The Synodal Church of “Me, Myself, and I”

/in , , , , , , , /by

Fr. Gerald E. Murray: A Church in which each person recognizes himself in his personally curated set of beliefs, may promise satisfaction. But it’s a make-believe, delusional religion of self-worship.

The Instrumentum Laboris [IL] (Working Document) for the October Synod on Synodality, released June 20, embodies the now familiar pattern seen in the various stages of the synodal process. Certain questions are asked, others are ignored, predictable answers are given, and expectations are raised that a new Church, the Holy Spirit-inspired Synodal Church, will emerge in which everyone will feel seen, recognized, welcomed, accepted, accompanied, cared for, listened to, valued, not judged, and so on. “[A] synodal Church is open, welcoming and embraces all. . .[t]he radical call is, therefore, to build together, synodally, an attractive and concrete Church: an outgoing Church, in which all feel welcome.”

The motto for this new Synodal approach could easily be “People, not Doctrines, Я Us.” This emotion-centered focus is the template for the hoped-for “soft” revolution in the Church in which Catholic doctrines that contradict decadent Western sexual mores and radical feminist claims of oppression in the Church are framed as obsolete, regrettable, and needless sources of discord and alienation, as holdovers from a cruel past. These doctrines, of course, need to be jettisoned, lest anyone feel unwelcome.

At the press conference presenting the IL, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, General Rapporteur for the October General Assembly, responded to this question from Diane Montagna: “[In the IL] two questions are asked: How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt and unwelcomed by the community feel recognized, received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.) Isn’t the only possible answer to these questions that, for these people to feel accepted, the Church must change her teaching on the inherent immorality of any use of the sexual faculty outside of a lifelong and exclusive monogamous union of one man and one woman?”

Hollerich’s response reveals why this Synodal process is a disaster that is bringing great damage and sorrow to the Church: “We do not speak about the Church’s teaching. That is not our task and not our mission. We just speak to welcome everybody who wants to walk with us. That is something different.”

Different indeed. Proclaiming Catholic doctrine is not the Synod’s task or mission? What is the mission then? The IL states that the Synod “represents an opportunity to walk together as a Church capable of welcoming and accompanying, accepting the necessary changes in rules, structures and procedures. The same applies to many other issues that emerge in the discussion threads.”

Among the “issues that emerge,” contested Catholic doctrines will undoubtedly be unfavorably scrutinized and found wanting by those in favor of “accepting the necessary changes.”

The IL observes that:

[s]ome of the questions that emerged from the consultation of the People of God concern issues on which there is already magisterial and theological teaching to be considered. To give just two examples, we can note the acceptance of remarried divorcees. . .or the inculturation of the liturgy. . . .The fact that questions continue to emerge on issues like these should not be hastily dismissed, rather, it calls for discernment, and the Synodal Assembly is a privileged forum for so doing. In particular, the obstacles, real or perceived, that have prevented the steps indicated by previous documents from being realized should be considered and reflections offered on how they can be removed. . . .If, on the other hand, the problem stems from the difficulty of grasping the implications of the documents in ordinary situations or an inability of persons to recognize themselves in what is proposed, a synodal journey of effective reception by the People of God could be the appropriate response. Another instance could be the reappearance of a question which emerges as a sign of a changed reality or situations where there is a need for an “overflow” of Grace. This requires further reflection on the Deposit of Faith and the living Tradition of the Church.

Is the judgment of the truth of Catholic teaching dependent upon everyone’s ability “to recognize themselves in what is proposed”? What does the concept of “effective reception by the people of God” mean? Who decides that there is a “changed reality or situations” that “requires” what is euphemistically called “further reflection on the Deposit of Faith and the living Tradition of the Church?” What is an “overflow” of grace? Does it mean “going beyond” what has always been taught by the Church?

In the new synodal Church it is the people who instruct the bishops on the meaning of the Faith: “Since consulting the local Churches is an effective way to listen to the People of God, the Pastors’ discernment takes on the character of a collegial act that can authoritatively confirm what the Spirit has spoken to the Church through the People of God’s sense of faith.”

Indeed, the Synodal Assembly’s “task will be to open the whole Church to welcome the voice of the Holy Spirit.” What if a bishop does not go along with a supposed manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s will, expressed through the voice of the people? The IL responds with these revealing questions: “How can we deal constructively with cases in which those in authority feel they cannot confirm the conclusions reached by a community discernment process, taking a decision in a different direction? What kind of restitution should that authority offer to those who participated in the process?” Restitution? Will a bishop owe some form of reparation to a group of advisors when he disagrees with their advice?

The IL does not want such uncooperative behavior on the part of bishops to happen: “in order not to remain merely a paper exercise or to be wholly dependent on the goodwill of individuals [read here: bishops], co-responsibility in the mission deriving from Baptism must take on concrete structural forms. Adequate institutional frameworks are therefore necessary, along with spaces in which community discernment can be practiced on a regular basis. This should not be read as a demand for a redistribution of power, but the need for the effective exercise of co-responsibility that flows from Baptism.”

Really? It is blatantly such a demand.

The IL lists topics that have come up in the various stages of synodal consultations. Included are: war, climate change, “an economic system that produces exploitation, inequality and a throwaway culture,” cultural colonialism, religious persecution, “aggressive secularization,” sexual abuse and “the abuse of power, conscience and money.”

It’s striking that abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the spread of atheism, relativism, subjectivism, religious indifference, gender ideology, the redefinition of marriage in the laws of many Western states, coercive programs to impose contraception in the global south are not listed. Neither are the crises regarding sacramental practice in the Church today: the steep decline in Mass attendance, the practical disappearance of sacramental confession in many places, the decline in baptisms, confirmations and marriages, and the serious decline in the number of priestly ordinations in the Western world. Did none of these topics surface during the lead-up to the Synodal Assembly in October?

Nowhere do we find any mention of the Church’s paramount mission: the salvation of souls. There is not a hint that what is most important in the life of the Church is the preaching of God’s gift of eternal life, Christ’s call to conversion and repentance.

The IL also calls for an “effort to renew the language used by the Church in its liturgy, preaching, catechesis. . .[without] demeaning or debasing the depth of the mystery that the Church proclaims or the richness of its tradition, the renewal of language must aim instead to make these riches accessible and attractive to the men and women of our time, rather than an obstacle that keeps them at a distance.”

The expression “renew the language” here is plainly a calming euphemism for “change the words and thus the meaning” of contested teachings. What keeps some people “at a distance” from the teaching of the Church is not the supposedly incomprehensible words that are used, but rather the well-understood meaning of those words, which meaning they simply do not accept.

This calls to mind the effort underway to remove this teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC]: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (#2357)

The IL states that “the final documents of the Continental Assemblies often mention those who do not feel accepted in the Church, such as the divorced and remarried, people in polygamous marriages, or LGBTQ+ Catholics.” As we saw above, the IL follows up with this question: “How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognized, received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?”

The use of the acronym LGBTQ+ is wrong; it gives the mistaken impression that the Church teaches that God created distinct categories of human beings with the intention that they would engage in sexual acts that are non-procreative, or would be trapped in the wrong body, or whatever + stands for.

The trendy conceit of “creating spaces” for people who reject various teachings of the Church gives the impression that they are not “safe” whenever they are reminded that their behavior is immoral according to God’s law. Is being hurt by the truth a problem? Is not such pain a purifying moment, a grace from God, who challenges us to examine ourselves according to the demands of his law, and not according to our own often mistaken choices? People who reject the Church’s teaching may claim to be unwelcomed by fellow believers. It is not they who are rejected, but rather it is their immoral behavior that is rightly stigmatized.

Why should the Church create a “space” where polygamists may feel “not judged?” The CCC teaches this about polygamy: “polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God, which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive.” (#2387)

What more is there to discuss?

The IL endorses the discontent of those women who want to be ordained to the diaconate: “Most of the Continental Assemblies and the syntheses of several Episcopal Conferences call for the question of women’s inclusion in the diaconate to be considered. Is it possible to envisage this, and in what way?” The Church has already studied this proposal, and rejected it as not being possible. The IL also issues a wider call for the inclusion of women in “governance, decision-making, mission, and ministries at all levels of the Church.” Why wasn’t the modifier “non-ordained” placed before the word ministries?

There is a call for a discussion to end mandatory celibacy for priests in the Latin Church: “As some continents propose, could a reflection be opened concerning the discipline on access to the Priesthood for married men, at least in some areas?” This persistent agitation for married priests seeks a result that would do grave damage to the mission of the Church as Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Robert Sarah demonstrated in their book From the Depths of Our Hearts.

The IL does issue this excellent warning: “There are forces at work in the world that oppose the mission of the Church, based on philosophical, economic and political ideologies that are founded on assumptions that are inimical to the faith.” Sadly, the IL reveals that those forces are also at work within the Church.

And the IL asks this important question: “How can the Churches remain in dialogue with the world without becoming worldly?” The clear answer is: remain faithful to Christ and his doctrine, especially when it is opposed by those who want to change various teachings of the Church in the name of making people feel welcomed and accepted.

The Church of “Me, Myself and I,” where each person recognizes himself in his personally curated set of beliefs, may promise satisfaction. In fact, it’s a make-believe, delusional religion of self-worship in which God is relegated to the role of the Divine Affirmer of whatever each one decides to believe. God spare us from such an outcome.

You may also enjoy:

Robert Royal’s Who Needs Synodality?

Brad Miner’s Homosexuality in Scripture

AUTHOR

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City. His new book (with Diane Montagna), Calming the Storm: Navigating the Crises Facing the Catholic Church and Society, is now available.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2023 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Alex Berenson: Tribune of Truth

/in , , , , , /by

Yale graduate, former reporter for the Denver Post, the New York Times and the author of best-selling espionage novels such as The Faithful Spy, Alex Berenson is no stranger to many readers. Yet Berenson’s struggle to bring sanity and truth to the Covid Crisis and to the ensuing lockdown of America merits considerably more attention and praise.

Those who followed Berenson’s almost daily postings on Substack.com could not help but be impressed with his evenhandedness in researching reams of Covid-related data coming from universities and from medical research facilities worldwide. He wanted to know the origins of Covid. How Covid is transmitted? Which countries were hit by Covid? Why did the malaria-ridden countries seem so immune to Covid?* Which treatments worked? Was natural immunity better than vaccines?

Initially, Berenson reached no conclusions, merely quoting from published studies and letting them speak for themselves. Yet for even daring to quote — without taking sides — from some studies suggesting that Covid was no more of a threat than the Flu or SARs and that draconian steps were not needed, Berenson started to be censored by social media and by the MSM.

Slowly, but inexorably, Berenson reached certain conclusions about Covid and the lockdown reactions to the virus and published them in Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over our Government, Rights, and Lives, 2021, and also Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns and Vaccines, Parts 1-3, 2021. Part 4 came later.

Consequently, Berenson became even more demonized by the MSM. So, how bad was it personally for the Berenson family? A recent vignette as told by Berenson is illustrative:

“Summer 2021, the Twitter-ban era: a friend of one of our kids came to our house to play. When they realized I – not my wife – was supervising, the child’s parents told us they were uncomfortable and would retrieve their kid immediately.

They weren’t joking. They arrived in minutes. They made a three-point turn in our driveway so they were facing out and wouldn’t spend any extra seconds close to me.

I watched their child run to their car, watched it disappear down the road, thinking: Now my kids are paying the price, too.”

Eventually, the truth behind Berenson’s reporting became all too evident.

Berenson continues: “Yesterday the mother of that child told me I’d been right about the lockdowns – and about Covid generally. The conversation wasn’t long, but it was long enough. 2020 and 2021 had been incredibly difficult, she said. She didn’t like how frightened she’d become, she hardly recognized the person she’d been…”

Failure to bend a knee to the Covid Cops cost many people their jobs. Vaccine-suspicious troops were summarily discharged, families were split apart and, worst of all, the Covid hysteria allowed partisan elected officials and bureaucrats to run roughshod over our normal safeguards against election fraud and they fixed the outcome of the 2020 elections to their liking.

*”I’d be dead from malaria if not for chloroquine & doxycycline,” tweeted Elon Musk on June 17, 2023.

Nota bene: Elon Musk’s live-saving, a-few-cents-a-day Covid treatment, AKA the HCQ Cocktail, was suggested early-on by President Trump and immediately trashed by Big Pharma and the MSM.

©2023. William Hamilton. All rights reserved.

Riley Gaines Demolishes Dems’ Trans Defense in the Senate’s ‘Protect Pride’ Hearing

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

Former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines was chased, threatened, and held hostage in a room for three hours while a mob of leftist students raged outside, but it’s trans-identifying “children” who are “in danger,” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told her. That was just one of the staggering statements made by Democrats in a Wednesday hearing full of phony victimhood. And judging by the Left’s desperation, they won’t be the last.

While Americans continue to put the hurt on pro-trans companies, Joe Biden’s party is right to worry that the script may have permanently flipped. In a nod to the defense the Left is now playing, the Senate Judiciary Committee hosted “Protecting Pride: Defending the Civil Rights of LGBTQ+ Americans” to sound the alarm on the shifting opinions of the country.

Some of the most dramatic moments centered around girls’ sports, where the Republicans’ witness, Gaines, expertly gutted the Left’s arguments. In an exchange with Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), she recounted the nightmare at San Francisco University earlier this year where students surrounded her and demanded a ransom “if I ever wanted to make it home to see my family again.” “I’m totally fine with people protesting,” she explained. “It’s their right to protest. But what I’m not fine with is when it does turn violent in the way that it did, because protesters afterwards, they rushed into the room, they turned off the lights, they rushed to the front. [We] were assaulted.”

Hawley acknowledged that the former NCAA All-American has been the target of “unbelievable amounts of abuse … intimidation, threats of violence.” He asked her to explain why. She said she believes it’s because she’s refused to take the erasure of women and girls lying down. “If we do speak up… they will call you everything under the sun — whether it’s transphobic, homophobic, racist, white supremacist, domestic terrorists. They will throw them all at you in hopes to deter you and hopes to silence you.”

For Gaines, who competed against male swimmer Lia Thomas, there was no other option. Apart from the injustice of competing — and losing — to a biological male, the things she and others were forced to endure in the locker room were demeaning and cruel.

“You were talking about just the incredible surprise, shall I say to put it gently, of finding a biological man, a 6-foot-4 biological man, in your locker room and having to accept that without being asked about it, without being told about it even,” Hawley said. “What was that like for you?”

Gaines explained that the girls “only became aware we would be undressing next to a man when we had to see a man undressing while we were simultaneously undressing.” An NCAA official told the women that Thomas was allowed because of a rule change that made the spaces “unisex.”

“And so I’m thinking to myself in these brief moments … you acknowledged that we do not share the same sex, first and foremost,” Gaines continued. “Secondly, unisex [means] any man could’ve walked into our locker room, any coach, any official, any man who wanted to would have had full reigns to and bare minimum we weren’t forewarned about it — and that’s the traumatizing part. Of course the experience in and of the locker room itself is traumatizing, but I think for me, it was so easy for them to dismiss our rights to privacy.”

Worse, she shared, Thomas’s teammates at the University of Pennsylvania “were forced every single week to go to mandatory LGBTQ education meetings to learn about how — just by being cisgender — they were oppressing Lia Thomas. They were told that they’re not allowed to take a stance because their school has already taken their stance for them. They were told, ‘You will never get a job,’ ‘You will never get into grad school,’ ‘You will lose your friends,’ ‘You will lose your scholarship and playing time if you speak out.’”

And yet, Durbin’s concern is not for America’s daughters, but for the trans-identifying children who might be listening. “When these young people, who are already struggling, hear … hateful rhetoric that denies their very existence, what message does it send?” he demanded to know.

Gaines took the senator head on. “… [M]y comeback to that is, what message does this send to women, to young girls, who are denied these opportunities? So easily, their rights to privacy and safety [are] thrown out the window to protect a small population, protect one group as long as they’re happy,” she said. “What about us? That is the overall general consensus of how we all felt in that locker room.”

Durbin didn’t answer her questions, instead firing back, “Since reference was made to my earlier statement, I would just like to add something for the record: There is no evidence that transgender athletes are an issue in certain levels of sports.”

Trans activist Kelley Robinson of the Human Rights Campaign tried — but failed — to give Durbin cover. When Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) asked the Democrats’ witness for an example of a woman playing in the NBA, Robinson replied with an incoherent answer about Serena Williams.

“There’s been this news article about men that think they can beat Serena Williams in tennis — that they think they can actually score a point on her,” Robinson said. “And it’s just not the case. She is stronger than them.”

Gaines immediately interjected, “Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd-ranked male tennis player.” As Breitbart pointed out, the swimmer was right. The famous sisters were both crushed by Karsten Braasch in 1998, who, at 31, was older than either of them.

More than a decade later, the world’s number one women’s player was open about the fact that women couldn’t measure up to men on the court. “So, if I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose, 6-0, 6-0, in 5 to 6 minutes, maybe 10 minutes,” Serena told David Letterman. When he disagreed, she shook her head. “No, it’s true. It’s a completely different sport. Men are a lot faster, and they serve harder and hit harder, it’s just a different game, and I only want to play girls, I don’t want to be embarrassed …”

And yet, four times Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked Robinson, “Do you believe there’s a difference between men and women?” Four times, the HRC chief refused to answer. “… [L]et me ask you this question then, why do women’s sports exist?” After all, Cruz said, “If you can’t find a difference between women and men, why not abolish women’s sports and just tell little girls to swim with little boys and see who wins?” Robinson replied that there were “many positive benefits to sports.”

Benefits, Gaines insists, that will vanish if the Democrats’ agenda succeeds. “Feminism is not a fluid term,” the swimmer insisted. And an overwhelming number of Americans agree. In an NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist poll released the same day as the hearing, 61% of the country — up 10% from May 2022 — agree “defining gender as the sex listed on a person’s original birth certificate is the only way to define male and female in society.”

“The original and the meaning of what it means to be a feminist is to uphold, respect, honor, embrace and celebrate women on our own physical ceilings, our own uniqueness.” No matter what the Left says, Gaines stressed. “That term has not changed.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

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

RELATED TWEET:

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

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

The PRC’s Rise is a Failure of American Presidential Leadership

/in , , , , , , /by

The foundation of the People’s Republic of China’s rapid growth was laid by Deng Xiaoping. Yet, it could not have been accomplished without U.S. support and cooperation. That the PRC is now the principal enemy of the United States and its challenger in all aspects of global politics is prima facie evidence of the failure of U.S. presidential leadership to prevent its rise.

The fundamental responsibility of every U.S. president was to defend the safety and national security of the United States. Since the end of World War II, the central objective of every U.S. president was to sustain what their predecessors had created. Then, having defeated one peer competitor, the Soviet Union, their obligation was to prevent the rise of another. It was an easier strategic task given the abject poverty and military weakness of the PRC. Thus, sustaining the status quo should have been a far easier task than generating U.S. victory in World War II and the defeat of the Soviets in the Cold War.

Yet they failed.

This failure compels an examination of why it occurred, and thus why post-Cold War U.S. presidents wasted what had been provided by previous generations. The buck stops with the U.S. presidents. During this period—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama squandered our earned advantage, before Trump attempted to reverse course, and now Joe Biden appears to be reversing Trump’s course correction.

An accounting begins with the recognition that presidential leadership regarding the PRC threat was absent in the aftermath of the Cold War. In fact, the U.S. aided the PRC’s rise through ever-greater volumes of trade and investment. While President Jimmy Carter granted Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status to Beijing in 1980, the PRC’s growth did not take off until Deng fully supported capitalism in the wake of his 1992 economic reforms. Two years later, President Clinton ended the need for MFN renewal on a yearly basis, which had been linked, at least, to improvements in the PRC’s atrocious human rights record. Clinton granted the PRC MFN status on a permanent basis and placed the PRC on the path towards membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The PRC then entered the West’s economic ecosystem. From that time, the PRC’s rise was rapid and added a new peer competitor.

A review of this history reveals there were four major inflection points in the post-Cold War period where the PRC might have been stopped.

First, from Clinton to Obama, the presidents never publicly communicated to the U.S. government inter-agency system that the PRC was a threat to U.S. national security or tasked the inter-agency process with addressing the threat while Beijing was still relatively weak. Clinton, Bush, and Obama never challenged the intelligence community about the evidence regarding the PRC as a growing threat. Neither did they task the national security council to analyze options for checking and countering the PRC’s rise.

Second, Clinton’s termination of linkage between MFN renewal and the PRC’s human rights record blunted the most effective tool we had for combatting the PRC. Leadership on U.S. trade policy might have been employed to hinder the PRC’s growth and, likewise, the CCP’s claim to legitimacy. This was especially evident in the wake of the 1995-1996 Taiwan Straits crisis. But even this crisis did not change Clinton’s policy. The influence from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the Chamber of Commerce adversely affected the U.S. political system, including during the first Clinton Administration when “coffees” provided Chinese money to influence U.S. politics before the 1996 election. This pecuniary and malign influence had a powerful impact on the U.S. domestic political system. It rapidly broadened to include both major political parties. As a result, the highest levels of U.S. government leadership developed pro-PRC engagement priorities.

Third, Bush’s nascent presidency was rocked by the April 2001 collision between a PRC fighter and an unarmed U.S. EP-3E reconnaissance aircraft which offered Bush the possibility of re-evaluating the Sino-American relationship due to the aggression evinced by the Chinese military. The horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks eliminated that possibility. In retrospect, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) viewed 9/11 as a windfall victory for the PRC as it distracted the United States—centering its strategic attention on the Middle East—away from the CCP’s agenda of expansion. Beijing took full advantage of that strategic preoccupation, with the active encouragement of many U.S. business partners, to achieve its present position as the peer competitor and main threat to the interests and position of the United States.

The major strategic consequence of 9/11 was that the United States did not move to reverse Clinton’s policy, it did not check Beijing’s rise when it might have done so at lower cost. The strategic myopia of the United States afforded the PRC a rare and priceless grand strategic gift in international politics: time that yielded freedom of action while the enemy was preoccupied. The results were to move from a relatively weak competitor to a great power, competitive rival without any effective resistance or counterbalancing from the United States. Indeed, just the reverse, unconstrained engagement with the PRC became the de facto U.S. foreign policy directive of this and future presidencies.

As a result, U.S. intellectual capital, investment, and outsourcing continued to flow to the PRC. Washington’s strategic nearsightedness permitted the PRC to change the status quo against the interests of the United States and its allies like Japan in the East and South China Seas, as well as greater belligerence toward a key partner like Taiwan.

Fourth, under Obama there was no change to the engagement strategy. In fact there was an expansion of this misguided strategy despite public proclamations of the administration’s “pivot to the Pacific.” The betrayal of the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal in 2012 single-handedly emboldened the PRC’s expansion in the South China Sea as Beijing realized it would receive no effective resistance from the Obama Administration. Despite a reversal during the Trump Administration, it now appears that the Biden Administration is returning to this failed and destructive agenda that has beset so many prior American presidencies.

As Deng planned, the PRC’s economic growth allowed it to establish new international economic institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), all of which laid the foundation for a new economic order. Beijing had time to spread its influence in Africa, Central and South Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America. In the military realm, the PRC augmented its conventional and strategic military capabilities, including in cyberspace and actual space, and in the development of hypersonic weapons. It created the world’s largest navy and generated the infrastructure to build and maintain that fleet. It also labored to professionalize its military and today has prepared it for combined, joint operations against the United States and its allies and partners like Taiwan.

The PRC acted boldly to solidify its impressive rise while the prime U.S. strategic focus was the war on terror in the Middle East and engagement with the PRC. Today the PRC is the most formidable peer competitor the United States has faced in its history. Whether China defeats the United States is the strategically dispositive question of the 21st century, but it is long past time that the United States recognizes the challenge and responds to it. Any response must acknowledge the historical record and the failure of presidential leadership, with the exception of Trump, to identify and defeat the threat.

Originally published by American Greatness

AUTHOR

Bradley Thayer

Director of China Policy.

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

Politicians Legitimize Islam

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

Never in the history of America has a group of power-hungry wolves, known as the Democrat Party, done so much damage to America. Establishment Republicans are not far behind!

Forms of Government

There are several different forms of government in the present world. One such form is Democracy. Democracy is supposed to be a form of government voted into power by the people to serve the best interests of the people. However, translating this superior ideal into reality is complicated and problematic. Yes, it is said that the voter is king in democracy. But this assertion is more of a slogan than a reality. What is left unsaid is that no country can have every voting citizen as king, only one king per country. Besides, in a true democracy, a king is only a symbolic figure with no significant executive or legislative powers.

The actual king in democracy is not the voter but the forces or powers that steer him into voting. The voter must know who he should vote for and what is in it. Potentially, there can be as many differences in vote exercises as there are voters: a recipe for chaos. To avoid confusion and partly to enhance the likelihood of attaining their objectives, like-minded people coalesce by forming interest groups such as labor unions and political parties.

Once this grouping happens, conflict is only one step behind. Different parties compete for their interests with little regard or care for other groups. It is at this point that funds begin to influence the outcome significantly.

The Golden Rule means he who has the gold makes the rule, it is said cynically, yet there is a hefty dose of truth in it.
Democracies are plutocracies—the rule of money. We all know that America is a Republic, not a Democracy. We are closest to the Founder’s intent when we refer to the form of federal government planned and inserted in our Constitution as a “representative republic.” This explains two essential parts of our federal structure: (1) the role of citizens is to vote for representatives and hold them responsible; and (2) the functions of our elected representatives – Congress and the Executive – are to legislate and govern.

Tricky Representation

No community of any size can constitute itself in such a way that every member directly participates in every decision and action of the community. This impracticality, a lesson learned from the early New England settlers’ Town Hall meetings, necessitated electing individuals to represent those people. Money enters the fray with an even more significant impact at this juncture.

An aspirant of any elective office needs funds in proportion to the importance of the office he is seeking. For instance, a person running for a seat in a small town council may require modest funds for handbills, possible newspaper ads, etc.

In contrast, an aspirant for the office of a country’s presidency would need a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars. And all elected officials are staffing the government from the bottom to the top. And all these people depend on funds to promote themselves and their platforms.

Often, the candidate with a bigger war chest wins the prize—and gets elected. A troubling question is where the person secured the funds and what kind of IOUs he had to issue.
Another troubling question is the person’s true aim to run for office. There must be something in it for him- whatever that may be. We want to think that he is altruistic and devoted to serving his constituents. But who are his actual constituents?

Sadly, many elected or appointed politicians are often driven by ambitions other than serving the people. Volumes can be produced in such cases in democracies. The attainment of office may be merely a means to an end, and the top end is self-serving monetarily or otherwise.

Money and Funds

It is sad that money drives politicians to power and keeps them there. Without money, they would never make it to first base. Without more money, they may languish at first base. To advance further to absolute power, politicians need large sums of money. And people who have money do not give them money without extracting payback. The higher the politician moves, the greater his IOU is to the people and the organizations that own him.

Like every transaction in life, dealing with moneyed people is a barter system. The politician becomes an employee of the funder (s). As is generally the case, the contract favors the employer—the money. The employee, the politician, often finds himself in a trap. He is, in effect, a purchased agent with little or no leeway. If he deviates in the least from his commitment, he may find himself out of work and more.

Moneyed Muslims and Muslim organizations with vast interests in promoting Islam are thoroughly familiar with the power of money to recruit people to do their bidding. That’s why many non-Muslims work at all levels of government and society to further Islam. In short: they are paid to do a job.

And it is the case that powerful institutions and organizations have the means and personnel to accomplish their objectives—whatever they may be.

We are individuals; more often than not, we are outmanned and outgunned by these group forces. 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.
I have been asked to run for the US Congress and try to save our republic against the encroachment of Islamic ideology. America desperately could use a national security expert in the US Congress. As for me, I leave it up to the people to decide. In this business, you need name recognition and considerable funds.

©2023. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

Impeachment Resolution to REMOVE JOE BIDEN FROM OFFICE PASSES House Floor

/in , , , , , , , /by

Impeachment Resolution to remove the illegitimate Joe Biden from office passes House floor, moves to Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees..

Impeached? That cracked, crooked criminal should be indicted for sedition.

As the Republican House voted to ‘advance the impeachment resolution of Joe Biden,’ it was revealed that the DOJ disrupted an investigation where Joe Biden was in the room while Hunter Biden threatened to extort money from a Chinese business official.

H.Res.57 – Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Sponsor: Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14] (Introduced 01/21/2021)
Committees: House – Judiciary
Latest Action: House – 03/05/2021 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.  (All Actions)
Tracker: Tip

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

  1. Introduced

Introduced in House (01/21/2021)

This resolution impeaches President Joseph Robinette Biden for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Specifically, the resolution sets forth an article of impeachment stating that, in his former role as Vice President, President Biden abused the power of that office through enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors by allowing his son Hunter Biden to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept benefits from foreign nationals in exchange for favors.

The article states that, by such conduct, President Biden

  • endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government;
  • threatened the integrity of the democratic system;
  • interfered with the peaceful transition of power;
  • imperiled a coordinate branch of government; and
  • demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.

The article also states that this conduct warrants immediate impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

BOMBSHELL EVIDENCE: In MASSIVE COVER-UP DOJ and FBI Prohibited, Obstructed, Blocked Biden Investigation, Joe “Was in the Room” When Hunter Was Demanding Chinese CCP Payoff

Biden Regime Knew Titan Submersible Imploded Sunday But Held It Back Only AFTER Whistleblower Testimony Released and Hunter’s Sweetheart Plea Deal

Time Is Running Out For Congress And States To Stop Biden’s Election-Takeover Bomb

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED VIDEO: Is the FBI Hiding Recordings of Biden Bribing a Corrupt Oligarch? Sen. Ron Johnson Unpacks It

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

Tucker on Twitter Episode 6: Bobby Kennedy is winning

/in , , , , , , /by

Tucker Carlson drops a new episode of his Twitter show. Listen to Tucker explain why the media and Democrat establishment’s have declared war on RFK Jr.

Tucker Carlson: “There’s never been a candidate for president the media hated more than Robert F Kennedy Jr. You thought that title belonged to Donald Trump but go check the coverage. Trump got a gentle scalp massage by comparison when he announced.”

‘He’s Curious’: Tucker Carlson Discloses Why The Media Hates RFK Jr.

By: Nicole Silverio, Daily Caller, June 22, 2023:

Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson disclosed in a new episode of “Tucker On Twitter” why the media hates Democratic presidential primary contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Carlson said Kennedy Jr. is hated even more than former President Donald Trump for opposing vaccines, and quoted The New York Times accusing Kennedy of “shaking America’s faith in science.”

“Shaking Americans’ faith in science,” Carlson began. “Imagine if you’re an ordinary New York Times subscriber reading that over coffee in your pre-war, rent-controlled duplex on Columbus Avenue. You’d think Bobby Kennedy just declared war on the Enlightenment. ‘My fellow Americans, I have come to shake your faith in science. Join me as I drag our nation back to the medieval period.’ You’d be appalled.”

He also mentioned the LA Times accusing Kennedy of being a “threat to democracy,” and added NPR’s coverage “savaged” Kennedy “as a candidate” and “as a human being.” He further pointed to People magazine covering Kennedy’s family’s criticisms of him.

Carlson said the media has not bothered to cover the causes of autism surges. The Democratic candidate, the son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, joined podcast host Joe Rogan’s podcast last week where he raised concerns about a surge in children developing autism and allergies. (RELATED: Tucker Carlson Weighs In On Hunter Biden’s ‘Sweetheart Deal’)

Carlson said the media is attacking Kennedy over his willingness to “notice the obvious” and ask questions.

“Bobby Kennedy asks a lot of questions like that. He notices things,” Carlson continued. “Kennedy pays attention to the world around him and he wonders why it’s changing. He’s an outdoorsman … a fly fisherman, he’s interested in how nature works. He’s curious. Not so long ago, these qualities were considered essential to the practice of science. All scientific discovery comes from observation, empiricism, patient watching. Without the willingness to put aside your pre-assumptions and assess, with honesty, the things you see and touch and smell — the changes taking place right in front of your face — you can’t do science. You can’t create art either or journalism or theology.”

“You have to be willing to notice the obvious and when they tell you you’re not allowed to notice the obvious, you should be concerned,” he continued.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

My written debate with Jonathan Howard MD on COVID vaccines for kids

Biden Knew Titan Submersible Imploded Sunday But Held It Back Only AFTER Whistleblower Testimony Released and Hunter’s Sweetheart Plea Deal

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Robert Malone Breaks Down Everything That Happened With RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Debate

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

SHOCKING! Planned Parenthood Brought Monstrous, Depraved Sex Acts Cards To School To Teach Children

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

Prison for these villains! This is beyond your worst imaginings. Get your children out of public schools. Now.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Long-Time CNN Producer Pleads Guilty to Raping Children, Gets 19 Years in Prison

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

Justifying ‘Islamophobia’

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

All phobias are, by definition, irrational fears. I’m not an Islamophobe because my “fear” of Islam is entirely rational. Avoiding a poisonous snake is a rational fear. Not a phobia. The emotion of fear, when utilized rationally, is of immense value. The critical point is that the person, as well as the society, must base their assessment on facts.
My assessment of Islam, conclusively supported by indisputable facts, is that it is a dangerous, destructive, and death-bearing belief system of a long-ago savage people that has inflicted and continues to inflict misery and death on people. According to Christopher Hitchens, Islamophobia is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.

Let me add this. I will speak the truth about Islam. In no way am I falsely defaming Islam. Islam is its own best defamer. Telling the truth usually entails risks. I’m aware of that. Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back on Islam should be allowed to revert to the religion. For an un-repenting male apostate, death is the punishment, and life imprisonment for a female apostate.

“Kill whoever changes his religion.” Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57

Some Muslims call us Islamophobes, while others call us racists; even though they know Islam is not a race, they know how to get under the skin of Americans by calling us racist.

Ever since the massive arrival of Muslims to the Western hemisphere, our Western culture and world have been forever altered, thanks to the ceaseless attempts of the left to create a failing Utopian multiculturalist paradise while forcefully jamming it down the throats of unsuspecting citizens. Here is the problem:

The West has been tolerant, but “tolerance in the face of evil is not tolerance; it is a crime.” It wasn’t long ago; we were defending ourselves at the Gates of Vienna from a Muslim invasion. Now, we welcome Muslims with open arms and generous welfare policies. Any pushback to these open immigration practices is labeled Islamophobia, racism, bigotry, etc. But what cost do these changes bring?

The battle with these barbarians has been proven to be arduous and lengthy. All enlightened individuals must work their hardest to fumigate these leeches from the body of humanity. Civilized people refuse to accept that Muslims have not evolved. They are at least 2,000 years behind society. The conflict between Islam and Muslims is due to evolution. Evolution takes time.

That is precisely why the percentage of rape has gone from non-existent in Europe to 5,000%. Whether we like to accept it or not, the reality is reality. We will eventually come to terms with the fact that Islam and its adherents cannot live in a civilized world. It is impossible to co-exist with this 7th-century mentality.

People fear Islam because Islam kills you. They fear Islam because they don’t want to lose their heads. Islamophobia is entirely justified. We must closely examine the Quran, Islam’s inviolable, immutable charter since it enjoys such sanctified standing. Muslims believe that Allah himself writes the Quran. Allah handed down the book, piece by piece and chapter by chapter, to the Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel, in turn, whispered these words to Muhammad himself over some 23 years.

Allah is so angry in the Quran. It seems that Allah is angry at himself. Much of the little book, the Quran, he authored over 23 years, is devoted to expressions of displeasure, anger, threats, and violence. Didn’t Allah create people, animals, and everything else? Didn’t he instill in us and everything else his own design? Then why all these venomous expressions in the Quran? Why not devote the book to saying that which would make us better, if possible, since Muslims claim his work is perfect?

Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims’ holy book, the Quran, in many Suras. That is why people fear Islam; hence, Islamophobia is justified.

©2023. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

California To Blame For Water Scarcity Not Climate

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

You may have heard about California’s perennial woes with drought and flooding. Governor Newsom, like a parrot with limited vocabulary, dutifully squawks out “climate change” as being the culprit.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

CFACT’s Gabriella Hoffman investigates the situation and documents her findings in a brand new, just released CFACT Conservation Nation video.

Watch it and learn more about the real problems Californians are facing with water scarcity.

This is not a climate issue, but one of simple water mismanagement. Between October 2022 and January 2023, over 6.4 million acre-feet of water were diverted from agricultural and municipal uses and foolishly flushed into the Pacific Ocean.

“We are in a perpetual drought because we don’t manage water,” said Johnny Amaral, chief operating officer of Friant Water Authority. “I’m here to say that hydrology in California really hasn’t changed a whole lot in the last 125 years. There’s ups and there’s downs, which is why all these projects were built to begin with, recognizing that hydrology ebbs and flows. There are periods of wet years, followed by periods of dry, so all this elaborate system of dams and canals and pump stations was built deliberately to deal with that.”

As Gabriella shows, this is not a problem without a solution. Residents of Northern California and Central Valley have answers to the problem and voted for more water management reforms. But powerful environmental special interests and corrupt politicians in Sacramento are obstacles to this progress. They must be exposed and stopped from wrecking further havoc.

We must blunt the false climate assertions blathered about by Governor Newsom and spread the word about the need for proper water management and construction of critical infrastructure projects like reservoirs and dams.

For nature and people too.

AUTHOR

Craig Rucker

President and co-founder of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court’s WOTUS ruling will shake things up across the board

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

Selective Outrage in Response to Antisemitism

/in , , , , /by

Use of antisemitic clichés by progressives against strongly identified Jews has been ignored by the mainstream Jewish establishment.

When Haredi Jews were recently characterized on an Israeli television program as “bloodsuckers” burdening society, many secular Americans nodded their heads in agreement, unperturbed by the use of imagery similar to that invoked by anti-Semites through the ages. We have not yet seen their reaction to the odious video clip of a secular woman verbally attacking a Haredi man on an Israeli bus, judging him a draft dodger due to his sidelocks black kippah and white shirt. Unbeknownst to her, he was a career officer.

Indeed, demonizing Orthodoxy is often part of a strategy employed to explain the lack of traction for liberal Judaism in Israel – even though many secular Israelis also reject ritually nontraditional movements.

Secular critics regard anti-Orthodox slurs as valid commentary and blame religion for any perceived divisions in Israeli society; and in the process, they often adopt progressive anti-religious (and anti-Israel) talking points as default truths – whether delegitimizing Jewish tradition and faith or endorsing revisionist claims that conflict with Jewish history.

And through it all, American progressives ignore a pervasive anti-Jewish bias that is entrenched within the political agenda they espouse and crass antisemitism that has infected the Democratic Party they embrace, and which they wrongly conflate with Jewish identity and core values.

But what are these core values? The truth is that most progressives have no clue because Jewish education, knowledge, and observance have eroded drastically among the non-Orthodox and within the communal Jewish establishment.

In place of traditional values, American establishment organizations and non-Orthodox ritual movements have substituted secular progressive ideology, even when the partisan pegs don’t fit the doctrinal holes. Thus, nontraditional clergy often preach liberal politics from their bimas, claiming e.g., that unrestricted abortion, gender identity politics, or green climate policy are mandated by Jewish tradition, while public school choice and Israeli judicial reform are not.

Such claims, however, are verbal gymnastics.

Though all Jews should agree about the dangers of antisemitism (sadly, many do not), they can have differing opinions regarding their political affiliations and preferences. However, there is no justification under halakha (Jewish law) for elevating progressive causes over mitzvot (commandments) or encouraging halakhic violations in furtherance of partisan advocacy – for example, exhorting congregants to attend anti-gun rallies on Shabbat.

When challenged, nontraditional rabbis who advocate thus are typically unable to show any ethical consistency with Jewish tradition. Indeed, there is nothing in the entirety of Jewish law or scripture that commands support for alternative lifestyles, same-sex marriage, radical surgery in the name of “gender reassignment,” or divisive identity politics. There is likewise no mandate for opposition to school choice in public education – particularly when it could make day school options more affordable at a time when declining Jewish literacy threatens Jewish continuity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Jews as individuals voting their political consciences, but policies that are extraneous or contrary to halakha do not cohere with Jewish values simply because secular or politically partisan Jews support them. Moreover, it is disingenuous for liberal clergy or establishment leaders to use their communal visibility to promote causes that conflict with halakha, especially when publicly embracing these causes gives the appearance of rabbinic sanction or traditional continuity where none exist.

With antisemitism running rampant in the USA – particularly on the left and in minority communities – the establishment’s impulse to blame it exclusively on neo-Nazis or white supremacists is astounding and deceptive. And if establishment leaders are so vexed by Jew-hatred, why haven’t they demanded censure of Democratic “Squad” members for their repeated use of anti-Israel slurs and antisemitic stereotypes? Why have they not chastised President Biden for appointing numerous BDS supporters to positions of authority in the White House? And why weren’t they outraged when he singled out antisemitic Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib for compliment at a White House event marking the end of Ramadan?

Silence regarding antisemitism from their side of the political aisle does a grave disservice to the communities they claim to represent, and moreover impedes the flow of information necessary for Jews to defend themselves and their honor.

After a recent appearance on a Toronto radio show where I discussed current trends in American antisemitism, I had an off-air conversation with a woman who opined that Jew-hatred comes exclusively from the right. When I told her that recent US law enforcement statistics indicated an upward trend in hate-crimes against Jews, she asserted that the perpetrators had to be white supremacists – consistent with Biden’s recent ludicrous claim that white supremacism poses the greatest terrorist threat today. Whatever she knew about contemporary antisemitism came from establishment organizations, the liberal rabbinate, or groups like the ADL; but she was unaware of the proliferation of antisemitism on the left and in minority communities.

Because what I told her conflicted with her preconceived notions as reinforced by the usual establishment sources, she asked me to verify my statements. So, by way of answer, I asked whether she knew about the rise in antisemitism on university campuses across the country; and when she responded affirmatively, I asked her how many of those universities are bastions of white supremacism or right-wing extremism. She couldn’t name a single one. Likewise, she had no response when I mentioned the alarming number of violent assaults committed against Orthodox Jews by multiethnic perpetrators in New York City.

But she got the point.

The problem goes deeper than the failure to condemn leftist bigotry, however, and includes tolerance for stereotypes repackaged as “political speech” and used to delegitimize the Jewish state. This tactic includes the assertion of popular lies and fabrications (e.g., that Israel intentionally attacks civilians and practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing), many of which are modern-day iterations of the ancient blood libel. Such methods are reinforced by a complicit media that has adapted the medieval image of the Jew as a poisoner of wells for use against the modern Jewish State.

Unfortunately, even those who respect Israel and traditional Judaism do not always get it right when attempting to translate the message for external consumption. In discussing media double standards and the lack of moral clarity regarding Israel, for example, many advocates extol her as a liberal beacon in a sea of regional autocracy. However, by linking Israel’s legitimacy to this singular perspective, they leave wiggle room for liberals to turn against her if they cease viewing her as a progressive force in the Mideast. The logical question, then, is whether true support for Israel can ever be predicated on projected partisan values.

On a broader scale, it is reasonable to ask whether those who claim to support Israel do so out of historical conviction or because of political ideals they attribute to Israeli society. If the latter, their support is essentially narcissistic and motivationally impure. In contrast, advocacy based on historical imperative remains strong despite shifting electoral preferences because it leaves room for policy disagreements without questioning Israel’s legitimacy or ancestral integrity. The motivations of those who tout Israeli society for its supposed progressivism, however, will always be suspect.

Honest support is easier to gauge among those who do not drape their partisan values over Israel. Consistency is more likely among those who recognize Israel as the Jews’ ancient homeland and acknowledge their spiritual and physical connection there since antiquity. Given the political left’s use of vintage stereotypes to impugn the Jewish state, the issue facing well-meaning liberals is whether they can proclaim any affinity for Israel while simultaneously maintaining their progressive credibility. This seems difficult given a political agenda that sanctifies Palestinian revisionism, denigrates Jewish history, heaps scorn and disproportionate criticism on Israel, and validates antisemitic tropes.

It’s also difficult because many liberals tend to (a) ignore the antisemitism of their political allies, (b) attribute anti-Jewish hatred solely to the political right, or (c) assert reprehensible stereotypes against fellow Jews who appear “too Jewish” or who are seen as tribalistic for their fierce loyalty to tradition. And the problem is exacerbated by those who flippantly apply odious stereotypes to the most religiously observant (e.g., the image of Jews as societal parasites or global manipulators) or disingenuously compare them to the Taliban.

The facile use of antisemitic clichés by progressives against strongly identified Jews is something the mainstream establishment has failed to address adequately or even acknowledge as a problem. And the reason could be that doing so would require an admission that Jew-hatred is not limited to white supremacists, right-wing extremists, or even Gentiles, but is just as prevalent among leftists, progressive Democrats, and the identity communities they promote.

Establishment professionals and organizations seem to have inconsistent standards for condemning antisemitism. They loudly denounce it when the perpetrators are white supremacists, but often downplay it when it comes from progressives or identity communities. That is, their outrage is selectively dependent on the character of the offender. If they were serious about fighting antisemitism in all its manifestations, however, they would instead identify it based solely on the Jewishness of the victims.

But perhaps that would make too much sense.

This column originally appeared in Israeli National News.

©2023. Matthew Hausman. All rights reserved.

DISASTROUS Declines on Nation’s Report Card (NAEP): 13-Year-Olds WORST in Test’s History

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

The declines on the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) for 13-year-olds are some of the WORST in the test’s history.

This is exactly what the Democrats wanted and needed. Dumb and dumber. How else could they get away with their catastrophic destruction?

The new “Nation’s Report Card” is out and the results are grim. Test scores are at their lowest level in decades, with steep declines in both reading and math proficiency in nearly every state. It’s the first comprehensive look at the pandemic’s impact on America’s students.

Math and reading scores among America’s 13-year-olds fell to their lowest levels in decades, with math scores plunging by the largest margin ever recorded, according to the results of a test known as the nation’s report card.

‘Nation’s Report Card’ shows math skills reset to the level of the 1990s, while struggling readers are scoring lower than they did in 1971

By Kevin Mahnken, NAEP, June 21, 2023:

COVID-19’s cataclysmic impact on K–12 education, coming on the heels of a decade of stagnation in schools, has yielded a lost generation of growth for adolescents, new federal data reveal.

Wednesday’s publication of scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — America’s most prominent benchmark of learning, typically referred to as the Nation’s Report Card — shows the average 13-year-old’s understanding of math plummeting back to levels last seen in the 1990s; struggling readers scored lower than they did in 1971, when the test was first administered. Gaps in performance between children of different backgrounds, already huge during the Bush and Obama presidencies, have stretched to still-greater magnitudes.

The bad tidings are, in a sense, predictable: Beginning in 2022, successive updates from NAEP have laid bare the consequences of prolonged school closures and spottily delivered virtual instruction. Only last month, disappointing results on the exam’s history and civics component led to a fresh round of headlines about the pandemic’s ugly hangover.

But the latest release, highlighting “long-term trends” that extend back to the 1970s, widens the aperture on the nation’s profound academic slump. In doing so, it serves as a complement to the 2020 iteration of the same test, which showed that the math and English skills of 13-year-olds had noticeably eroded even before the emergence of COVID-19.

Long-Term NAEP Scores for 13-Year-Olds Drop for First Time since 1970s

Those disturbing findings, since aggravated by the greatest disruption in the history of American schools, look all the worse today. Reading scores fell by four points between 2020 and 2023, mirroring similar declines in other NAEP releases since last fall, while math scores math scores tumbled by nine points. But an even greater reversal — seven points in reading, and 13 points in math — can be measured going back to 2012, when long-term scores began to slip.

The results set off yet another chorus of alarm bells among federal officials. Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers NAEP, told reporters that they “should remind us that this is a huge scale of challenge that faces the nation today.”

“Certainly the pandemic has made things worse and made things more challenging for us,” Carr said in a media briefing. “But these troubling trends that we’re seeing date back a decade, particularly for our lower-performing students.”

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: At High School Debates, Watch What You Say – Kids are losing high school debates because of their personal tweets, reveals James Fishback in a new exposé.

RELATED TWEETS:

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

Musk: ‘Cisgender’ Will Be Considered a ‘Slur’ on Twitter

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

A Twitter debate and trend erupted on Tuesday after commentator James Esses objected to being called the term “cisgender” by transgender activists. In a response to Esses, Twitter owner Elon Musk stated that “cis” or “cisgender” would be considered “slurs on this platform.” The controversy has placed renewed scrutiny on the origins of terms like “cisgender” and other terms invented by those advocating gender ideology.

According to Merriam-Webster, “cisgender” means “a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”

“Cisgender” was first coined by German sociologist and sexologist Volkmar Sigusch in the 1991 publication “Transsexuals and our nosomorphic view.” “If there are transsexuals, logically there must be cissexuals,” he wrote. “One is not to be thought without the other at all. I have allowed myself to introduce the terms cissexualism, cissexuals, cisgender etc.”

As observers have written, the same mind that came up with the term is known for being an apologist for pedophilia. “There is nothing wrong with pedophilia in the sense of the word, that is, against liking, even loving, children,” Sigusch wrote in 2010. “The sensuality that spontaneously unfolds between a child and an adult is something wonderful. Nothing can remind us more intensely of the paradises of childhood. Nothing is purer and more harmless than this eroticism of the body and the heart. Childish eroticism is not only full of delights, it is also necessary.” He went on to accuse those who maintain pedophilia should be criminalized as spreading “hatred and bitterness.”

Critics of the term “cisgender” say that it is often used derogatorily by transgender activists. “I formally and publicly declare that I reject the label of ‘cis,’” tweeted Esses on Monday. “I don’t believe in gender ideology. I don’t self-identify as ‘cis.’”

Comedian Norm Macdonald once described the term “cis male” to a confused male guest on his show. “What it means is you were born a man and you identify yourself as a man. … It’s a way of marginalizing a normal person.”

Notably, critics of the term come from all over the ideological spectrum. John Boyne is an Irish author and commentator who identifies as gay and maintains that trans-identifying individuals should be called by the pronouns of their choice. But in 2019, he wrote:

“[W]hile I wholeheartedly support the rights of trans men and women and consider them courageous pioneers, it will probably make some unhappy to know that I reject the word ‘cis’, the term given by transgender people to their nontransgender brethren. I don’t consider myself a cis man; I consider myself a man. For while I will happily employ any term that a person feels best defines them, whether that be transgender, non-binary or gender fluid to name but a few, I reject the notion that someone can force an unwanted term onto another.”

“Cisgender” is far from the only term that has emerged in recent years as an attempt to redefine common language surrounding biological sex and sexuality. On Wednesday, Fox News reported on a Men’s Health article quoting sex educator Lilith Fox, who declared that a “gynosexual” is someone who is “sexually attracted to the gender identity of the femme-presenting person they are attracted to.”

Observers note that the terms like “cisgender,” “gynosexual,” “pregnant person,” and “non-man attracted to non-men” all appear to be attempts to strip any hint of biological sex from language.

“‘Cis’ is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity,” tweeted J.K. Rowling on Wednesday. “You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Long-Time CNN Producer Pleads Guilty to Raping Children, Gets 19 Years in Prison

AMC Cancels Film Highlighting the Dangers of Transgender Surgeries

A Leftist Celebrity Scientist Is Trying to Turn Young Doctors into Activists

Dobbs at One Year: Political Parties Remain Entrenched on Abortion

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

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

Republicans Spurn Corporate Donations as Woke Backlash Continues

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

It looks like everyday Americans aren’t the only ones boycotting Big Business. While companies take a beating for their woke policies in stores and restaurants across the country, another longtime ally has flat-out walked away: the GOP. More than two years after January 6, when CEOs made a spectacle out of cutting donations to Republicans, corporate America is facing an uncomfortable reality — the GOP wouldn’t take their money now anyway.

Back in 2021, people wondered if the relationship between Republicans and America’s business community would survive the spat. Was the post-election tension just a rough patch or the beginning of a “seismic shift?” Today, as red states go to war with titans like BlackRock and governors openly battle Disney and JP Morgan, the split has never seemed more permanent. And, unlike the timid GOP of the past, the Republican Party’s warrior class seems no worse for wear. If anything, ridding themselves of a two-timing corporate America has made the GOP stronger and more independent than ever.

Just this week, The Wall Street Journal shined a light on the enormous realignment that’s taken place where campaign dollars are concerned. When the mob pulled their contributions from the GOP, it sounded like a death knell for fundraising. On the contrary, experts say. That decision actually helped Republicans wean themselves off corporate dollars and tap into the grassroots’ frustration against woke CEOs.

“Republicans are now less dependent on corporate and industry PACs than at any time in the past three decades,” according to the WSJ analysis. “Instead, they are turning to smaller donations from millions of individuals who tend to be wary of big-businesses priorities.” And while the donations usually come in small denominations, the sheer number of people giving to the conservative cause is offsetting the punch that corporate America thought they had.

“Gone are the days that Republicans are going to sit on the sidelines as big behemoths take advantage of the American people,” Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told the Journal. “We are going to hold them accountable.”

One of the most dramatic examples of this shift is House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) war chest. In 2016, the Journal’s Brody Mullins points out, 40% of his campaign dollars came from business PACs. By 2022, it was less than 3%. Now, without those financial ties, he’s even more free to “castigate Wall Street for taking progressive political stands.”

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who’s been outspoken about his frustration with Big Business, couldn’t be happier about the disentanglement. “I don’t see any reason to take a dime from these folks,” he said. “I’m not going to be beholden in any way to their agenda.” For too long, he argued, corporate America has “attempt[ed] to have it both ways. [They will] endorse these far-Left social policies, they will try to blackmail [red] states… but then they’ll turn around and come to Republicans asking for tax breaks, tax credits, and trade deals.” Good luck with that now, conservatives say.

If they’re going to attack our values, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said, “They probably shouldn’t come and ask Republican senators to carry the water for them whenever our Democratic friends want to regulate them or block their mergers.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins couldn’t agree more. “Until America’s business community embraces — or at least stops attacking — the moral and social structure that leads to growth,” he wrote last year, “the Left can have them. And then, when their revenues implode because of the Left’s regulations and their profits evaporate over the Democrats’ tax-and-spend politics, maybe Big Business will come to their senses and realize how good they and their stockholders once had it.”

Not only has that extremism driven away GOP officials, it’s also triggered an unprecedented wave of consumer backlash across the country — a wave so devastating to brands’ bottom lines that CEOs are privately telling McCarthy they’re “doing their best to avoid speaking publicly about such topics.” Others are racing to rethink their political involvement, especially on the transgender issue that has become such “a lightning rod” for American consumers.

Now, as the number of citizens who call themselves “social conservatives” rockets up to 38%, CEOs will have even more incentive to tone down their activism.

Taken together, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter warns, it doesn’t bode well for the Left and their woke allies. “Much has been said about the trend of working-class voters moving toward the GOP — and rightfully so. It’s changing American politics dramatically. As we saw in the most recent midterm elections, Republicans won non-college voters 54% to 42%, and Democrats won voters with college degrees 53% to 44%. This wasn’t always the case. Traditionally, union voters and working-class voters were firmly within the Democrat base. Making up 58% of the overall electorate, you can see how these voters are a juggernaut in American politics.”

“Given this shift,” Carpenter told The Washington Stand, “it makes sense that we would see the GOP move away from large corporate PACs as a result. The interests advanced by these PACs often do not represent the interests of this emerging working-class GOP. This will have huge ramifications in the years to come as GOP politicians are influenced more and more by small dollar donations from the grassroots rather than high-dollar fundraisers at fancy restaurants in Washington, D.C.”

In the meantime, the grassroots are proving to everyone to everyone: they’re a much bigger force to be reckoned with than Big Business.

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. ©2023 Family Research Council.

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

Here Are The Six Republicans Who Voted ‘Present’ For Adam Schiff’s Censure

/in , , , , , /by

Six Republicans voted “present” instead of voting for the censure of Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff, breaking with the rest of their party.

Republican Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduced the resolution that would remove Schiff from the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Daily Caller first obtained a copy of the first resolution, which cites the Durham Report as the reason the congresswoman believes Schiff should no longer serve in Congress. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Introduces Resolution To Remove Adam Schiff From The House)

Here are the six Republicans: 

  • Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)
  • Rep. Michael Guest (R-MS)
  • Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)
  • Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO)
  • Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL)
  • Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)

“Adam Schiff lied to the American people. He used his position on House Intelligence to push a lie that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars and abused the trust placed in him as Chairman. He is a dishonor to the House of Representatives,” Paulina Luna said in a statement.

“The Durham Report makes clear that the Russian Collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country,” she added.

As Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy blocked Adam Schiff from sitting on the House Intelligence Committee. Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz also introduced legislation that would call on the House to vote on if Schiff should be banned from accessing and viewing any and all classified information.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Chief national correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Matt Gaetz To Introduce ‘PENCIL Act,’ Blocking Adam Schiff From Reviewing Classified Information

Here Are The Dominoes That Need To Fall For Joe To Get Pinched For Hunter’s Escapades

Every Major GOP Candidate Would Fire FBI Director Christopher Wray — Except One

Jim Jordan Mocks Democrat In The Middle Of Durham Hearing

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