980 Iranian hostage release, as Reagan assumed office, is an enormous credibility boost for him.”

Concluding, Altabef says: “I for one would like to think that Trump knows that Israel helped him to achieve it, and that he will be returning the favor as his term unfolds.

So, friends, grit your teeth, and take a longer view. God willing, we will emerge from this intact, more unified, and ultimately, strengthened.”

To these inspiring words, can we all say a hearty Amen!

©2025 . All rights reserved.

South Dakota, Texas Pursue Ten Commandments Displays in Schools

/in , , , , , , /by

After Louisiana became the first state to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools, a legal battle erupted. Republican Governor Jeff Landry signed the bill in June, and after months of litigation, it can finally be enforced in certain school districts. Now South Dakota may be headed for similar court battles.

Last week, South Dakota state Senator John Carley (R) and Rep. Phil Jensen (R), introduced Senate Bill 51. It reads, “The board of a school district shall display the Ten Commandments in each classroom in each school located within the district. The display must be a poster or document that is at least eight inches by fourteen inches. The text of the Ten Commandments must be the focus of the poster or document and must be printed in large, easily readable font.”

Like the legislation in Louisiana, this proposal also requires that the Ten Commandments be accompanied by a statement explaining their historical significance, which would apply to other documents like the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence.

“We need to illustrate our history and truth,” Carley urged. “[S]ome people may want to say, ‘We don’t want to talk about these topics,’ but the Ten Commandments certainly were a part of the founding of our country.” Carley also highlighted additional benefits of posting the Ten Commandments. As he put it, “If we find kids honoring their father and mother, a lot of parents will be happy about that. If we find people are not stealing, lying, or murdering, I think our Sheriff Department and law enforcement will certainly be happy.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on the other hand, quickly criticized the legislation. They claimed it posed a risk of causing “students who don’t follow the state’s approved religious dictates to feel ostracized from their school community.” The ACLU of South Dakota argued that “the First Amendment guarantees families and faith communities — not politicians or the government — the right to instill religious beliefs in their children.” In their opinion, “Displaying the Ten Commandments in our state’s classrooms blatantly violates this promise.”

The group also claimed that “students already have the right to engage in religious exercise and expression at school under current law.” For instance, because students can “voluntarily pray, read religious literature or engage in other religious activities during recess or lunch,” the ACLU believes displaying the Ten Commandments would be a form of “religious conversion.”

On the other hand, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) supports the bill. On Monday, he said in a statement, “The Ten Commandments already are displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court and other public buildings. The Ten Commandments have influenced the creation of our nation and our rule of law.” A notable trend is forming of lawmakers introducing bills that require the Ten Commandments be displayed in public schools.

Just this week, Texas Senator Phil King (R) reportedly has plans to propose a bill of this same nature. He described the Ten Commandments as the “basis for much of American history and law.” As he put it, “It played such a role in our founding and among our founders. It’s part of our legal heritage.”

During the last Texas Senate legislative session, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R) had sought to bring the Bible back into Texas public schools. It was ultimately shut down in the Texas House. Allegedly, it is King’s intention to continue some of what Patrick started. In fact, Patrick had posted on X back in June that “Texas WOULD have been and SHOULD have been the first state in the nation to put the 10 Commandments back in our schools.” He went on to say that the House ultimately killing the bill was both “inexcusable and unacceptable.” But in response to King’s efforts to revive the bill, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has already offered his support. As he said on X, “Let’s do it.”

Reflecting on these developments, Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon shared her excitement with The Washington Stand. “This is great to see other states attempting to include the Ten Commandments in schools,” she stated. “Regardless of your religious beliefs or lack of them,” she contended, “understanding the Law is important for any person’s educational formation.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Rubio: China Is ‘Most Potent, Dangerous Threat America Has Ever Confronted’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Amidst the announcement this week of a major international operation to remove China state-sponsored malware from thousands of computers worldwide, U.S. officials and lawmakers are sounding the alarm that Xi Jinping’s communist regime is waging an increasingly malicious and aggressive effort to undermine the U.S. and other free democracies across the globe.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice announced that it had completed a “multi-month enforcement operation” in which it was able to delete “PlugX” malware from over 4,200 computers across the globe, with the help of the FBI and French law enforcement. The malware was used by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hackers to “infect, control, and steal information from victim computers.” The operation comes on the heels of significant breaches by CCP operatives of U.S. internet service providers and the U.S. Treasury Department.

Over the weekend, outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray remarked during an interview that the Chinese government is “the defining threat of our generation.” He went on to detail how China’s cyberwarfare program “is by far and away the world’s largest — bigger than that of every major nation combined and has stolen more of Americans’ personal and corporate data than that of every nation, big or small, combined.” He further stated that state-sponsored hackers have burrowed deep within “American civilian critical infrastructure” and “lie in wait on those networks to be in a position to wreak havoc and can inflict real-world harm at a time and place of their choosing.”

Nominated officials within the incoming Trump administration are also signaling that they are clear-eyed about the threat that China poses to the U.S. During a Senate hearing on Wednesday with secretary of State nominee Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the lawmaker called the communist regime “the most potent and dangerous, near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” He went on to observe that unless the U.S. takes a more offensive posture in confronting China within the next decade, “much of what matters to us on a daily basis — from our security to our health — will be dependent on whether the Chinese allow us to have it or not.”

Rubio’s comments echoed those of John Ratcliffe, whom President-elect Donald Trump nominated to serve as CIA director. During his confirmation hearing Wednesday, Ratcliffe, who previously served as director of national intelligence during the first Trump administration, commented, “I openly warned the American people that from my unique vantage point as an official who saw more intelligence than anyone else, I assessed that China was far and away our top national security threat,”

During Wednesday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) offered further warnings about the threat that Xi Jinping’s regime poses.

“[I]t is very serious,” he underscored. “We’ve seen the Chinese … monitoring people’s phone conversations at the highest levels of government. We’ve seen their hacking [of] public infrastructure. … And we’ve seen them spying on American territory. Right in our home state of Michigan, we had five Chinese nationals spying at Camp Grayling watching military exercises. So they are very aggressive, and they have a surveillance state that at home that oppresses 1.3 billion Chinese, and they’re wanting to export that around the world.”

Moolenaar, who serves as chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, went on to argue that the U.S. must be extremely careful with its economic partnerships with China.

“One of the goals of our committee, which is very bipartisan, is to make sure we aren’t funding our own demise,” he explained. “We’re not funding businesses that work with the People’s Liberation Army. We’re not funding technologies … that could be used against our American men and women in the armed forces. [T]his is an all-hands-on-deck effort to restrict an aggressive power. When you think of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, we never would have partnered with them on the kinds of things we partner with China on. And I think Ronald Reagan had it right: peace through strength. Let’s make sure we don’t help our adversaries succeed.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins pointed to Americans’ consumer habits as contributing to the CCP threat. “[C]onsumers in this country that are attracted to cheaper Chinese products … are actually fueling our adversary, that they’re turning those profits into what we saw here, dispatching these hackers to break into U.S. databases and other infrastructures.”

Moolenaar concurred, noting that the CCP has “laws on the book, what they consider to be national security laws that require anyone … doing business in China to be accountable to the Chinese Communist Party. And if they require information, there is no such thing as a private sector. They have a military-civil fusion that gives priority to the military or the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a very different framework than we’re used to dealing with. So that’s what makes it so serious when we trade or when we invest in Chinese entities that can all be used against us and our allies.”

Moolenaar additionally noted that there have been some recent successes in American entities separating themselves from the CCP. “[T]here were over 30 partnerships in universities in the United States that were partnering with Chinese universities and funded often by Department of Defense dollars, and they were collaborating on research in the highest technologies of physics, even weapons, all sorts of things. So we raised this issue, and fortunately, Berkeley, Georgia Tech, and most recently the University of Michigan have discontinued those.” He also reported that Congress is working on requiring Chinese tech companies like Huawei to be removed from “our supply chains for our defense industrial base.”

Moolenaar concluded by agreeing with Wray and Rubio’s sobering assessment of the threat posed by China. “Cyber is now one of the major domains for warfare … land, water, sea, space, cyber — all of those are key. … We need to make sure that we’re aware that China is trying to hack us every day and trying to pre-position malware on our devices that would threaten our way of living.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Treasury Department breached by Chinese hackers | NewsNation Now

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Proposed Gaza Ceasefire Is a ‘Terrible Deal for Israel’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

1/17/2025 9:16 a.m. This story has been updated to reflect that the Israeli Cabinet has voted to approve the ceasefire deal.

A prisoner exchange and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was reached Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced. But, after “many months of intensive diplomacy” between the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar, the deal they devised would require Israel to give away the farm, leaving them no leverage to ensure that all their hostages are safely returned. “It’s a terrible deal for Israel,” complained Frank Gaffney, president of the Institute for the American Future. “I fear that it amounts to a victory for Hamas.”

The details of the deal have not been published, but according to reports, the ceasefire agreement would occur in three phases.

In the first phase, Israel would release 100 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences (a.k.a. “pedigreed jihadists,” Gaffney stated) and 1,000 other prisoners not involved with the October 7 attacks, and Hamas would release 33 hostages in return. “I’m getting some signals out of Israel that this is not the best deal for Israel,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “I’m told the ratio is 50-to-1 for every hostage.”

These lopsided prisoner exchanges would be spaced out over a six-week ceasefire — an unexplained delay that left Perkins “a little puzzled” — during which time Israel would pull its military out of all the populated areas of Gaza and allow hundreds of aid trucks to enter the Gaza Strip, bringing humanitarian aid and tens of thousands of temporary homes.

In the second phase, the two sides would declare a permanent end to the war, and Israel would withdraw the rest of its forces from Gaza. Hamas would also release more hostages in exchange for more prisoners.

In the third phase, Hamas would return the rest of the hostages, including the remains of those it killed. In return, it would get “a major reconstruction plan for Gaza,” in President Biden’s words.

To review, Israel would have to pack up and go home before getting the hostages it came for, and Hamas would not only have its pre-October 7 autonomy restored, but it would get its own personal Marshall Plan, and spring 50 terrorists per hostage.

What an odd way to punish its terrorist atrocities! What an odd way to deter future iterations.

Unfazed by these particulars, Biden declared he was “deeply satisfied” that a deal had been reached — likely so he can claim credit. “We got the world to endorse it,” he boasted. Given how the world feels about Israel, that should be a warning sign.

“I think it’s, in some ways, worse than the plan … that Joe Biden put together” last year, said Gaffney. By agreeing to this deal, Israel would be “effectively surrendering the entirety of Gaza to the people who perpetrated this horrific attack on October 7th,” and who have “been at war with Israel … from the inception of this terrorist organization and will be until it is put out of business.”

“All of the progress that Israel has made to root out Hamas, to deprive it of resources, to close its infrastructure … will essentially be undone because they will be allowed to have the run of Gaza again,” warned Gaffney.

And all of this assumes that Hamas will keep up its end of the agreement through all three phases. But that might be the least likely outcome, based on its past behavior and genocidal hatred of Israel. “Hamas broke ceasefires with Israel in 2003, 2007, 2008, and nine times in 2014,” listed National Review’s Jim Geraghty, not to mention a terrorist shooting during a ceasefire in 2024.

Over the past year, Geraghty continued, “Hamas either rejected ceasefire proposals or hostages-for-prisoners trades, walked away from the table, or refused to restart negotiations in the months of December, January, February, March, April, May, June, and July 2024. … Hamas has proven a bad-faith, bloodthirsty, irrational, and self-destructive negotiator at every step in this process.”

The deal is so bad for Israel that it could put Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in trouble domestically. “The Left has, of course, wanted his head on a pike for a long time,” said Gaffney, but “there are a lot of people now on the right who feel that all of this is for naught — all of the war efforts — if this [deal] is allowed to go forward.” Throughout the war, Israel has maintained its sovereign right to self-defense, which involves the right to react to the ongoing threat posed by Hamas, a terrorist group operating from within its borders.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have come out against the deal; while aligned with Netanyahu, they control enough votes to destabilize his coalition. “This could cause his governing coalition to implode,” Perkins exclaimed.

If fact, it seems that Netanyahu himself was reluctant to agree to the deal, until he met with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s incoming special envoy to the Middle East. The Biden administration’s State Department spokesman Matthew Miller confirmed that input from Trump’s team was “absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line.”

“Bibi [Benjamin Netanyahu] basically had his knees broken” by Witkoff, said Gaffney. “He took what Donald Trump meant as leverage on the Hamas terrorists, putting them on notice that if the hostages were not released … by the time he came to office … all hell would break loose. Now, that was intended to be pressuring Hamas. Instead, Witkoff — and the Biden team, of course — turned this into leverage on Bibi Netanyahu.”

In fact, Gaffney suspected Witkoff of showing more loyalty to Qatar than to Trump. Witkoff said “that ‘Qatar is doing God’s work in these negotiations.’ I think he might have meant Allah’s work, because what has been done, I think, is not in the service of Israel,” he alleged. “This is a man who may work for Qatar, but I don’t honestly think he’s worked effectively for Donald Trump or the interests of the United States, to say nothing of Israel.”

Trump initially celebrated the “EPIC” ceasefire agreement that “could only have happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies.”

But Gaffney cautioned that Trump might not have the full picture. “I hope that the president, Donald Trump, will think better of this as he learns more about what’s been done,” he said. “I’d be a little surprised if President Trump knew when he put [Witkoff] in this position that he had actually done a $600 million hotel deal with the nation of Qatar.”

The Israeli cabinet approved the deal “after examining all political, security, and humanitarian aspects, and understanding that the proposed deal supports the achievement of the war’s objectives, the Ministerial Committee for National Security Affairs (the Political-Security Cabinet) has recommended that the government approve the proposed framework..”

Netanyahu accused Hamas of creating a “last-minute crisis” by making additional demands over the identity of the prisoners Israel will release. Netanyahu explained the deal Israel agreed to “gives Israel veto power over the release of mass murderers who are symbols of terror,” but Hamas now “demands to dictate the identity of these terrorists.”

Instead of approving the lopsided ceasefire right away, Israel launched overnight airstrikes against 50 terrorist targets in Gaza. Hamas-aligned sources claimed that the airstrikes killed at least 75 people — most of whom were probably terrorists. In a statement, the IDF confirmed the death of Muhammad Hasham Zahedi Abu Al-Rus, a terrorist who participated in the October 7, 2023 massacre at the Nova Music Festival.

The world may be ready to move on from Hamas’s atrocities, but Israel will not — cannot — rest secure until the Hamas threat within their own borders has been eliminated.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Amit Segel: Israel ‘WON by a knock-out’ and will now focus on Iran!

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Amit Segel, intelligent and articulate political analyst for Channel 12 wrote this last night. He is optimistic, and explains why.

We bravely faced 20,000 rockets, a number that has not been fired at any country in the world for decades

We eliminated the master murderer Nasrallah

The senior echelon of Hezbollah is no more

No more threat of invasion

80% of the rockets and missiles that threatened every point in the country are gone

Only the future will tell what will happen,  but our people’s sacrifice was not in vain

In the past year, Israel has broken the paralyzing barrier of fear that prevented it from acting against Hezbollah and Iran

The IDF entered southern Lebanon from the bottom, reached Litani, hitting Beirut at will.

The whole Middle East is watching.

The “unity of the arenas” was the ‘brainchild’ of ​​Soleimani, Nasrallah and Sinwar and it has finally died with them. 

The expectation from the public in Israel is to demand that its leaders finally abandon the policy of “inclusion”.

NETANYAHU: After the “ceasefire” – We’ll focus on Iran

Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to implement a US-brokered ceasefire deal that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says will allow Israel to focus on Iran.

IRAN INTERNATIONAL — Israel’s security cabinet approved the ceasefire deal on Tuesday and the whole cabinet is due to review it later in the day. Lebanon and Hezbollah have also agreed to the proposal which is expected to be implemented on Wednesday.

“The ceasefire deal with Lebanon now means Israel will focus on Iran’s threat”, Netanyahu said in a speech following the approval of the truce deal.

Netanyahu said there were three reasons to pursue a ceasefire: to focus on Iran, to replenish depleted arms supplies and give the army a rest and finally to isolate Hamas, whose attack on Israelis on October 7, 2023, triggered a devastating war in Gaza and saw Hezbollah join conflict with Israel.

HITTING THE ‘HEAD OF OCTOPUS’

Netanyahu said that he is “determined to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

“That threat has always been my top priority and is even more so today, (is) when you hear Iran’s leaders state over and over again their intention to obtain nuclear weapons,” the Israeli prime minister said. “For me, removing that threat is the most important mission to ensure the existence and future of the State of Israel.”

Israel’s defense minister said earlier this month the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic are now more vulnerable than ever, following Israel’s October 26 airstrikes which targeted Iran’s key air defense systems.

The Israeli air raids last month knocked out Iran’s last three Russian-provided S-300 air defense missile systems, Fox News reported at the time citing US and Israeli officials. The surface-to-air S-300s were the last in the Islamic Republic’s arsenal after one was destroyed in an attack in April which was also likely carried out by Israel.

“We destroyed major parts of Iran’s air defense system and missile-manufacturing capabilities, and we demolished a significant component of their nuclear program,” Netanyahu said in his Tuesday speech, calling Iran the “head of the octopus”.

Iranian authorities have consistently called for Israel’s destruction and consistently refuse call it by name but refers to it as the “Zionist entity”.

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael News Desk column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: ‘I have a dream that beginning on January 20, 2025’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

JEREMY PORTNOY

Jeremy Portnoy is an Investigative journalist with OpenTheBooks.com. His work has also been seen on SB Nation, The Daily Caller, WND, Longview News-Journal, The Political Insider, KNBN-TV (Rapid City, SD), The Statesman, Herald/Review Media, And many others.

TOPIC: DoD SPENDING WASTE

DR. RICH SWIER

Dr. Rich Swier is a “conservative with a conscience.” Rich is a 23 year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Valor and Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. Dr Rich now publishes the the “drrichswier.com report”. A daily review of news, issues and commentary! Dr Rich has a new book out, “DISSENT: The Highest Form of Patriotism.”

TOPIC: I have a dream that beginning on January 20, 2025

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Less Work, More Welfare: How Immoral Policies Are Making Americans Poorer

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A new report shows that over the last four decades, poor Americans have become far more likely to receive their daily bread from welfare than work. This slide from self-reliance to government dependence serves as an economic barometer of American decline, fueled by perverse incentives created by morally challenged government policies.

The numbers paint a stark picture of American indolence. In 1979, Americans living in poverty earned 60% of their income from work. In 2021, the share had fallen to 25%. That analysis from the Congressional Budget Office shows the startling degree to which, in 42 years, Americans have moved steadily from a paycheck to a handout.

“Low-income Americans are receiving an ever-growing share of their financial resources from government transfers, not work,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who requested the report, in a statement emailed to me. “To improve our nation’s welfare system, we must pursue policies that will lift more Americans out of poverty — including strengthening incentives to seek a job like tying benefits to commonsense work requirements. This will help more of our fellow Americans achieve independence and gainful employment. After all, a job is the best anti-poverty program that exists.”

Smith is to be commended for requesting this report and focusing on a policy solution. The report reveals that some of the great drivers of joblessness are political, some personal. But, as secular government analyses always do, this study ignores the moral components underlying increased welfare dependence.

The fact that more Americans have come to rely on welfare serves as an indictment of a nation that has forgotten the Apostle Paul’s admonition, “If any would not work, neither should he eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). God gave Adam work to do in the Garden of Eden before the fall and, in the post-exilic world, He intended work to supply our daily needs (Genesis 2:15; Proverbs 6:6-11 and 12:11). Honest work, combined with frugal living, allows Christians to care for the needs of others (II Corinthians 8:13-15; I Timothy 5:3-16).

While some percentage of Americans lack the physical or mental ability to earn a living, the ever-growing number of Americans on welfare rolls far outstrips that of its incapacitated recipients. That proves Americans have lost sight of biblical importance of work: Work benefits our souls, improves the raw materials bestowed in God’s creation, enhances our God-given talents, allows us to provide for our own needs while serving others, and allows us to provide for those truly unable to participate in this ennobling cycle.

The Apostle Paul showed the excellence of work by working as a tentmaker in order to carry out his missionary work. St. Jerome — who translated the Bible into Latin, the language of the West — once asked a monk the same question idle Christians should ask themselves: “If apostles who had the right to live of the Gospel labored with their own hands that they might be chargeable to no man, and bestowed relief upon others whose carnal things they had a claim to reap as having sown unto them spiritual things; why do you not provide a supply to meet your needs?”

When followed, the biblical plan still works. Only 2.5% of Americans who work full-time fell below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another study found only 1.7% of Canadians who worked full-time lived in poverty. In other words, work eliminates nearly 100% of all poverty.

Perhaps more importantly, this report serves as an indictment of family breakdown. “Of the four types of households examined, unmarried households with children had the highest percentage of people with money income below the poverty threshold,” found the report. That reinforces government statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, which reported, “Of people in families, those in married-couple families had the lowest poverty rate (5.2 percent), while those in female-householder families had the highest (23.6 percent).” Both homes led by single mothers and households with cohabiting partners had four times the poverty level of married couples.

On the other hand, traditional married families earned the most money, with a median income of $119,400 in 2023, compared to $59,470 in homes led by single mothers. Even in families where only one person works, single mothers were more than three times as likely to end up in poverty than married couples. In fact, single mothers earn just over $5,000 a year more than single men without children (and thus, without incentives to earn more).

Can it be a coincidence that the number of married households in America has fallen from 71% in 1971 to 47% in 2022? When mothers and fathers cannot take their place in God’s order, and children lack the example of a working father, society sets young people up for a life of government dependence and wasted potential. And our reduced GDP is the least consequential result.

America’s retreat from work serves as an indictment of our welfare system. After the Left’s purposeful throttling of President Donald Trump’s red-hot economy in the name of COVID-19, Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion spending spree gave workers collecting unemployment a $300 weekly bonus. That surplus gave approximately one in four workers more money than they could earn by working. One study showed that policy alone depressed employment by approximately 14%.

The report also shows the problems presented by counterproductive economic interventionist policies that destroy jobs and opportunity. Politicians promote tax-hikes that raise prices, massive spending that fuels inflation, and subsidies for unpopular products such as electric vehicles — all of which distort the market — for short-term political gain. For example, a minimum wage when raised too high prices out the poorest and neediest from the job market. The CBO estimated a proposed minimum wage hike would give workers an average of $50 a week — and throw 1.3 million people out of the workforce, reducing GDP by $9 billion.

The report also points an accusing finger at our nation’s immigration system. The recent H1-B visa debate provided a healthy spasm against a corporatist immigration system starving American families of good opportunities. During the last four years of the Biden-Harris administration, all net job growth has gone to immigrants. Between 2019 and late 2023, 2.9 million immigrants took U.S. jobs, while 183,000 American citizens left the job force. Mass immigration — illegal and legal — reduces wages, making a welfare check seem far more inviting than 40 hours of toil.

Finally, the report presses charges against American Christians. Why are churches not providing charity on a grander scale for those in need? Why have private citizens outsourced essential functions — like fulfilling Christ’s commandment to feed the hungry and clothe the naked — to the secular state? Government benefits lead to an attitude of entitlement and enable self-destructive pathologies. Secular programs cannot cure the problems secularism created.

Churches alone stand in the position to address the underlying issues that keep sidelined Americans out of the workforce — addiction, depression, lack of motivation, family commitments, lack of child care, etc. — and to elevate even seemingly mundane work to its true spiritual significance.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Senators Express Optimism That Trump Will Restore Pro-Life Policies at HHS

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Following four years of the Biden administration reversing the pro-life federal policies established during President Donald Trump’s first term, Republican senators are expressing confidence that the incoming Trump administration will put back in place policies that blocked federal funds from going to abortion businesses, allowed pregnancy resource centers to receive federal funds, and stopped the funding of international groups that promote abortion, among other measures.

After Trump nominated former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to serve as his secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last November, concerns arose among numerous GOP lawmakers and pro-life advocacy groups that the former Democrat-turned-Independent presidential nominee would sideline pro-life policies based on his past pro-abortion positions. During his presidential run, Kennedy has called the abortion issue “nuanced and complex” and also said that the state should not “dictate choices that the woman is making” regarding abortion. He has also previously supported (and walked back support for) three-month pro-life protections.

However, Senate Republicans like Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) say they have received personal assurances from Kennedy that he will not pursue pro-abortion policies while in office and will, in fact, enact pro-life ones. Last month, Hawley posted a series of tweets describing his conversation with Kennedy regarding the issue. “He committed to me to reinstate President Trump’s prolife policies at HHS,” Hawley wrote. “That includes reinstating the Mexico City policy & ending taxpayer funding for abortions domestically.”

The senator further noted Kennedy’s promise to have all pro-life deputies at HHS and that he “believes there are far too many abortions in the US and that we cannot be the moral leader of the free world with abortion rates so high.” Hawley also stated that Kennedy promised to reinstate “the bar on Title X funds going to organizations that promote abortion” and to “reinstate conscience protections for healthcare providers.”

During Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) confirmed that he too met with Kennedy and also received assurances from him that he would pursue pro-life policies within the federal agency.

“We had a very robust discussion,” he explained. “In fact, talking about the importance of protecting the pro-life policies in terms of regulations coming out of HHS, but importantly, restoring any policies that the Biden administration has stripped, and to … work with the secretary of State [to ensure] we are doing all we can within the executive branch to make sure these protections are in place and, frankly, expanded. And he told me that he’ll have seven [deputies in] HHS [that] would be pro-life type of leaders. And I appreciate that honesty and frankness from RFK Jr.”

The news comes amid uncertainty surrounding how pro-life Trump’s second administration will be after the president-elect oversaw watered-down pro-life language inserted into the 2024 Republican Party platform last July, which was entirely revamped and truncated from the previous GOP platform. Trump also repeatedly said on the campaign trail last year that he would leave the abortion issue to the states and that some state pro-life protections are “too tough.” The 45th president’s inconsistent rhetoric on the issue has left pro-life lawmakers and advocates wondering if he would, in fact, use his executive authority to undo the pro-abortion executive orders that President Joe Biden enacted.

Nevertheless, in an op-ed published Monday, Hawley reiterated his optimism that the president-elect will restore the pro-life policies that were reversed under Biden. The senator noted that in addition to restoring the Mexico City Policy, barring abortion businesses from receiving Title X grant money, and restoring federal funding to pregnancy resource centers, Trump’s first-term HHS also “restrict[ed] the use of human fetal tissue obtained from abortions.”

“The Biden administration gutted those rules,” Hawley concluded. “Thankfully, it’s a new day. And President Trump has the power to start protecting life again — immediately. He should use that power boldly to protect those who most need it: the innocent unborn.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Critically Thinking about the Federal Department of Education

/in , , , , , , /by

Three Powerful, Practical, Plausible Recommendations to Improve DOEd

There is now an unprecedented opportunity that Critical Thinkers (that’s us) should take advantage of.

Arguably, for the first time in modern US history, the federal government is:

  1. open to making radical changes in government agencies,
  2. has the right political perspective, and
  3. is receptive to citizen inputs.

Yes, there are always reasons to be skeptical — but the upside is so great that we should assume the best, and offer assistance. For those who are incurably cynical and say no, then you are foregoing your future rights to complain!

I’m polling my Critical Thinking Substack readers as to their best ideas regarding the Department of Health and Human Services (FDA, CDC, etc.), Department of Education (DOEd), Department of Energy (DOE), EPA, and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). [If you have any good connections with the upper echelon of any of these federal Departments, please email me.]

Let’s say that this is the scenario:

a) we are given five (5) minutes for a face-to-face meeting with the Secretary of each of these Departments, and 

b) we are asked to limit our suggestions to three (3) items. Due to these rules, we need to filter out many ideas so that we are left with just three (3) succinct, important, doable recommendations.

This is the second in my series of commentaries to each of the above-mentioned Departments. Below are my suggested three (3) recommendations for the federal Department of Education (DOEd). Critically Thinking readers can constructively weigh in with support or any improvements on what I’ve proposed, in the Comments below…

We’ll then try to get the end product to the new Department of Education Secretary, probably Linda McMahon.

Recommendation #1 —

Redefine its Mission. Here is the boilerplate pablum that is their current mission statement. This should be upgraded to say something like: meaningfully assisting States in producing high school graduates who are competent, productive, healthy, critical thinkers (e.g., see this fine piece). In other words, the Department should leverage the power and money of the federal government to aggressively assist States in fixing the currently deplorable K-12 education system. (Note: in 2024 the Department had $80± Billion in discretionary funding (out of a $250± Billion budget) — that is a LOT of leverage!)

In the process of reformulating DOEd’s mission get rid of bureaucratic bloat. Strip down the Department to the bare essentials. (Right now there are over 4100 employees. How about aiming for 400 — a 90% reduction? Four hundred competent, motivated, mission-focused employees can do a LOT!)

Recommendation #2 —

Clearly spell out what the primary objective of K-12 education should be. Assuming that the 3Rs are properly taught, the #1 objective of every state education system should be to produce Critically Thinking graduates. In other words, States should radically change their education systems from their current focus on teaching students WHAT to think, to instead teach them HOW to think. Since no State is currently doing that(!), this would revolutionize American education. (Note: presently less than ten States even mention Critical Thinking in their Mission statements!)

DOEd should put this as a condition for States to receive money from DOEd. In other words, unless a State can show that their K-12 education curricula is properly teaching students to be Critical Thinkers, they are not eligible for certain DOEd funds.

Recommendation #3 —

DOEd should take an unequivocal stand against age-inappropriate books being in K-12 school classes and libraries (e.g., see here and here). The fundamental problem is that the American Library Association (ALA) does not recognize the issue of age-appropriateness! DOEd has the power and authority to stand up against ALA — much more than most States do.

This idea is already societally accepted in the US. A good example is that the rating systems for movies and TV are based on age-appropriateness. The movie website says: “Established in 1968, the film rating system provides parents with the information needed to determine if a film is appropriate for their children.” Exactly the same thing applies to books being considered for K-12 schools!

To make a profound improvement in K-12 education, the Department should specify that they will not provide any certain DOEd funds to a State that does not have an enforced appropriate official written policy regarding the age-appropriateness of materials associated with their K-12 schools. [Towards that same end the Department should aggressively oppose legislation that undermines the concept of age-appropriateness — like this.]

Yes, I am fully aware that there are a multitude of other education-related issues — and several of them are significant (e.g., see here). The question is, if you only had five (5) minutes to speak to the DOEd Secretary, and were limited to your three (3) best recommendations, what would they be? These are my recommendations.

©2025   All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Johnson Races to Ready for Trump: ‘This Is an Around-the-Clock Operation Right Now’

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

While miles of fences and concrete barriers line the most iconic spots of the National Mall, there are other preparations underway for Donald Trump’s inauguration – well out of the public eye. As the city transforms into the best and most patriotic version of itself, Republicans are working well into the night on the most significant plans: what the first few days of the new administration will look like.

Under the Capitol dome, which is already draped in red-white-and-blue bunting, members are hurrying from meeting to meeting to cement their plans for the flurry of business that starts after Trump’s oath of office. For House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), it’s the culmination of months of work that started as early as last summer on the campaign trail, when it became obvious that the 45th president had the momentum he needed to win. The 100-days agenda is “very aggressive,” the Louisianan explained as far back as June. “Those days cannot get here soon enough,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

Now that the time has come, the speaker is focused on one thing: undoing the damage Joe Biden did to this country’s security, economy, families, and sovereignty. “We’re going to reverse some of the crazy things that this administration did in the areas of public policy,” he previewed to Perkins on Saturday. “All of that begins this month, so we’re excited and working steadily,” Johnson explained. “This is an around-the-clock operation right now, because we have to fix everything.”

Of course, as the speaker understands better than anyone, he’ll need every Republican on the same page to get a single piece of Trump’s agenda off the ground — something that’s proven, as recently as this month, to be a monumental task. The president-elect has tried to minimize some of that tension, bringing members of the House Freedom Caucus to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend to hash out some of the differences that threatened to torpedo Johnson’s reelection as speaker.

“Unity was a huge part of the meeting,” one of the Republicans confirmed. “I think that kind of team-building [and] camaraderie is really important,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) explained to Politico, “because we have a heavy lift in front of us.” Despite the bitter debates the fiscal hawks have had with leadership of late, Donalds reiterated, “It was really much more a fun, enjoyable dinner than a deep policy session.”

Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) explained to Perkins on Tuesday’s show, “We talked for several hours, as a matter of fact, late into the evening. But it was on border security. It was on crime. It’s how, quite frankly, the Biden administration has used the weapon of the pen [with] executive orders to attack and invade our country and undermine every working American day in and day out.”

One of the recurring themes has also been reconciliation — the process that allows Republicans to move two budget-related bills through the Senate with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes it takes to end debate on a proposal. Part of it, Ogles admitted, “is nerdy procedural stuff.” But to make the drastic changes Trump and the American people demand, it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle moving into next week. Right now, there’s disagreement among the GOP over whether the party should bundle all of their major policy goals like tax cuts and border security into one “big, beautiful bill,” as Trump is urging, or two. But there’s also legitimate concern that the president-elect’s strategy might open the door to more spending waste.

Several GOP members of the Senate and House Freedom Caucus are urging the White House to split the priorities into two reconciliation bills (which is the maximum number a majority can advance each fiscal year) so that nothing sneaks into the legislation that derails them.

“You know, Donald Trump is strategic,” Ogles pointed out. “I think he wants to deliver some quick wins for the American people. The election was a mandate to secure the border, to, again, attack crime, to get these folks [who] are illegally. We know we have murderers here. We know we have terrorists here. We need to go find them. We need to deport them. We need to get them out of our country. And so with that, I think organically there’s the opportunity or perhaps even the likelihood that this could end up being two separate bills, because the larger [it is] … the more complicated it becomes, and the more difficult it will be to pass and the longer it will take to pass.” He suggested that if Trump delivers “a smaller bill, then follow[s] up with tax policy,” it will be easier to get done. “We can make sure Donald Trump has a successful 100 days and delivers a secure border for the American people.”

The speaker, who’s been careful to follow Trump’s lead, emphasized that Republicans might disagree on the process, but they do agree on the “overall objectives.” “The debate has been about the sequencing,” he explained to Perkins. “And when we say one large reconciliation bill, that is the best chance that we have to get all of these initiatives done.” As he explained, the House has less room for error than the Senate. “We have a smaller margin. For the first time in U.S. history, there are more Republicans by way of margin in the Senate than there [are] in the House. So they can lose three votes on any given measure, and I can only lose one or two.” In other words, he said, “I have 150 more personalities to deal with and get on the same page.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has a similar problem — but fewer cats to herd. What matters, the speaker insisted, is that he and Thune have a great relationship. “We’ve been talking about this very thoughtfully and deliberately. There’s a handful of [Republican] senators — I wouldn’t say all of them — [who] are very adamant that we ought to do two bills in the House. We believe one bill is the best way.”

The reason, he went on, is simple. “[W]hat they want to do is take some of the border measures and maybe defense spending and do that right out of the blocks very early in January and then leave the larger piece, which is the tax extension of the tax cuts and some of the other very complicated things that we’ve got to do, on a larger package. The problem is, if you take the border and defense spending off of the larger package, those things are very popular among Republicans. And that’s kind of the anchor to get the harder things done. So there’s a risk in splitting them up. I’ve explained that to President Trump in detail. And as of today, now, I think he very much agrees with what I’m saying. And I think he told that to the senators when he met with them this week.”

Ogles and his colleagues do understand the need to get something substantial done in the first 100 days. “And so, understanding how the sausage gets made up here by putting border security with some strategic cuts together in a package, again addressing the debt ceiling, we can move quickly — much more quickly than we can if everything is in there,” he countered. “And then, quite frankly, once you have one ‘big, beautiful bill,’ it ends up typically getting filled up with a bunch of nonsense and pork,” which the hardline conservatives won’t tolerate. But again, the Tennessee congressman underscored, “I think we’ve got to cut where we can cut. Look, we can’t cut our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to grow our way out of this mess. But every cut, every penny, every dollar matters.”

One thing that both sides can agree on is that “we’ve got to change the way this town operates,” Ogles insisted. “[O]ne of the successes we had with this when Mike Johnson was elected — and I was one of the individuals that helped whip those final votes and get him across the finish line — is that you can’t do suspension bills the last day right before you fly out. Because what ends up happening is they put some junk bill together. They sweeten it for the Democrats, and they pass it with a majority of Democrat votes. You can’t do that anymore,” he argued. “You can only do a suspension bill on a Monday or Tuesday.”

Again, he acknowledged, “It’s nerdy. Most people don’t understand why that’s important. But what it does is it stops this town from running over the American people. And so, day in and day out, what we’re trying to do is fix how this place operates.” And yes, “One big, beautiful bill might seem great, but when you understand everything that gets thrown in there, it’s really counterintuitive to the mandate that the American people delivered to Donald Trump and to Congress to fix this country.”

Whatever form the reconciliation strategy takes, Johnson reminded viewers, “We work in the greatest deliberative body in, really, the history of the world. And we get the opportunity [in] the extraordinary moment in history that we’re in, to hold that thing together. … And I can tell you, the Republicans in the House and the Senate are very excited right now.”

At the end of the day, the speaker underscored, “God is the one that raises up those in authority. Scripture is very clear about that. And so with that great responsibility, there are a lot of things that come along with that. And so, I’m encouraging my colleagues to remember that, to keep our perspective. We don’t grasp these gavels or hold on to these titles with any sense of pride or anything else. This is a this is a moment of service. And it is a sacrifice,” and no matter what happens, “we ought to regard it that way.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Mike Pence is a gutless servant of the global Luciferian death cult who claims to be ‘pro-life’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

ABC News and multiple other media outlets are reporting today that former Vice President Mike Pence, who did not endorse or support President-elect Donald Trump during the 2024 election cycle, has come out in opposition to Trump’s choice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Pence cited Kennedy’s past support for abortion as the reason for his opposition. This, despite RFK Jr.’s recent pledge to continue the pro-life policies of Trump’s first term, such as cutting off taxpayer funding to groups that finance abortion procedures, and ending the Biden policy of forcing pro-life healthcare providers to participate in abortions against their conscience.

According to pro-life Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, Kennedy “committed to me to reinstate President Trump’s pro-life policies at HHS. He told me he believes there are far too many abortions in the US and that we cannot be the moral leader of the free world with abortion rates so high.”

Yet, Pence said in a statement that choosing Kennedy is a departure from what he framed as the Trump-Pence administration’s general opposition to abortion access.

Pence wrote:

“I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of Pro-Life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.”

HERE’S MY TAKE on Mr. Pence:

This is all smoke and mirrors. I don’t’ believe Pence’s rejection of RFK Jr. has anything to do with abortion or being pro life and here’s why.

This is Pence being Pence. He’s grandstanding. His rejection of Kennedy has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with the fact that Bobby Kennedy opposes everything that Pence stands for, with regard to pandemic lockdowns, forced masking and vaxing, allowing Big Pharma to have its way with deadly experimental treatments, and Big Agriculture to continue poisoning our food and water.

In short, Mike Pence is a creature of the establishment and the military-industrial-biosecurity complex that feeds the international beast system.

Pence has never pushed against the system in his entire political career. As governor of Indiana, when he was threatened with boycotts by those bringing big sporting events to his state, he caved and allowed the transgenderization of public bathrooms.

And, in point of fact, Pence’s own record on issues of life is sketchy at best. Because being pro-life involves more than just being against abortion.

Pence supports the mRNA death shots. He supports giving unfettered legal protection to vaccine manufacturers even as more of their toxic vaccines are pumped into our children, nearly 100 injections by the time they reach the age of 18. That’s why we are seeing so much autism and heart issues in children. How is that being pro-life?

Pence is also a neocon warmonger. He has over the years wholeheartedly supported using U.S. military power to intervene in foreign wars that have taken the lives of thousands of young men and women for absolutely no valid national security reason.

Did the war in Iraq make America safer?

Did the war in Afghanistan make us any safer?

How about the war in Ukraine? Has it made us more secure? Quite the opposite.

But these wars have killed a lot of people, including women and children and elderly civilians, not to mention thousands of Americans in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mike Pence is a hypocrite. In some ways, he’s the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. He wears his Christianity on his sleeve but applies his Christian principles selectively.

Call me old school. But in my book, that’s called a coward.

The fact that the corrupt corporate media outlets still run to Mike Pence to publish his irrelevant opinions should tell us everything about the man.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Please visit LeoHohmann.com — Investigative reporting on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.

Think TikTok’s Bad? Check Out The Latest Chinese App Driving American Kids Wild

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

If you thought TikTok was bad, just wait until you hear about RedNote.

As the Supreme Court weighs the future of TikTok, teen girls obsessed with the app aren’t taking any chances. They’ve already begun to migrate to another Chinese psyop, a new social media app endearingly called “RedNote.”

The real name of the app is Xiaohongshu, and it’s widely popular in China with 300 million users. That translates literally to “Little Red Book” — a nod to the pamphlet of Mao Zedong quotes widely distributed during China’s Cultural Revolution — but it was shortened by American teens to simply, “RedNote.”

The app is culturally very Chinese, so it’s no surprise that it never caught on with Americans. But with TikTok’s fate hanging in the balance, US mobile downloads tripled over the past week, CNN reported. That’s more than 700,000 Americans about to get obliterated by Chinese propaganda (to say nothing of the data vulnerability). TikTok at least has a patina of Americanism; RedNote is straight-up, well — Red.

“Our government is out of their minds if they think we’re going to stand for this TikTok ban,” one seemingly American user said in a RedNote video message, which has racked up more than 45,000 likes. “We’re just going to a new Chinese app, and here we are.”

Of course, the numbers could very well be manipulated here. It plays to China’s advantage to make it appear as though American teens have a love affair with China over their own government. So in a mutual show of cultural respect, Chinese users are reportedly helping these “TikTok refugees” learn to navigate the app. One Chinese tech analyst told CNN that the potential TikTok ban “unexpectedly created one of the most organic forms of cultural exchange between the US and China we’ve seen in recent years.”

That’s surely what China would like you to believe, but the truth remains to be seen. However, for any American who simply can’t resist this Chinese entrapment, perhaps they should consider changing their allegiances more permanently. I’ve heard China is lovely this time of year.

AUTHOR

Gage Klipper

Commentary and analysis writer.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s First Big Test Could Make Or Break His First 100 Days

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

House Girls’ Sports Vote Exposes Democrats as Unrepentant Extremists

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The House bill to protect girls’ sports wasn’t remarkable for passing — it passed last year. What was remarkable is what the vote says about Democrats. In the first big test of whether Joe Biden’s party had learned its election lessons, the answer was a shocking and resounding “no.”

Every Democrat but two — Texas Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar — ignored the rallying cry of November 5 and stood stubbornly on the side of radical transgenderism, leaving our nation’s daughters vulnerable to injury, lost privacy, and stolen innocence.

Perhaps the most astonishing detractor of Rep. Greg Steube’s (R-Fla.) Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act was Massachusetts’s Rep. Seth Moulton (D), who spent the better part of November fending off the Left’s mob after he had the audacity to agree with 72% of Americans that biological boys don’t belong on girls’ teams, in their locker rooms, or atop their podiums. The Marine veteran spoke frankly and refreshingly about his party’s wildly out-of-step views on transgenderism after the election, declaring, “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

Turns out, he wasn’t afraid to say it — he was afraid to defend it. Proving that his party is still wearing an “ideological straitjacket,” as Moulton called it last year, less than 1% of Democrats sided with parents on an issue that most of us still can’t believe is an issue at all. “One of the most common-sense bills that we’ve had is the bill that says men cannot play in women’s sports,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. Not a single Democrat supported the legislation when it was brought up in 2023, but that was before the GOP’s nationwide ad blitz outing the Left’s obsession with biological men in girls’ spaces.

And yet, even in deep blue states like New York, 66% of locals are demanding an end to this transgender madness — just a handful of points shy of the national average. “We all know that New York is a liberal state, so this tells you that this should not be a liberal, conservative or Democrat and Republican issue,” state Senator George Borrelo (R) insisted.

Now, Moulton, who was prematurely anointed as a voice of reason among Democrats, claims the bill is “too extreme.” “I’ve stated my belief that our party has failed to come to the table in good faith to debate an issue on which the vast majority of Americans believe we are out of touch,” the congressman told The Washington Post. “We should be able to discuss regulations for trans athletes in competitive sports, while still staunchly defending the rights of transgender Americans to simply exist without fear of danger or oppression. But instead, we’ve run away from the issue altogether. As a result, Republicans are in charge and continue to set the agenda with extremist bills like this.” As he once said to placate the party’s bosses, “I have nuanced views on these issues.”

Unfortunately for Moulton, voters’ views aren’t nuanced when it comes to defending the dignity and rights of women. If political expedience was the goal, this liberal failed miserably. He stood up to the bullies — then surrendered to them. And while not every constituent would have agreed with him, they’d have at least respected Moulton for going to bat for what he thought was right. Now he’s just another weak-kneed Democrat under the thumb of an inflexible, intolerant party. A fraud. In the words of incomparable Senator John Kennedy (R-La.), maybe it’s time to go to Amazon and buy a spine.

“I remember when Rep. Moulton was more concerned with what was best for his daughters than what his party thought. I wish this year’s Rep. Moulton could meet November 2024 Rep. Moulton and catch some of 2024 Seth Moulton’s courage,” FRC’s Quena González told The Washington Stand. “The flimsy reasons he gave for voting today against protecting women is hogwash. All obfuscation aside, there’s a word for not standing up to your little girls — it’s called moral cowardice. And there’s a word for not standing up on an issue that you concede lost your party the last election — it’s called electoral insanity.”

While it would be easy to get lost in the Democrats’ suicidal tendencies, the reality is, House Republicans did do what the country demanded — moving this crucial bill one step closer to reality. Doreen Denny, who, like many conservatives, has been waiting for the day when reason would prevail in Congress, celebrated with The Washington Stand that “the overwhelming mandate of the November election is getting results on Capitol Hill.” Denny, the senior advisor for Concerned Women for America, applauded the GOP majority “for standing for women.” “Now,” she urged, “it’s time for the Senate to get this bill across the finish line.”

But even Denny couldn’t help but shake her head at the asinine, self-defeating strategy of the Left. “Today’s vote could have been a turning point for bipartisanship on this issue,” she told TWS. “Instead, only two Democrats voted in favor of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. What a shame. It proves radical special interest groups promoting the trans agenda continue to have a death grip on the Democratic Party.”

The bill’s sponsor, Greg Steube, is flabbergasted that all but two members are willing to gamble on a proposal that has almost three-quarters of the country’s support. “This is going to be an election issue for them in two years,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.” “Maybe they think that two years is a long time from now. But we saw this as an election issue just a couple of months ago during the presidential race. … This is an overwhelmingly supported issue across America. So it is very shocking. … But it just shows you how out of touch Democrats are with the majority of America.”

Asked to speculate why Joe Biden’s party refuses to line up behind biological reality and fairness, the Florida Republican says it all comes down to fear. “The bottom line is, politically, they’re afraid of their left flank. And if a progressive Democrat comes along and fights them on this issue, the far Left of their party will root out any type of reason on these issues.”

And not only that, Steube argued, they’ll use lies to do it. Perkins pointed to Democrat Ayanna Pressley’s (Mass.) string of falsehoods on the House floor before the vote. “Imagine you are eight years old, trying out for the soccer team, and your coach demands that you show them your genitals. That is abuse. That is exploitation. That is egregious. But it is exactly what this Republican bill does.” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) went so far as to say the proposal would “unleash predators on girls,” without, as Fox News points out, explaining how.

Look, Steube countered, “None of this that they’re arguing is ever going to happen. It’s a lie. It’s to try to enrage people [to think], ‘Oh, that’s horrible,’ and ‘Republicans are bad.’ … And the mainstream media is going to perpetuate that lie. It’s just unfortunate … [because] the bill is very short. It’s like a page and a half or two pages or whatever it is. Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me. But that’s exactly what it [says]: the gender you were assigned biologically at birth will determine what sport you play.”

Understanding the pressure they must have faced, others, like González, applauded the two members who defected to support the bill. “The Congressional Hispanic Caucus still refuses to admit Republicans,” he pointed out to TWS. “It sounds like at least two Democrats realize that, on the policy of protecting little girls, most Democrats are out of step with actual Hispanics. I guess Latinos aren’t Latinxs after all,” he quipped. “Who knew?”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Mark Zuckerberg Bows to ‘Free Speech’: But Will This Be Real Change or Mere Illusion?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Over the past several years, Facebook has quietly sidelined millions of conservative voices. At Christian Action Network, we’ve experienced this firsthand.

For the last year, our Facebook fan page hovered around 29,000 followers, yet our posts only reached an average of 108 people in 2024. That’s a far cry from pre-2016 days when many posts would attract thousands of viewers.

Now, Mark Zuckerberg has announced a grand gesture to return Facebook (and its sister platforms) to the “roots” of free expression—abandoning fact-checkers, restoring political content to user timelines, and pivoting to a community-based approach like X’s Community Notes.

The question is: Is this truly a sea change, or merely a cosmetic fix aimed at appeasing the new administration and big-name conservative leaders?

Our Facebook Story: From Booming to Ghost Town

Prior to 2016, our conservative commentary frequently reached thousands of followers. An average post might be shared dozens of times, with comment threads multiplying by the hour.

By 2024, Facebook had become a digital ghost town for us—despite having nearly the same audience size.

We’re not alone.

Many lesser-known conservative voices report experiencing so-called “shadow bans” or algorithmic suppression. While big names like Donald Trump or Ben Shapiro make headlines when they’re censored or reinstated, small organizations slip by unnoticed—like the quiet kid in gym class who nobody thinks to pick for dodgeball.

So, when Zuckerberg proclaims a new era of free speech, my first reaction is: Will smaller conservative Pages actually see change—or will we remain invisible as ever?

Zuckerberg’s Big Announcement

Headlines dominated the news earlier this month when Zuckerberg released a five-minute video promising major changes to Facebook, Instagram, and even Threads:

  • · Scrapping Fact-Checkers
    Citing their “bias” and “complexity,” Meta plans to ditch third-party fact-checkers in favor of a community-based system that flags misleading information—presumably hoping a digital “village watch” is less biased than a handful of full-time hall monitors.
  • · Political Content is Back
    The platforms will once again emphasize political and civic content in users’ timelines, with the option to customize how much (or how little) you see.
  • Simplifying Content Policies
    Zuckerberg claims Meta will remove onerous restrictions around issues like immigration and gender, recognizing these are mainstream debates that people (shockingly) like to have.

On the surface, that all sounds great. Who wouldn’t want a level playing field for robust political discourse?

But the timing is suspicious.

It comes right on the heels of President-elect Trump’s victory—amid rumors of million-dollar donations from Zuckerberg to Trump’s inaugural fund, dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and newly appointed conservative-friendly board members and positions.

Is this a sincere shift in how Facebook will moderate speech, or merely an attempt to stay on the good side of the incoming administration?

Will This Actually Help Lesser-Known Voices?

If history is any guide, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) tends to favor large-scale, splashy gestures—while quietly preserving the algorithms that stifle smaller organizations.

It’s easy to restore access to someone like Donald Trump (who generates headlines and millions of views). But will local churches, grassroots nonprofits, and modest-sized conservative Pages actually see their organic reach go from 108 back up to thousands?

Algorithms are tricky.

No matter how transparent Zuckerberg claims Facebook will be, it’s often near-impossible to pinpoint why one post thrives and another fails.

Think of it like the Bermuda Triangle of social media: posts go in, never to be seen again, and we’re left scratching our heads as to what happened.

A new “community notes” feature might be less overtly biased than old-school fact-checkers, but it could also be weaponized. Coordinated groups could mass-flag content they dislike, burying conservative viewpoints under “misleading” warnings.

Zuckerberg insists this move is about going back to Facebook’s original purpose: connecting people and encouraging free expression.

Yet, the cynic in me can’t ignore how often Facebook’s policies follow the political wind.

In 2019–2020, Democrats and mainstream media hammered social platforms for “allowing misinformation,” prompting Facebook to impose heavier censorship. Now, with a more conservative White House emerging, the pendulum swings back to “free speech”?

Forgive me if I’m getting whiplash.

A Troubling Track Record

Facebook’s admission that it demoted the Hunter Biden laptop story leading up to the 2020 election is just one example of how the platform has been swayed by political pressure.

Zuckerberg even claimed the FBI pressured Facebook to censor “potential Russian disinformation,” which turned out to be legitimate reporting.

More recently, Facebook revealed that the Biden administration threatened the company to remove so-called “COVID misinformation,” including satire.

Zuckerberg now calls that pressure “wrong,” insisting Meta won’t repeat that mistake. But again, is that contrition genuine—or the result of looming legal or political risks?

A Free Speech Warrior? Or a Political Opportunist?

Zuckerberg dined with President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago and donated $1 million to his inaugural fund, signaling a complete reversal of their past relationship.

Could these overtures be about Meta protecting itself from Section 230 reform and potential antitrust battles?

After all, when the wolves are at your door, offering them a seat at the dinner table can be a strategic move.

With the threat of regulation ever-present, Meta needs to keep Washington on its side—especially if the next administration is determined to crack down on Big Tech. Restoring conservative voices is one way to appear balanced and avoid the scalpel.

Even if shadow-banning become rarer, quiet algorithmic suppression can continue indefinitely. We may never know exactly why certain content is shown to only 100 people out of 29,000 followers.

Waiting for Proof in the Pudding (or the Analytics)

At Christian Action Network, we’ll be watching our Page’s analytics closely over the next few months. If our reach doesn’t budge, that’s a glaring sign this “free speech pivot” was more about polishing Meta’s halo than about helping our posts actually see the light of day.

Rather than throw in the towel, though, we plan to keep posting regularly—and sharing direct data on post reach—in case the platform really does start honoring the “back to our roots” promise. Plus, encouraging our followers to like, comment, and share might help crack the algorithmic code… or at least annoy the censors enough to notice us.

We’re Still Skeptical But Staying Hopeful

It’s tempting to hope Zuckerberg’s latest announcement signals a true renaissance of free expression on Facebook. It would be a boon for countless smaller conservative platforms like ours that have been pushed to the margins.

But skepticism is warranted.

Is this new policy just a showpiece designed to placate influential conservatives, while everyone else continues to suffer soft suppression and shadow banning?

Only time—and data—will tell.

As we track post reach, engagement, and the tenor of “community notes,” we’ll find out if this “back to our roots” promise truly means something for everyday conservative voices or remains a top-level concession to placate a new era in American politics.

Either way, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

We’ll keep sharing our content and letting you know exactly how the platform responds.

If there’s one positive takeaway, it’s that the conversation around free speech and Big Tech is finally happening out in the open— —and maybe, just maybe, “nerd rule” will give way to genuine public discourse.

If not? Well, we’ll always have memes.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is president of the Christian Action Network, which he founded in 1990. Located in Lynchburg, VA, CAN was formed as a non-profit educational organization to protect America’s religious and moral heritage. He is the author of several books, including You Are Chosen: Prepare to Triumph in a Fallen World.

©2024 . All rights reserved.

Please visit the Majority Report substack.

Jihadists celebrate California Wildfires

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Jihadist social media accounts have been ablaze with incitement and celebration of the California wildfires. In one such case, a pro-ISIS jihadist TikTok account posted a graphic showing a man carrying a firebomb against the red backdrop with a wildfire burning. 

NEWSMAX — The fires have burned more than 40,000 acres.

The graphic shows Arabic writing that roughly translates into English as “The time is now.” The following scene shows a burned-out section of Los Angeles with lyrics that say in Arabic, “O what victory for whoever gains martyrdom honestly, his sins will be wiped away as his blood spills and the flowers are perfumed by its scent, and his wounds will smell like musk.”

Islamic terrorists typically post songs called nasheeds that are paired with images of violent acts on social media. They often serve as a sign for sleeper cells to go into action. This was the case prior to the ISIS attacks in France a decade ago.

“Your blood will flow for your heinous crimes.” Videos like these define a conflict (between Islam and the West or between Islam and hypocrites or apostates), place blame, and evoke moral outrage toward enemies,” the Carter Center noted in a report on ISIS terrorism.

“Such scenes are designed to convince individuals who experienced the conflict firsthand as well as those Daesh propaganda seeks to reinforce a simplistic but emotionally satisfying division of the world into two camps — good and evil. All people are subsumed under this division; no gray zone can remain. They demand explicit action on behalf of the audience: Join the fight.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Los Angeles office (ATF) noted in a post on X that it was investigating a possible arson cause for the fires.

“ATF will take the lead in determining the origin and cause of the Pacific Palisades fire. Certified fire investigators have been on scene and will continue to work in conjunction with state and local investigators to determine the cause of this tragic event,” the statement said.

Jihadists have discussed using wildfires as a form of terrorist activity for years. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) told how lone jihadists could set wildfires in the Western U.S. in Issue #9 of its Inspire Magazine in 2012.

The article titled “It is of your freedom to ignite a firebomb” written by the anonymous “AQ Chef” discussed the massive amount of property damage that could happen if jihadists used firebombs. It encouraged jihadis to pray to Allah and to find wooded areas with large amounts of dry undergrowth and in areas that have high winds. The issue went into detail how to build firebombs.

Los Angeles has both.

“The burning of hundreds of hectares of wood that is used in wooden commercial products causes significant losses to the factories and companies of wooden products and everything that is linked to this trade. Especially when the cause of fire is deliberate and organized frequently. That means the continuity of loss. It also means more losses for insurance companies,” Inspire said. “… [T]he most important damaging result that is the spreading of terror among the targeted community.”

ISIS similarly urged its supporters to create wildfires in California in 2020.

Satellite images show that three fires began simultaneously.

Jihadist involvement in setting some of the fires has yet to be determined.

Several individuals were arrested and were believed to have committed arson in connection with the fires.

A man was arrested in the Woodland Hills section of Los Angeles Thursday after being observed carrying a blowtorch. California State Parks officials similarly announced Friday the arrest of a female suspect on suspicion she was involved in arson.

Police detained a man identified as Ruben Montes on Sunday after he was observed lighting fires in Irwindale.

Accounts from across the Muslim world celebrated the fires saying they were punishment for American support for Israel.

Khalid Griggs, imam of the Community Mosque at Winston-Salem and a leader of the Islamic Circle of North America, posted an image on his Facebook profile comparing the Los Angeles wildfires with Gaza.

5Pillars, a British Islamist site, similarly celebrated the fires saying they were divine retribution for Gaza.

“Whilst I feel for the innocents who have lost their homes, and am not suggesting that all those who have been affected deserved it, I can’t help but view these wildfires as a general lesson for us all, from Allah SWT,” 5Pillars writer Maria Akbar wrote.

“It was Israel, backed by the U.S., that set Gaza alight with their bombs and rockets; and now LA is being set alight by the Almighty.”

The article continued, “The Israelis/Americans destroyed buildings, homes and businesses in Gaza; now the same is happening in LA. Everything people worked for, their livelihoods, memories, lives, has been destroyed in an instant.”

Although terrorism has yet to be established with California wildfires the celebration and calls for incitement by Islamist accounts could be a warning for the future.

One individual in Cairo was representative of countless other accounts saying, “America is incapable of putting out fires and needs your prayers. O Allah, rain gasoline on 95 on them,” wrote Mahmoud R Nasr, a participant in an Islamist Facebook group.

Other accounts show AI-generated images of downtown Los Angeles in flames.

Pro-Taliban accounts celebrated the wildfires on social media.

“Taliban media activists happy about the terrible fire on American soil Afghan Taliban media activists have expressed their joy over the Los Angeles fires by launching a campaign. This is while the Taliban regime receives cash from American taxpayers every week,” Aamaj News, an Afghan news account loyal to the former government of Afghanistan, said.

AUTHOR

JOHN ROSSOMANDO

John Rossomando is an experienced national security and counterterrorism analyst and researcher who writes for Newsmax and has been featured in numerous publications and has been consulted by numerous U.S. government agencies.

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael News Desk column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.