False Hysteria Over Israeli Democracy

Progressive critics, take note: the U.S. system at its core is not a pure democracy at all, but a constitutional republic.


Before the dust settled and all votes were counted, the American liberal establishment began lamenting the death of Israeli democracy as Benyamin Netanyahu was poised to form the next government with a commanding number of Knesset seats and a potentially stable coalition.

The last time I checked, that’s how the Israeli electoral system works. But political progressives have conflated the term “democracy” with its antithesis – an agenda promoting censorship, thought control, viewpoint discrimination, woke intolerance, and hatred of Israel and the west. What they are peddling is not democratic at all, but a dictatorial stew that degrades personal rights and discourages dissent. And in so doing they are abetted by a mainstream media that engages in political activism and preys on its audience’s ignorance of constitutional and democratic values.

Now they are applying this skewed worldview to the latest Israeli election to delegitimize a result they don’t like. Regardless of how one feels about Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, or Smotrich, their election was democratic. And despite what liberal pundits are saying, the results don’t represent an aberrant shift in Israeli electoral preferences. Indeed, conservative parties were on the ascendancy over the last few elections, though the formation of a coalition was prevented by those on the right who wouldn’t accept Netanyahu as PM.

Given that Israel’s electoral system seems to work, we need to understand what’s really going on.

Progressive criticism of Israeli politics is not motivated by genuine concern over democratic values – Israeli or otherwise. It arises from the desire to delegitimize the Jewish State. This malevolent compulsion is, after all, the raison d’etre for the BDS movement and international efforts to cast Israel as a pariah nation. That is the crux of progressive opposition to Netanyahu’s re-ascendancy, and this becomes painfully clear when their false concern for democracy is deconstructed.

The most obvious red herring is the assertion that Netanyahu’s return to power offends American democratic sensibilities. This claim is patently ridiculous because (a) Netanyahu’s bloc won in a free and fair election and (b) American democracy is distinct from systems of government found in Israel and elsewhere.

To the extent the US sets the standard used to measure other political systems, however, it would be fair to question exactly what constitutes American democracy and whether today’s political reality reflects the intent of its founding fathers.

And there’s the rub – the US system at its core is not a pure democracy at all, but a constitutional republic.

America’s founders were extremely wary of democracywhich they (like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle before them) believed to be the most corruptible form of government. Instead, they envisioned a constitutional republic with democratic elections. This intent was clearly articulated in Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” Though the distinctions are blurred today, there are fundamental differences between republican and democratic forms of government.

Modern republics are founded on constitutional principles, whether written or unwritten, which assure certain rights and liberties and which delineate and delegate authority among various branches of government. This differs from pure democracy, wherein citizens directly influence governmental decision-making and individual rights yield to majority rule. It also differs from representative democracy in which constituents choose leaders to govern according to their interests.

America’s founders envisioned a system where individual rights would be sacrosanct, state authority respected, and federal powers limited. They feared pure democracy – in which personal freedoms could be abrogated by a dictatorial majority and community standards decreed by mob rule. This distrust was articulated by Benjamin Franklin who, when asked what kind of government the Constitution established, replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Consistent with this sentiment, James Madison in the “Federalist Papers” expressed the following critical view of democracy: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Accordingly, the US is a democratic republic that guarantees fundamental rights and liberties and features an electoral system combining direct elections for legislators and indirect voting (through an electoral college) for president. Ideally, elected officials are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents; however, they often fail to do so and instead impose partisan agendas that ignore the will of the voters.

Given that the US is a republic with democratic elections, it’s not always clear whether its advocates understand how it compares to other forms of government. Is it the guarantee of inalienable rights (a hallmark of the republicanism) or the right to select leaders and legislators through free elections? And if by democracy they actually mean constitutionalism, are they really advocating democratic ideals at all?

These questions come into sharper focus when analyzing governments of other nations. The United Kingdom, for example, has a constitutional monarchy that has democratic elections and differs markedly from the United States. Among other differences, the UK’s constitution is unwritten, deriving from a mélange of laws, traditions, and historical documents – including the Magna Carta, which presumes the British monarchy exists by divine agency. Such bases seem inherently inconsistent with non-monarchical democracies or republics.

Moreover, although the UK has a legislative system, its Parliament’s historical foundations are not entirely democratic. Whereas the House of Commons is an elected body, the House of Lords is hereditary, though its authority to originate legislation has been curtailed over the years. Great Britain has no written constitution, boasts a monarchy with supposedly divine license, and is awash in nonegalitarian traditions; yet, its government is rarely delegitimized, and certainly never with the same vehemence reserved for Israel.

And what about constitutional democracy in the Islamic world? Muslim countries like Malaysia are hailed as paradigms because they have constitutions and legislative bodies. However, certain rights and freedoms are subservient to Islamic law as applied by Sharia courts, and there is no separation between religion and state (which is seen as a purely western contrivance). Although Malaysia’s national constitution ostensibly guarantees religious freedom, it also enshrines Islam as the national faith; and citizens must be Muslim to be considered ethnic Malaysians.

Israel’s critics say it cannot be both Jewish and democratic, so in evaluating whether Jewish beliefs and national aspirations are compatible with “democracy,” one must determine which political ideals provide the yardstick for measurement. Clearly, pure democracy provides no standard because it does not assure individual freedoms and almost always leads to the suppression of minority rights by dictatorial majorities. Though considered a constitutional democracy, the US defines itself by the rights afforded under its Constitution; and if civil liberties constitute the benchmark of American government, then Israel measures up well.

Israel has an open electoral system in which Arabs and Jews vote without interference, run for office, and participate in government; and in some ways, Israel assures even broader freedoms. Indeed, some Arab MKs have voiced anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, sympathized with terrorists, and engaged in speech that might be considered seditious in the US. It is difficult to imagine members of Congress using their positions to advocate against their country, particularly considering they are required to take an oath of office swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Absurdly, however, such conduct seems to occur in Israel with little practical consequence.

In addition, Israeli Arabs and Jews live where they want and benefit from the same government programs regarding public health, welfare, and infrastructure. There is likewise no dispute that Israel guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and gender equality, despite the existential threats facilitated by an open society. It would be easier to limit the exercise of rights that compromise national security as other countries have done, including the US, where free speech and assembly have been restricted and citizens detained during times of national emergency – and where speech is under constant attack by the political left today.

Regardless of its form of government, though, Israel’s existence is inherently justified by its status as a sovereign Jewish nation in the ancient Jewish homeland. But whether a democracy, republic, or hybrid of the two, Israel undeniably provides greater rights and freedoms than most other nations, despite the safety and security risks posed by many of those who benefit from its openness.

Can other countries say the same?

©Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

TSA Director Accused of Fraud, Waste for Unlawfully Deploying Assets to Mexican Border

The head of the federal agency created after 9/11 to protect the nation’s transportation system is accused of fraud, waste, and abuse of authority for unlawfully deploying assets to the Mexican border to perform duties unrelated to transportation, according to a report filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. In the formal complaint to the DHS watchdog, the Air Marshal National Council, which represents thousands of Federal Air Marshals (FAM) nationwide, accuses Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Administrator David Pekoske and FAM Director Tirrell Stevenson of violating federal law and overstepping their authority for assigning the highly trained aviation security specialists to assist the U.S. Border Patrol with the illegal immigration crisis. FAM operates under TSA and both function under DHS.

“The TSA personnel are being sent to El Paso TX, San Diego CA, Laredo TX, McAllen TX, Tucson AZ, and Yuma AZ,” the complaint states, adding that internal agency documents reveal the “highly skilled FAMs” are being sent to the southwest border to perform “Hospital Watch, Transportation, Law Enforcement Searches, Welfare Checks, and Entry Control.” The duties have no relation to TSA’s core mission of transportation security, the filing says, and instead the air marshals will assist migrants who have crossed the border into the United States. TSA was created after 2001 to help prevent another terrorist attack, though the agency is famous for its lapses, including a big one just days ago when a man was allowed to board a plane in Cincinnati with two box cutters. FAM is charged with protecting commercial passenger flights by deterring and countering the risk of terrorist activity. At the very least it seems like a waste to send the highly trained law enforcement agents to the border to babysit illegal immigrants.

“The statute does not give the Administrator any authority to deploy TSA or FAM employees to the southern border to perform non transportation security related matters,” the complaint to the DHS IG states. “Further, under section (g) the statute describes what the Administrators authority is if an emergency, as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, is declared.” The act makes clear that the legislative intent is to only allow TSA to exercise authority and deploy its assets for transportation security, the report to the DHS watchdog confirms. “To date Mr. Pekoske nor Mr. Stevenson have declared the deployments to be related to transportation security,” according to the complaint. Furthermore, the duties, “Hospital Watch, Entry Control, Law Enforcement searches, and Transportation,” could not be interpreted to have any nexus to the TSA core mission of transportation security. Additionally, the document notes that Congress has not appropriated any funds in the TSA budget for border security, making any money expended for the cause a violation of the Antideficiency Act which prohibits federal employees from obligating funds unless Congress has approved the amount and purpose of the spending.

A few weeks ago Judicial Watch obtained the DHS memorandum to the nation’s air marshal force announcing that officers would soon be sent to the southern border to help deal with “a surge in irregular migration.” The notice states that “the unprecedented volume of Noncitizen Migrants (NCMs) currently apprehended mandates immediate further action to protect the life and safety of federal personnel and noncitizens in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] custody.” It is the first acknowledgment, albeit leaked involuntarily, by the Biden administration that there is indeed a crisis along the nation’s famously porous southern border. “To support its mission, CBP is seeking federal employees from DHS Components and other federal agencies to be placed on reimbursable TDY assignments to assist in critical support functions,” the widely circulated mandate reads, adding that “LE/FAMS has been directed by DHS to support this request.” Air marshals interviewed by Judicial Watch expressed outrage that they are being pulled from their critical inflight security duties to assist with the mayhem created by the Biden administration’s failed immigration policies.

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

Schumer Blasted For Claim That Illegals Will Solve U.S. Birth Rate

Speaking to the press outside the Capitol on Wednesday, Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared that the solution to America’s declining birth rate was to grant citizenship to the 11+ million illegals in the country, after which he was blasted mercilessly on Twitter.

Schumer declared, “Now more than ever, we’re short of workers, we have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the DREAMers and – all of them. Cause our ultimate goal is to help the DREAMers but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented immigrants.”

NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham pointed out the obvious irony of Schumer making these claims, tweeting, “You’re funding Planned Parenthood to keep the native-born population smaller.”

Conservative political strategist Greg Price commented, “They say that it’s empowering to stay single forever and never start a family, claim having kids destroys the environment, promote abortion as a moral good, and their solution when they realize people aren’t having enough kids is to import the third world to replace them.”

He then laid into Schumer directly, adding, “Chuck Schumer has also been in government since the 1980s and helped create the economy of today that makes it virtually impossible for people my age to build wealth and start a family. The man has literally done nothing but preside over America’s decline.”

Sports talk radio host Tony Bruno advised alternative solutions for Schumer, tweeting, “Maybe we stop ABORTING babies at record levels and do something to stop the record black on black murders in big Dem run cities?”

The Twitter account for pro-life outlet LifeNews.com remarked, “Maybe quit promoting abortion.”

Conservative influencer and Café Gratis CEO Steve Oatley echoed Girdusky’s criticism, tweeting, “Weird, I thought all the dems were saying the great replacement theory was a conspiracy…”


Charles Schumer

41 Known Connections

Schumer Demonizes Trump Supporters Who Voted for a “Despicable,” “Racist,” and “Vile” Man

At a July 2021 event with Roosevelt Island and Upper East Side community leaders in New York, Schumer said: “How could 74 million people vote for such a despicable human being as Donald Trump? I don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative, Democrat or Republican, he is a vile man. He is dishonest, divisive. That’s what he loves to do. Just divide and have people fighting with each other. He’s a racist. And he always appeals to the dark side of human nature, which he’s very good at, unfortunately. How did they vote for him?”

To learn more about Chuck Schumer, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Governor Abbot publicly declares invasion

Chris Wray is Smacked Down for Dodging Question on ‘FBI Informants Dressed as Trump Supporters’ on January 6

Cicilline Tries to Permanently Bar Trump from Office Over Jan. 6

Raskin: Running for Office Won’t Protect Trump From Prosecution

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

Thankful to be an American

Despite some of the disappointments in last week’s election, I’m grateful to be an American—especially because of religious liberty.

This month we celebrate Thanksgiving, when we remember the Pilgrims who came to this new land to celebrate religious freedom—something denied them in their native England.

“[E]ver since the first breaking out of the light of the gospel, in our honorable nation of England… Satan hath raised, maintained, and continued against the saints,” writes the key Pilgrim leader, William Bradford, in his chronicles of the Pilgrim saga.

So many early Americans—not just the Pilgrims, but the Puritans, the Quakers, the Huguenots (French Calvinists), and others—fled often horrific persecutions from Europe, so that here they could be free.

But persecution against the godly is not something just for the history books.

One grateful American first came to this land in 1990 when he was 12 years old. He was the son of an evangelical pastor in Communist Romania, whose family suffered persecution for their Christian convictions. His first act in America was to kiss the tarmac—they finally had come to “the land of the free.”

His name is Harry Mihet, and today he is an attorney who works as a vice president for Mat Staver’s Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group.

I have written about Harry before. A few years ago, he spoke at a meeting in our church in South Florida on what it was like as a Christian growing up in an officially atheist country, and told a story which could be labeled, “the crooked makeshift coffee table story.”

The Bible was highly illegal in Communist Romania. Dogs were trained to sniff for copies. If the Communists found any Bibles, they would turn them into toilet paper. But in their legendary incompetency, sometimes, noted Harry: “you’d have rolls of toilet paper with God’s Word still on it. We’d hear stories of people getting to read God’s Word, courtesy of the Communists.”

One time Harry’s father, Pastor Mihet, received a shipment of about 300 Romanian Bibles. Harry said that being caught with one Bible was bad enough, but having 300 copies could be severely punishable. He said it was “contraband,” and was like having a “controlled substance with the intent to distribute.” The “contraband” (the Bibles) was right in the middle of the living room.

Harry says, “Somehow the secret police found out that there were Bibles at the Mihet home. So I remember one night, being woken up by very loud banging at the door and the barks of German shepherd dogs.”

His mother, “quick thinking as she was,” saved the day: “So she takes a piece of plywood, puts it right on top of the Bibles and takes one of her very nice, ornamental table covers and puts it on top of the plywood. So now, all of a sudden, we had a makeshift coffee table inside our living room. It was obviously crooked when you looked at it. But it could pass for a Communist coffee table.”

The secret police came in with their dogs, going from room to room, as they ransacked the house.

Harry continues: “In the meantime, my clever-thinking mother goes and turns on a coffee pot for these folks. Now, coffee is a very rare delicacy in Communist Romania. No one had coffee. The only reason we had some is that the people who snuck in to bring us the Bibles also brought us some coffee.

“So all of a sudden these evil-doers, the secret police, start smelling coffee, this delicacy. My mother brings it out to them and places it right in front of them on our brand new makeshift coffee table.”

The police were taken aback because while they were there to find the Bibles and take them away and arrest the father, instead they were met with hospitality and were offered a “rare delicacy,” of which they gladly partook. They left empty-handed.

Harry concludes, “I believe God covered their eyes, and God stuffed the noses of those German shepherds because not one of them decided to look at our crooked coffee table….God protected the Bibles. God protected us, and God showed His sovereignty in the midst of that situation.”

Fast forward to today. Harry Mihet continues his work defending religious freedom with Liberty Counsel in America. And now, he and Liberty Counsel are partnering with a legal group in Romania to fight for religious liberty in the country of his origin.

America must always remain free. We cannot allow the godless left to stamp out freedom—the way the Communists do when they have full sway. So many people have sacrificed so much so that we might enjoy freedom, above all, religious freedom. We cannot let it slip through our fingers.

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

The Struggle Among The Political Elite Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran

The divisions within the Iranian establishment have deepened and become more evident than they had been because of the current uprising raging across Iran. These divisions seem to exist even among the Iranian clergy. Reformists condemn the government’s violent response while conservatives demand that protestors be “harshly punished” and “sentenced to death.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called on the political forces to refrain from actions that could risk Iran’s unity and integrity. In the past, Khamenei warned that “bipolarity is detrimental to the country,” adding that the “enemies are waiting to take advantage of any polarity or conflict” among Iran’s political forces.[1]

However, the recent developments in the country have once again revealed the depth of the great political multi-polarity within the Iranian establishment. In a commentary in the reformist Etemad newspaper, former government spokesman and long-time member of Iran’s intelligence community, Ali Rabiei, warned that Iran may face “bloody confrontations,” as the country’s uprising has been raging on for almost two months. He further stressed that there is a growing “pressure” from Iranian ultraconservatives “to disrupt the role of intermediary groups,” and monopolize power. Rabiei also stated: “The political participation of various political groups and parties was extremely limited in two consecutive elections. As a result, the ballot box lost its function of creating mediators, who played as go-betweens among various generations and their demands.”[2]

The political conflict between the reformist and conservative factions shaped Iranian politics for almost two decades. However, the current conflicts are also within the conservative faction that rules the country, facing the regime with a threatening internal infight.

Ultraconservatives Vs. Neoconservatives

Contradictory and often inflammatory remarks from regime insiders illustrate the growing disunity within the Iranian establishment.

In an interview with the state-sponsored media outlet, Ettela’at, commenting on the fact that at least 50 percent of Iranian women do not observe the regime-imposed dress code, Khamenei’s senior aide Ali Larijani stated: “When a behavior is so widely prevalent in the society it is wrong to involve the police in a bid to curb that behavior.”[3] He then added that “dialogue” is necessary with protesters.[4] Meanwhile, Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the National Security Committee, told Mehr News Agency: “One should definitely not appease those who have taken up weapons or behave violently against the system and the nation or are related to foreign security services, because soft treatment of these people and rioters is a betrayal of the country’s security and the nation.”[5]

Hence, it is possible to notice that, inside the conservative camp, there are two main currents of how to approach the protests. In fact, since the 2005 elections and the end of Iran’s reformist era (1997-2005), Iranian conservatives have been divided into two groups: extremist hardliners (ultraconservatives/traditional conservatives) and neoconservatives (neocons). Khamenei supports both sides, but, undoubtedly, he tends to prefer the hardliners over the neocons.

Ultraconservatives are Iran’s most right-wing party – they can be defined as “far-right.” They have a political party called Jebha-ye paydari-e enqelab-e eslami (“Front of Islamic Revolution Stability” aka the Paydari party). The party’s members are predominantly veterans of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War and their worldview is thus shaped by their wartime experience. They are extremely anti-West, anti-Saudi Arabia, and anti-Israel. Basically, the IRGC and Khamenei’s inner circle belong to this faction.

The Front’s spiritual leader used to be Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, who died in 2021. Since his death, current President Ebrahim Raisi and Saeed Jalili (who is nicknamed the “living martyr,” after losing the lower portion of his right leg fighting in the Iran-Iraq War) are the behind-the-scenes leaders of this front. They reject any calls for reform and insist on a strict observance of shari’a. For example, they established the Morality Police in 2005 to strictly enforce the regime’s dress code.

On the other hand, the “neoconservatives” can be defined as “centrist-rightists.” They have adopted some “reformist” ideas, such as the necessity of changes in the government regulations but without making major structural changes. Neocons started as a movement in 2005, as a “third way” between Iran’s reformist and traditionalist conservatives (i.e., ultraconservatives).

The rivalry between the neoconservatives and ultraconservatives (also pejoratively called “super-revolutionaries”) in Iran has been apparent in the Assembly of Experts, City Council, and Parliament (Majlis) elections since the mid-2000s, but it has become more obvious and intense during the current political unrest. In fact, neocons have been accusing the ultraconservatives in the Ebrahim Raisi government of incompetence and inability to solve the current crisis.

The Neocons’ Plans For A “New Governance”

Neoconservatives are led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s Parliament Speaker and former IRGC commander, who recently accused ultraconservatives of “opening their mouth and saying anything and doing anything without calculating the consequences of their behavior.”[6] London-based media outlet Iran International mentioned that Ghalibaf’s inner circle has also said that ultraconservatives are stoking the ongoing protests in the country with “their hardline positions and behavior that have annoyed Iranians from all walks of life.”[7]

It is worth noting that Ghalibaf recently stated that he promoted the idea of establishing a “new governance” and bring about reforms, based on new plans that would initiate “innovative” and “great” changes in all levels of the government. However, he then added: “I hope security will be completely restored in the country soon, so that legitimate and necessary changes would begin to establish a new governance in economic, social and political areas within the framework of the Islamic Republic.”[8] The fact that Ghalibaf considers postponing these reforms until “security is completely restored” (i.e., the protests are ended) may indicate (as reformists stressed) that there is no real will to implement a “new governance.”

Nevertheless, Ghalibaf’s call for reforms found several supporters among conservatives. Mohammad Saeed Ahadian, a conservative journalist related by marriage to Ayatollah Khamenei, stressed in the IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency that the recent situation has shown the necessity of urgent reforms in the country. He remarked that Ghalibaf’s proposal for “new governance” is based on Khamenei’s orders.[9] Furthermore, on November 10, Ahadian tweeted that Ghalibaf’s reform plan was welcomed by the country’s ruling elites. However, he said that the existing vagueness of some points of the plan brought the “super-revolutionaries” to find an excuse to “destroy” the proposal for reforms, as “they did it before” in the past.[10]

Iran International reported that Ghalibaf’s camp believes that, after the protests end, the regime will not collapse, but rather the neocons will take over the ultraconservatives. “Neocons insist that once the country leaves behind the current wave of nationwide protests, everything will be ready for unseating the Paydari Party,” wrote Iran International, adding that the neocons want to change all the ministers that are believed were imposed by Saeed Jalili, Ghalibaf’s political adversary, in the Raisi government.

Critical Voices In Qom

On November 9, in order to rally the regime supporters around ultraconservatives, Kayhan newspaper, which is funded by Iran’s Supreme Leader, stated: “One of the dreams and hopes of this movement is that in the future after the Islamic Republic is toppled, homosexuality will be legalized and spread in Iran, the day after the downfall of the Islamic Republic will be nothing less than hell.”[11]

However, some clerics have raised their critical voices against the ultraconservatives even in Qom, Iran’s religious capital. For instance, on November 13, Hojatoleslam Mohammad Ali Ayazi, a prominent Iranian cleric in the city, blamed the ultraconservatives for taking harsh stances against the protestors and stressed that “objection is a human right.” He then added: “In autocratic systems, they stigmatize and denounce their opponents as irreligious, and then use this stigma as an excuse to deal harshly with their opponents.”[12]

Given the rising criticism against ultraconservatives, some Iranian activists in social media suggested that Ghalibaf’s statement about implementing legitimate changes, if the situation calms down, is a “clear message” for the people: the elite has “accepted defeat and is retreating,” by offering reforms.[13] In fact, the pro-reform newspaper Etemad suggested that this is a golden opportunity for the neocons that can use the protests to attack the ultraconservatives for Iran’s problems and take over.[14]

Reformists Call For Referendum And “Self-Reforming” System

Aside from conservatives and neocons, the Islamic republic’s political elite comprises also of reformists, which represent the “left wing” of the Iranian politics. They are known to be “pragmatists,” they want to improve Iran’s regional and international relations and ease restrictions inside the country. Nevertheless, both reformists and conservatives support the Islamic Republic’s system of government.

Historically, reformists were led by former Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. The Supreme Leader Khamenei managed to purge the government of reformists first in 2005 with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, followed by the brutal crackdown on reformists after the 2009 green movement. It is also worth noting that Rafsanjani’s daughter Fatima always claimed that her father did not die of a natural death, as the official report stated in 2017.[15] Most recently, Rafsanjani’s other daughter Faezeh was arrested in Tehran for “inciting” the ongoing riots.[16]

Finally in 2021, Khamenei himself removed all the reformist and even moderate conservative candidates for presidency to ensure the success of the current ultraconservative President Ebrahim Raisi, in the election of that year. The reformists are now led by former associates of Khatami and Rafsanjani.

On November 9, as ultraconservatives keep supporting harsh crackdown on protests, Iran’s Reform Front, which was founded in March 2021 by Khatami’s associates and is formed by parties from Iran’s reformist camp, issued a statement calling for a referendum and the immediate end of violence against protesters.

The statement stressed: “The protests are the outcome of many years of denial of the people’s problems [by the government] and refusal to recognize them, as well as being the product of accrued and unsolved issues, such as humiliation and suppression of the people. Unfortunately, despite 50 days having already passed [since the beginning of the protests], there are still no signs of an effective, realistic solutions by the ruling institutions for the current protests and the widespread social unrest.”

The statement then accused the Ministry of Intelligence and the IRGC Intelligence Organization of not understanding that what they consider to be “the solution” to the current crisis is instead “the problem itself” and the “root cause” of the crisis.

The statement warned: “Collapse and subversion threaten the regimes that either maintain their stubborn positions against society’s demands, like the Gaddafi regime, or showed flexibility and initiated changes when it was too late, like the Pahlavi regime.” Therefore, Iran’s Reform Front suggested starting “endogenous changes and reforms,” in order to meet the “people’s demands.” “[This is] the best and at the same time the least expensive way to overcome the crisis and prevent the country’s descent into the abyss,” the statement assessed. [17]

Most importantly, the Reform Front’s statement proposed the organization of a referendum in the country, to bring “immediate, courageous, and innovative changes” and open an “effective dialogue on a national scale.”

The statement recommended: “This first action is even possible by relying on the democratic approach of the current Constitution and by implementing it in full, including… Article 59 on the organization of a referendum.” It then added: “However, in order to create fundamental reforms and in order to completely solve the problems related to the incorrect processes in the country, it seems that an effective measure is to solve the ambiguities, flaws, and contradictions of the existing Constitution, in a peaceful atmosphere, during a legal process and based on the collective wisdom and national will of all Iranians.”[18]

Azar Mansouri, the general secretary of the reformist Union of Islamic Iran People Party, Iran’s main reformist party led by Khatami’s former aides, also said in a tweet that the “lack of political legitimacy [of the government] is the most obvious threat to the country’s national security.”[19]

It is worth noting that, at the end of September, a few days after the spread of the protests all around the country, the Union of Islamic Iran People Party called on the Iranian government to “prepare the legal elements necessary for the repeal of the law on the mandatory hijab.”[20][21]

Most recently, Khatami himself stated: “Overthrowing [the regime] is not possible or desirable. However, the continuation of the current situation is widening the grounds of a social collapse that could happen at any moment. Hence, the least expensive and most beneficial solution is the ‘self-reforming’ system [i.e., to promote social, political, and economic reforms without dismantling the Islamic republic].”[22]

Ultraconservatives Vs. Reformists

The IRGC daily newspaper Javan strongly criticized the Reform Front for its statement. In an article, Javan called the Reform Front an “opportunistic” political movement trying to take advantage of the situation for its own interests. It then accused it of “changing the nature” of the “riots,” describing them as simple “protests.” Javan criticized the political movement for accusing the government of being the source of the uprising in the country while ignoring the “foreign origin” of the revolt.[23]

During the past two months, Khamenei himself has made it clear that he wants the protesters to be punished severely, insisting that the uprising is supported by foreign services.

As reported by Iran International, the Islamic Republic’s Army Ground Forces Commander, Kiumars Heydari, has recently threatened harsher responses to the protesters, that he defined as “flies,” if Khamenei orders it.[24]

Neoconservatives May Establish An Alliance With Reformists

There are currently three factions within Iranian ruling elite with different agendas and proposing different policies to overcome the current crisis. Even though the three of them want to keep alive the Islamic Republic regime, the current protests are showing strong divisions inside the political elite: reformists call for structural changes in the system to grant people greater freedom through holding a referendum; ultraconservatives insist on suppressing the uprising and retaining the status quo; and neoconservatives seek reforms without making structural changes.

This polarization between neoconservatives and ultraconservatives at the heart of the ruling establishment, with only a small reformist faction, renders Iranian politics potentially explosive, especially if a rift within the conservative faction leads to a power struggle, with neoconservatives moving toward establishing an alliance with reformists.

However, political divisions within the current ruling elites may not threaten the regime, as Khamenei and his inner circle control the government, unless the political infighting leads to military infighting. The IRGC under Khamenei, which is considered Iran’s “deep state,” continue to play a zero-sum game, as it considers that to compromise with the protesters would be a sign of weakness that will be exploited by “the enemy.” It is also unlikely that the Raisi government would embark upon a radical reform plan that would structurally alter the system.

Even if conservatives move toward greater openness, entrenched conservative clerics would attempt to repress dissident views and impose Shia shari’a law upon Iranians, as long as they remain powerful militarily or politically. Furthermore, Khamenei has to continue to support his devout ultraconservatives, particularly the IRGC, if he wants to keep retaining his authoritative position and the regime’s ideological heritage. Yet, discontent among the factions will continue to grow, making the political situation in the country more unstable.

Conclusion

International media and public statements by Iranian officials fail to see that the protests in Iran are not only about Iran’s hijab law. The protests will continue even if this law is abolished; the protesters have made it clear that they aim at overthrowing the regime. In particular, ethnic minorities are fighting for the ethnic and human rights of which they have been deprived for over a century.

The protesters believe that the Iranian regime cannot be fixed, therefore they want nothing less than regime change. This is made clear by the slogans of the uprising: “Reformist, hardliner, it is over!” “Death to the whole apparatus of power, death to the Islamic Republic,” and “we don’t want referendums, we want regime change!”[25]

Hence, the people – not the government, and not the political factions – will probably have the last say in Iran this time. Protesters have so far refused to back down despite facing a brutal crackdown. It may take months or years, but the protesters will likely continue to fight until they overthrow the Islamic Republic regime.

AUTHOR

Himdad Mustafa

Himdad Mustafa is a Kurdish scholar and expert on Kurdish and Iranian affairs.


SOURCES:

[1] Tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/09/26/1196641/leader-urges-iranian-political-figures-to-avert-polarity-in-society, September 26, 2016.

[2] Iranintl.com/en/202211078932, November 7, 2022; Etemadnewspaper.ir, November 2, 2022.

[3] Iranintl.com/en/202210159406, October 15, 2022.

[4] Ettelaat.com/mobile/archives/306255, October 12, 2022.

[5] Mehrnews.com/news/, November 12, 2022.

[6] Iranintl.com/en/202210287847, October 28, 2022.

[7] Iranintl.com/en/202210287847, October 28, 2022.

[8] Iranintl.com/en/202211096048, November 9, 2022;Etemadnewspaper.ir, November 8, 2022.

[9] Farsnews.ir, November 10, 2022.

[10] Twitter.com/ahadian_ir/status/1590690572544913410?cxt=HHwWhMDRwbupopMsAAAA, November 10, 2022.

[11] Sharghdaily.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-6/860943-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D9%87%D9%86%D9%85-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA, November 9, 2022.

[12] Twitter.com/SharghDaily/status/1591759027402264576?cxt=HHwWgMCqxdyZiJcsAAAA, November 13, 2022.

[13] Twitter.com/rezahajilou/status/1589274131568431104, November 6, 2022.

[14] Iranintl.com/en/202211096048, November 9, 2022.

[15] Aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/rafsanjani-didn-t-die-natural-death-says-daughter/1359527, January 8, 2019.

[16] Arabnews.com/node/2171631/middle-east, September 29, 2022.

[17]Etemadnewspaper-ir.translate.goog/fa/main/detail/193142/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA?_x_tr_sl=fa&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=iw&_x_tr_pto=wapp, November 10, 2022.

[18] Etemadnewspaper-ir.translate.goog/fa/main/detail/193142/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA?_x_tr_sl=fa&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=iw&_x_tr_pto=wapp, November 10, 2022.

[19] Twitter.com/MansooriAzar/status/1589529844488208384?t=MMs1S1KDsIFSpXxLF513cA&s=19, November 7, 2022.

[20] Voanews.com/a/iran-main-reformist-party-urges-end-to-mandatory-dress-code/6761732.html, September 24, 2022.

[21] It is worth noting that, while reformists showed their readiness to support the repeal of the law on mandatory hijab, ultraconservatives are not inclined to give up. Ultraconservative cleric Mojtaba Zolnouri, a member of the Iranian parliament from Qom, urged the authorities to enforce hijab strictly and said: “Women who do not cover their hair should be sentenced to 74 lashes… A notice served by the morality police will not be enough for women who take off their hijab.” Iranintl.com/en/202210189009, October 18, 2022.

[22] Instagram.com/p/Ck8N7gPoA1r/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D, November 14, 2022.

[23] Javanonline.ir/fa/news/1114656/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF, November 9, 2022.

[24] Iranintl.com/en/202211099705, November 9, 2022.

[25] Euronews.com/2022/11/11/iran-women-reformists-analysis, November 11, 2022.

EDITORS NOTE: This MEMRI Daily Brief No. 430 is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Historical Roots of Political Correctness

“The highest art in the world cannot guild socialism. It is impossible to make beautiful, the denial of liberty.” — Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert, British writer, theorist, philosopher, and 19th century individualist.


Posted by P. Brooks.

America as a nation, is now dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values, become known as Political Correctness (PC). It seeks to impose a uniformity in thought & behavior among all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. It has roots in the ideology of Marxism, which requires a radical inversion of the prevailing traditional culture by Cultural Marxism (CM), in order to achieve a social revolution. Such a social revolution is the kind envisioned by Karl Marx, as an inversion of the social order and commensurate inversion of the power structure.

Social revolution has a long history involving a number of disparate forces, conceivably inspired by Plato’s “Republic”. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 which probably inspired Karl Marx to do what he did in the 19th century. In the 20th century, success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia, sent a wave of optimistic expectation among Marxists in Europe & America believing the new Proletariat world of equality espoused by Karl Marx, was now at hand. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead revolutionary forces to final victory.

Marxist revolutionaries in Europe could not restrain themselves. They leapt at this opportunity to lead the proletarian workers into a promised new world. There was a Communist ‘Spartacist’ uprising in Berlin, led by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a Bavarian ‘Soviet’ in Germany, led by Kurt Eisner and an Hungarian ‘Soviet,’ established by Bella Kun in 1919.

There was great concern Europe might fall, under the banner of Bolshevism.

This sense of impending doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919, which was expected to begin a triumphant conquest of all Western Europe by Soviet Armed Forces – allied with local communists, according to Lenin’s plan.

However in 1920, Trotsky’s Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the Battle of The Vistula – and the Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet & Hungarian Soviet moments all failed to gain widespread support of workers and after a brief time, were deposed by opposition forces.  These events created a quandary for Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic theory, oppressed workers were supposed to be beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When revolutionary opportunity presented itself, workers didn’t respond. Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed workers. The Marxists resolved their quandary by an analysis focused on the cultural superstructure of society, rather than the economic substructure as Marx had done. Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed most to this, ‘Cultural’ Marxism.

Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International in 1923 – 1924, in Moscow & Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks”. Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural & ideological hegemony, as the means of class dominance. His view that a new Communist Man must be made, before any political revolution could succeed, led to a focus on efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education & culture, to perform this task. This was to be a long march through society’s institutions – meaning government, judiciary, military, schools and the media. Gramsci concluded, so long as workers had Christian souls, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals. Multiculturalism thus can be seen as a means of breaking the grip of traditional cultural hegemony on American society.

Georg Lukacs, the son of a wealthy Hungarian banker, began his political life as a key Soviet agent of the Communist International. His book “History and Class Consciousness” gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.

Like Karl Marx, Lukacs’ primary emotion was hatred.

I saw revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to cultural contradictions of the epoch,” was one of Lukacs’ noxious screeds. In defending Bolshevism, Lukacs proposed, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without annihilation of old values and creation of new ones by revolutionaries.”

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun Regime in Hungary, where he instigated what became known as ‘Culture Terrorism’. Lukacs launched an explosive sex education program. Special lectures were organized in Hungarian schools and literature printed & distributed to instruct children about free love, the nature of sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of bourgeois family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Children urged to reject & deride paternal authority and the authority of the Church – and to ignore precepts of morality – easily & spontaneously turned into delinquents, with whom only the police could cope. This call to rebellion for Hungarian children, was matched by a call to rebellion for Hungarian women. This was a precursor to what Cultural Marxism would later bring to American schools.

As result of a meeting in 1923, attended by Lukacs & other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany, the “Institute of Social Research” was founded at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany in 1924. This Institute became known as ‘The Frankfurt School’. Its model was the ”Marx Engels Institute” in Moscow. The members of this Institute prepared numerous studies on beliefs, attitudes and the values they assumed led to the rise of German national socialism. These were critical studies combining Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis.

The sum of these critical studies became known as Frankfurt School Critical Theory.

Frankfurt School Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture such as Christianity, capitalism, authority, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention & conservatism.

Frankfurt School criticisms are reflected in their written works like, “Studies on Authority and the Family”, Erich Fromm’s ”Escape From Freedom” and his ”The Dogma of Christ”, Wilhelm Reich’s ”The Mass Psychology of Fascism” and Theodor Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality”, published in 1950.

Frankfurt School Critical Theory encompasses specific sub-theories such as matriarchal theory, androgyny theory, personality theory, prejudice theory, authority theory, family theory, sexuality theory, racial theory, legal theory and literary theory. These various sub-theories are used to induce inversion of the prevailing belief system, so Marxist revolutionaries can engineer a non-violent social revolution. As the Marxist social revolutionaries readily proclaim, their avowed purpose is to destroy the hegemonic white male power structure. This requires the inversion of beliefs of white males, so they feel compelled to relinquish their positions to women & minorities. This reflects the psycho-dynamics of social revolution, that lie at the core of Political Correctness.

The belief in patriarchy is inverted to a belief in matriarchy, in accordance with Frankfurt School matriarchal theory. The belief in distinct gender roles is inverted to belief that gender roles should not exist, in accordance with Frankfurt School androgyny theory. The belief in inherent differences among races is inverted to belief that differences do not exist, in accordance with Frankfurt School racial theory. The belief that heterosexual is the norm is inverted to belief that homosexuality is normal, in accordance with Frankfurt School sexuality theory. Frankfurt School prejudice theory as presented in Theodor Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality” had the intended effect of inverting belief about racial discrimination. The belief that racial discrimination was a normal instinctive response to a perceived threat to survival of a race, was inverted to belief that racial discrimination was evidence of social pathology and mental sickness in an individual. This Frankfurt School theory of prejudice was then applied to gender & sexual discrimination in much the same way.

By its very nature, Frankfurt School Critical Theory amounted to a grand scheme for inversion of the intrinsic worth of white heterosexual males, opening an intellectual door to the racial & sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites, Herbert Marcuse and Betty Friedan. The expressed views of Leon Trotsky, adopted by his ‘Fourth International’, were especially revealing. Trotsky had denounced prejudiced white workers in scathing, bitter terms.  He asserted that due to oppression, Negroes could become the most revolutionary element of the population – and furnish the vanguard of the revolution. Trotsky demanded white workers assist blacks in this revolution.

Most young student leaders of the 1960’s counterculture revolution, to a large extent, followed dictates of Leon Trotsky, attempting to elevate black revolutionaries to positions of leadership. Since the counterculture revolution of the 1960’s was an attempt to invert prevailing culture – as its very description implies – acceptance of an inversion of white & black roles seemed logical to student revolutionaries.  These radical Marxists likewise followed Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School – who became the admired philosopher on 1960’s campuses at American colleges & universities, with his advocacy of women’s & black revolutions.

As a Marxist revolutionary alumnus of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse became a key practitioner of revolutionary theory in America. In 1947, he argued for a Soviet style republic and welcomed anarchy, disintegration & catastrophe, to bring about revolutionary change. Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal”, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist & black revolutions. His primary thesis was that revolutionaries like university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World, could take the place of the Proletariat. In his book, “An Essay On Liberation”, Herbert Marcuse proclaimed his aims of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos; cultural subversion; critical theory and a linguistic rebellion amounting to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse echoed, ‘it is true that the white man is guilty and that the black population appears the most natural force of rebellion’. The similarity to Leon Trotsky’s mindset should be noted.

Another important revolutionary contributor to Political Correctness was Betty Friedan, who promoted the modern feminist movement in America & Canada with her book ”The Feminine Mystique”. In that book, she claimed the feminist movement was sex role revolution. This sex role inversion did indeed eventually take the form of the extreme demand for female combat soldiers & female fighter pilots, which was duly complied with by new American males. In her book, Betty Friedan devoted almost a full chapter to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualization.

Abraham Maslow was a social psychologist, who in his early years, did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Brandeis University and had met with Erich Fromm in 1936. Maslow was so impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology he wrote an article entitled, “The Authoritarian Character Structure”, published in 1944. This piece reflected the personality theory of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. Maslow was likewise impressed with Wilhelm Reich, another Frankfurt Schooler & originator of personality theory – which became integral to Marxist ideology in America.

The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully comprehended unless Betty Friedan’s sex-role revolution is viewed for what it really is – a manifestation of a social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx himself. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School Marxist ideology is but one indicator.  The very idea of her sex role inversion corresponds with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values & creation of new ones by Marxist revolutionaries and Herbert Marcuse’s radical transvaluation of all values. But the idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex role inversion is designed to do – can be connected directly to Frederick Engel’s book, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, published in 1884, which popularized a currently adopted feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against an oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy.

Belief that matriarchy is the solution to patriarchy flows from Karl Marx’s comments in his ’The German Ideology” of 1845. In that document Marx advanced the theory that wives & children were the first property of patriarchal males, which Engels elaborated upon in his book, from notes by Marx. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory and its related androgyny theory both originated from these sources. So there is historical consistency to this sex aspect of the Marxist social revolution. There is another historical consistency to the racial aspect of Marxist social revolution. Karl Marx had a revolutionary friend named Moses Hess, who introduced him to communism. In 1865, Hess wrote a dictum in his book, ”Rome and Jerusalem” that race struggle was primary. This could be seen as the inspiration of the Frankfurt School’s prejudice theory, as well as the attitudes of Leon Trotsky & Herbert Marcuse on the race subject.

There is further historical consistency to Marxist social revolution related to the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory as destructive criticism. In his 1844 war plan against the Prussian State, Karl Marx was more blunt about his use of ruthless criticism. Criticism was a weapon to destroy. He intended to destroy the bourgeois middle class in class warfare. Under Marx’s formula, the middle class Bourgeoisie would become the oppressing class, in which evils of society would be concentrated – and thus regarded as the notorious center of crime for the whole society. The middle class would be criminalized. This was the initial part of Karl Marx’s social revolutionary process leading to middle class disintegration. Later similarity to Herbert Marcuse’s use of the term ‘disintegration’ should be observed. In 1969, Marcuse wrote in “The Carnivorous Society”, What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.

It happens the Frankfurt School’s book, ”The Authoritarian Personality” authored by Theodor Adorno, et al, edited by Max Horkheimer & published in 1950, was a seminal event, because of its substantial impact on American social psychologists & social scientists of the day. It was one of a series of books entitled, “Studies on Prejudice”. Adorno’s premise evolved from a simplified formula developed by the Frankfurt School in Europe. Christianity plus capitalism, plus patriarchal authoritarian family, created a character prone to racial prejudice & German fascism. After the Frankfurt School group of social revolutionaries came to America in the mid-1930’s, they looked around and observed an America that was Christian, capitalist and with patriarchal families – so they sensed potential for authoritarian regime, as had came about in the Hitlerian Germany they left. As a result, ”The Authoritarian Personality” came to serve as an ideological handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination, on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might ensue. Political Correctness evolved from that milieu.

What had begun with the founding of the Frankfurt School in 1924, as destructive criticism of the elements of Western culture, had ended in “The Authoritarian Personality”, as a psychological method for pathologizing any evidence of religious, cultural or racial superiority, in the thinking & behavior among an American majority. No single religion was to be superior. No single culture was to be superior. No single race was to be superior. So multiculturalism was invented. And then no single sex was to be superior. And with nothing superior, there was nothing to value. It was to be a matter of choice by the individual self, since there was to be no higher authority than self. This is the very essence of Political Correctness. It serves as the means to conduct the psychic decapitation of any potential leader who might seek to unify Americans, on the basis of a shared religion, culture or race. Americans were to be kept fragmented by this radical individualism & subjected to a national condition of cognitive dissonance – meaning massive confusion over beliefs & values.

Then America could be treated as one vast psychopathic ward – and controlled accordingly.

The method selected by Marxist social revolutionaries to control the American people is rather simple. It is the use of dialectical stages of operant conditioning words. Only instead of the bourgeois middle class being made to bear the brunt of all society’s ills and merit the criminalization of that class – as Karl Marx proposed – the modern Cultural Marxists have substituted white heterosexual males as the class to be criminalized, with charges of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia or xenophobia, as given particular circumstances require. They have manipulated the federal government itself into passing laws & regulations against discrimination, to keep white males in their ‘psychic iron cage’, where they fear to challenge what is being done to the American nation. Then Hate Crimes were added to this cultural terrorism, to keep white males in their place. This was an inversion of reality, since those originating the charge of Hate Crimes were the ones actually guilty of attempting to destroy the white male power structure.

This is what Frankfurt School Critical Theory is all about inversion.

A review of the historical roots of Political Correctness would not be complete without reference to the psychological process of dialectic stages of operant conditioning, by words directed against the larger body of Western Man generally, before Frankfurt School Critical Theory came to be used against American white males. For more than a hundred years, Marxist social revolutionaries have leveled criminal-like charges of imperialism, colonialism, militarism, chauvinism, feudalism as well as fascism and Nazism in later years against Western Man. These words are still part of the Marxist vocabulary. But they were used only in the first dialectic stage. What has been happening in America is the second stage. First stage was designed to destroy the whole Western structure of power, which in earlier times dominated the world. Now in America, the process is the same, except social revolution in America is just part of this larger global picture.

The visible evidence Political Correctness reigns supreme over the American landscape is not a nice sight to behold, in the eyes of traditional Americans. For all practical purposes, the social revolution promoted by Marxists of the Frankfurt School and others like Leon Trotsky, Herbert Marcuse & Betty Friedan, has been successfully executed in America. There is virtually no sphere of American life left untouched. The revolutionary inversions of the prevailing belief system – as a result of Frankfurt School Critical Theory – has had the effect of preparing Americans for an ongoing & steadily increasing displacement of white males, by women & minorities in government, judicial, military, education & informational structures of society, as the Marxist revolutionaries intended. For example, at the 1996 Democratic National Convention, fifty percent of delegates were women. The Republican National Convention was not much better in its pandering. There was loud cheers when the first woman was appointed Secretary of State in 1997. Before that, the President’s cabinet consisted of just four Euro-white males – out of fourteen cabinet posts. The remainder were women & minorities. Herbert Marcuse should be proud, for there were no complaints. So would deceased Antonio Gramsci – especially if he knew about the ordination of women in churches and the gender-neutering & demasculation of prayer books and other texts in synagogues. This leads to expanding sexual madness in the land, brought on by Frankfurt School Critical Theory, which became transposed into our present bane of Political Correctness.

Originally published by the Free Congress Foundation, Number 44, June 1997

AUTHOR

Raymond V. Raehn

Raymond V. Raehn holds an M.A. degree in International Affairs from The George Washington University and is a graduate of the U.S. Naval War College. He flew Navy fighter planes during World War II and became the Commander of a fighter squadron some years later. After serving on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operation, he retired to head a real estate development company. In 1981, he founded the United States Global Strategy Council and served as its president as an advocate of a comprehensive U.S. national security strategy which became law in 1986. He operates a family cattle ranch in South Texas.

©Raymond V. Raehn. All rights reserved. This column is republished with permission.

The Boast in the Machine

Voting machines caused chaos in Maricopa County, Arizona on Election Day:

“Maricopa County was absolutely insane,” [a voter] said. “I mean, I woke up to messages everywhere about, you know, this polling location is closed, people are in line, they’re kicking them out, this polling location is closed, whatever.”
We “got in line, I got my ballot, filled it out, went to the machines, and it was rejected,” she continued. “Then they said, ‘Go over to the other machine,’ it was rejected…. And finally, after about 10 times, we spoiled it….  And finally, my third ballot and about, you know, five or six times they finally accepted it…. And that was happening all around me.

The problems affected 70 vote centers in the county, seven percent of all in-person votes cast there on Election Day.  Most of them still had not been counted a week later.

An election judge in a Republican area in the county believes the problems were intentional.  The tabulators were set up for 19-inch ballots, but the ballots were 20 inches and rejected.

I wish I could tell you these were the only problems with machines in this year’s elections, but there were lots more.

Twenty-five thousand votes for a third-party candidate for U.S. Senate in New York disappeared overnight.  This has not been explained, as far as I’m aware.  Also in New York, identical election results were reported across multiple counties, with Democrats winning every time.  How does that happen?

Voting machines went out of service in New Jersey and Texas.

Security features were found to be turned off in several voting machines in Georgia.  This was discovered when a fraudulent ballot printed on looseleaf paper turned up.  The machines are supposed to detect when the paper does not meet requirements.  So who turned off the security features and why?

A Democrat in Colorado was arrested for inserting a USB flash drive into a voting machine during a primary election in June.  This is one way to get a machine to flip votes.

We keep hearing that voting machines don’t connect to the Internet and, thus, results can’t be tampered with from the outside, but the Colorado Secretary of State admitted in writing Dominion machines have Wi-Fi connectivity.

An audit in New Mexico last month found a 25 percent difference between machine counts and hand counts in a primary election.

In a Virginia county, it was found the number of votes recorded by scanners was different from the number of paper ballots dropping down into the box below.  How does that happen?

None of this inspires confidence, especially when you hear things like Barack Obama saying in 2008 “I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we got Democrats in charge of the machines.”   Or a Dominion voting system executive caught on video explaining to election officials in 2020 how to use the machines to alter election results.  Or the director of an electronic voting system company admitting that an entire election in Venezuela was stolen when a million votes were flipped in 2017.

No wonder some people want to get rid of the machines entirely and count paper ballots by hand again, like in France which doesn’t seem to have any trouble getting it done the same day.  Short of that, machine certification standards could be tightened, elections officials could do a better job of selecting equipment that actually meets specifications, and machines could be tested more rigorously before elections.  Whatever the solution, it’s clear the present state of affairs causes distrust in our elections and is, therefore, untenable.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s Massive Case of ‘Election Interference’ Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court

COVID-shot Echoes: I Had a Most Odd Experience Saturday

In “My troubling COVID vaccine story experiences,” I wrote last year about how within a short period of time I met three men at the same recreational area who announced to me they’d had heart attacks. All three had previously taken the coronavirus genetic-therapy agents (GTAs, aka “vaccines”). Add the friend who suffered heart inflammation and the neighbor of mine who had an adverse reaction after having the shots, and it was quite a series of “anomalies.” I’ve had another similar experience now, too.

While in a supermarket checkout line Saturday, I got to talking to the fellow behind me, who was holding a pair of floral bouquets. He’d bought them for two different funerals. One was for his brother, who’d died of a heart attack — at age 24. The other was for a friend’s son who’d passed away. I asked him how old was the son was.

“He was in first grade,” the man replied.

“What happened to him?” I then queried. The fellow said he didn’t know, that the boy was found “dead in bed”; he’d died in his sleep.

Having studied COVID since the “pandemic’s” beginning and the GTAs’ secondary effects since the drugs’ introduction, you can probably guess what immediately occurred to me. But the man was glassy-eyed and obviously grieving, and I felt it would’ve been inappropriate to inquire about the departed’s GTA status, so I didn’t. But I wouldn’t want to bet they hadn’t had the shots.

Naysayers will claim I’m jumping to conclusions, but here’s the point: I’m well into middle age (very well!), and I’d never before had so many odd experiences such as those outlined above. What’s more, my anecdotal experiences accord with data showing there has been an enormous amount of increased mortality since the GTAs’ introduction.

Flashback: Just consider the December 30, 2021 testimonial of Scott Davison, CEO of insurance company OneAmerica, who spoke of a spike in mortality his industry was seeing that was worse than that associated with a one-in-200-year catastrophe. Bear in mind when reading the below that Davison wasn’t making any political point when delivering his information; in fact, there’s no indication that he’s even an ideologue. As The Center Square wrote January 1:

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.”

Davison was one of several business leaders who spoke during the virtual news conference on Dec. 30 that was organized by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.

“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”

Now, note that that this “third quarter,” 2021 age-18-to-64 death increase generally coincides with when the GTAs were pushed on people under 65.

It was once vanishingly rare to hear about a young 20-something dying of a coronary or an apparently healthy seven-year-old passing away in his sleep. But such incidents occur with regularity now (related example here).

Unfortunately, establishment institutions have no interest in investigating this mortality, not any more than mainstream media have a desire to cover it. Too many powerful people are implicated. After all, it isn’t just Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of our time’s true villains, who has dirty hands. Politicians, bureaucrats, media figures and other influential figures all conspired to strong-arm Americans into taking the GTAs while censoring, demeaning and canceling those who dared dispute their narrative. The hole they’re in is so deep, all they can do is keep digging and wait for this all to “go away.”

My only hope is that a nation with a less compromised medical establishment (perhaps Sweden or Japan?) will investigate and expose the truth about the GTAs. Regardless, there’s a reason why Rabbi Hillel Handler, Hagar Schafrir and other Holocaust survivors labeled the mass GTA inoculation scheme a “Holocaust” last year and, along with other figures, have called for the Nuremberg Code’s application: The worldwide GTA push may thus far be the crime of the century.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Drag Queens And The ‘Queering’ Of The Church

If you would have told me a few years ago that the church at-large would accept the diabolical scheme of allowing Drag Queens to teach or in any way influence 5-8 year old’s, I would have been in disbelief. To tell me that long-standing Christians would remain silent if such was proposed, or if someone serving with them in a ministry leadership would also be silent, not object firmly, I would have doubly been in disbelief. Both scenarios are happening, and I am additionally learning that raising concerns makes Christians uneasy.

May the below article shed light onto the weakness within the church at-large, and as to why the Lord is, and has already, brought a sword to separate His Remnant. A house divided cannot stand—this includes churches, ministries, and families.


Drag queens and the queering of the Church

By M. D. Perkins

It’s Sunday morning at a progressive church. The pastor introduces himself, states his preferred pronouns, welcomes the congregants, and then announces the arrival of the guest preacher—the drag queen performing under the name of “Ms. Penny Cost.” It is explained that Isaac Simmons (the man in drag) is a first-year seminary student and candidate for ordination in the United Methodist Church. Simmons will explain why he “gets dolled up” during the children’s sermon, before delivering a message to the whole congregation denouncing capitalism.

This is not the beginning of some pretentious short story from freshman English class. It is, in fact, a real event with real people taking place in a real United Methodist church. And things like this will continue to happen in the days, weeks, and years ahead.

Drag queens in public life

Once an obscure part of the gay subculture, men dressing up as drag queens have now become a common feature of pop culture. They are, of course, featured prominently in Pride parades and other LGBTQ+ celebrations. There are a number of current TV shows focused on drag, like RuPaul’s Drag Race (VH1), We’re Here (HBO), Call Me Mother (OutTV in Canada), Queen of the Universe (Paramount+), and Legendary (HBO Max). Drag queens have also found their way into elementary education, with book readings and other “family-friendly” drag events offering ways that children can interact with these performers. With this comes the inevitable controversy and backlash, fueling news stories across the media landscape.

Since drag queens have been mainstreamed, is it any surprise that there would be churches wanting to feature them in worship services? Is it any surprise that a seminary student would want to dress up in drag to present his screeds against capitalism and “queerphobia” to the church? Certainly not. “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions” (Jude 1:18).

What may be surprising for Christians, is that this is not accidental. The normalization of homosexuality leads to greater degrees of decadence and debauchery—not simply by laws of entropy but by concerted efforts on the part of activists to attack the image of God in man. The rise of drag queens in public life is a defiant attempt to queer our children and the church of Jesus Christ.

What is queering?

Some readers may remember a time when the word queer simply meant odd or strange. Most may still remember when queer was considered a pejorative slur for a homosexual. However, nowadays, queer has become an identity label as well as a point of pride and celebration. Hence the Q in the LGBTQ+ acronym. Queer can be a collective label for anything within the LGBTQ+ spectrum—that is, any person or thing that falls outside heterosexual or stereotypical gender norms.

As academic scholars began using the word queer to define their radical social theories, the word gained additional power. These theories were aimed at elevating non-traditional sexuality and fighting ways that heterosexuality is normalized or considered good in society. One way of combating what these scholars labeled heteronormativity was by a specific disruptive process of queering. Through this use, queer had become a verb, an action.

Queering is intended to complicate and disrupt what is perceived to be normal. As an action, it is the use of words, actions, or representatives to directly challenge heterosexuality, traditional gender roles, or the male/female binary. What is normal is sometimes described as binary—such as identifying as a man or a woman or even presenting yourself as a man or woman.

Here is how queering is defined in the Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015):

Queering is one strategy for queer activists who want to unsettle or complicate normative practices, spaces, or discourses. Introducing queer bodies into normative spaces, for instance, changes the dynamics of that space by unsettling the taken-for-granted characteristics of that space. Drag queens might “take over” a “straight bar” in order to queer the space, or complicate what that space means to the people inhabiting it.

The purpose is to disrupt foundational assumptions about sex and gender and, thereby, transform social norms by offering new possibilities. These possibilities do not have to be the new normal in themselves, but they work to move people’s sensibility toward accepting queerness as normal by offering a counterpoint to it. This can even be seen in the rise of the terms nonbinary and genderqueer, used to express a person’s inner feeling of gender identity. Whether discussing gender or sexuality, the binary is rejected in favor of a spectrum. Queering is intended to help people see the various colors of this spectrum.

This may sound very abstract, so an illustration is in order.

Drag performance as an act of queering

Drag performance itself is an act of queering because of its attempt to complicate and unsettle binary depictions of sex and gender. This can be seen even with the complicated use of pronouns which dismantles order and clarity. As in the case of Isaac Simmons/”Ms. Penny Cost,” Isaac has one set of pronouns (they/them) and a different set when dressed in drag (she/her). The drag persona is singular while the real person underneath is plural. The fact that the pronoun protocol is outlined at the beginning of each presentation only adds to the chaos.

But the queering goes deeper. Consider the way Drag Queen Story Hours have become a feature of education in recent years. These are events where a drag performer reads storybooks to young children in a school, library, or bookstore setting. The Drag Queen Story Hour website proudly declares that through these events “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves!” The purpose is to stretch a child’s imagination to include drag queens as normal. Where a child may think it wrong or strange for a man to dress as a woman, the drag performer gives a visible (and potentially fun) counterpoint to that latent assumption.

According to the theory that undergirds these efforts, the act of having drag queens read in a library or school has effectively queered the space. As the theory stresses, this is supposed to help the child become more accepting of all LGBTQ+ expressions—including those the child may develop later. Not all drag performances are brazenly sexualized but the very act of drag—especially where the maleness of the female impersonator is particularly recognizable—is intended to pervert. That’s the point. This doesn’t even mention the frequently sexualized performances that have been documented—which is why many conservatives have labeled the practice “grooming.”

This same theory was earlier employed at the college level by sociology professor Steven P. Schacht. Before his death, Schacht took over 300 students to drag performances in order to challenge their traditional views. He reported that it was a highly effective method of giving his students an “experiential appreciation” of gender performance, with an ultimate political goal in mind: “Equality will not be realized until non-dichotomous, truly new ways of relating to others are envisioned and acted upon.” In other words, drag helps us envision a new world.

This is the heart of queering.

Queering the Church

The appearance of “Ms. Penny Cost” at Allendale United Methodist Church is evidence that the practice of queering is now entering some church settings as well. In one sense, this is to be expected. After all, embracing gay-affirming theology will eventually require further participation in activism in order to prove one’s commitment to the LGBTQ+ cause. As one author said, “Queer Christians deserve a queer theology that is not just inclusive but takes into account their distinct experiences.” How can these “distinct experiences” be shown without bold attempts to feature public expressions of queerness by those who identify as queer?

But in another sense, it is surprising to hear of a drag queen leading a church service because it is so obviously antithetical to sound doctrine and reverent worship of the God described in Scripture. But this is exactly the point of queering: it is meant to disrupt, surprise, and shock those who adhere to biblical orthodoxy. It is defiant, abrasive, and transgressive—by design. As queer theologian Robert Shore-Goss triumphantly declares in Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto:

Fundamentalist and literalist Christians traffic in the production and commerce of certain truths, but doubts, ambiguities, pluralities, and complexities will bring their fragile discursive edifice of fundamentalist truth to an end in the area of public discourse and curtail its harmful effect to those who are sexually different.

This act of queering the church may take many different forms. One form is through the use and promotion of queer theology. Queer theology presents shocking takes on theological ideas that are intended to elevate LGBTQ+ experience. One example is when Brian G. Murphy (of QueerTheology.com) declares that sexual promiscuity is a reflection of God’s love and Christian hospitality—where a person is “welcoming the stranger—into your home, or the backseat of your car, or even your body.” The purpose here is not simply to justify promiscuity but also to attack the traditional way Christians think.

Another form of queering the church is through the process of queer readings, whereby a work of Christian literature is read through a queer lens in order to pull new possibilities from the text. This can be seen in Keegan Osinski’s recent book Queering Wesley, Queering the Church (Cascade Books, 2021) where the sermons of John Wesley are queered in order to show that the queer perspective is “consistent with the broader thrust of Wesleyan theology and practice.” This includes a redefinition of holiness, where queerness itself becomes “not only compatible with holiness freshly understood, but also a truly fruitful and beneficial piece of a broader picture of what holiness can be.”

Queering the church can also take the form of a drag performance in the middle of Sunday morning service. The presence of the performer is intended to complicate the expectations of who can or should lead a worship service and who is given an opportunity to speak in church. Isaac Simmons (the name of the man who plays “Ms. Penny Cost”) said as much in his message:

We are here to learn and to grow and to deconstruct and to reimagine what church can be, who church can be for, and how church can feel together. It can be a place unafraid to denounce queerphobia, a place unafraid to name the sin of racism and to call for the end of white supremacy. A place where all have equal and equitable access, not just to the pulpit itself, to the sanctuary, but to God themself—and all that it represents within the community.

Conclusion

Understand that queering is wicked and is intentionally designed to blur the lines of right and wrong, natural and unnatural, male and female, objective truth and subjective experience, and beyond. It is meant to make people more accepting of LGBTQ+ at an emotional level. It is a spiritual attack made manifest in the flesh—with makeup, heels, and wigs. Christians are completely right to oppose it.

One drag queen, who goes by the name “Kitty Demure,” scolded foolish and naïve parents for promoting Drag Queen Story Hour events:

Would you want a stripper or a porn star to influence your child? It makes no sense at all. A drag queen performs in a nightclub for adults. There is a lot of filth that goes on. A lot of sexual stuff that goes on. And backstage there’s a lot of nudity, sex, and drugs. Okay? So I don’t think this is an avenue you would want your child to explore.

This comment exposes the darkness underneath it all—and the deep personal brokenness that even brings about a desire to perform and parade around in this way. It is worthy of pity and prayer. Pray for repentance! Pray for revival! Pray that the Lord would be merciful and show Himself mighty to save to the uttermost! Yet, there are souls at stake. There is Christ’s honor at stake. These things must be fought against—with vigor and courage.

Yet many Christians have been ashamed to speak up and there are some evangelical leaders who—even now, with the debauchery before their eyes—insist that Christians just need to quiet down, hold their peace, and love their neighbors. This kind of false dichotomy between loving our neighbors and standing for righteousness needs to stop. Whatever is ultimately true is ultimately good and to want our neighbors to be spared the onslaught of sexual confusion and decadence is certainly a very loving—and righteous—response. Many Christians need to repent of rejecting the truth through dozens of tiny accommodations and nuances.

Whether it be drag performances in a church, bookstore, public school, or civic event—the normalization of drag is grievous and the Lord will not be mocked, even as femininity is mocked by these performers. The wrath of God is coming. And woe to those churches who call what is evil, good—who parade it as righteousness before a lost and dying world. “Ms. Penny Cost” is a clear illustration of why many United Methodist Churches and ministers are choosing to disaffiliate from the rapidly eroding mainline denomination. Free from the restraint that the righteous men and women of that denomination have brought thus far, we will soon see what happens when the biblical witness is completely removed.

The American church in 2022 would do well to remember the fuller statement of the apostle Jude:

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. (Jude 1:17–23)

May the church of Christ stand boldly against the godlessness of a society bent on bringing God’s judgment. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

AUTHOR

M. D. Perkins

M.D. Perkins is research fellow of church and culture for American Family Association. He is author of “Dangerous Affirmation: The Threat of ‘Gay Christianity'” and producer of the award-winning documentary “In His Image: Delighting in God’s Plan for Gender and Sexuality.”

©Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

President Donald J. Trump: ‘We will be taking on the most corrupt forces and entrenched interests imaginable’

At his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida President Donald J. Trump announced on Tuesday, November 15th, 2022, that he will again run to become the President of the United States.

Watch:

President Trump unequivocally stated,

“Together we will be taking on the most corrupt forces and entrenched interests imaginable. Our country is in a horrible state. We’re in grave trouble.”

No truer words have ever been spoken.

The choices are clear:

  • No inflation, or rampant inflation under Democrats.
  • Secure borders, or open borders under Democrats.
  • Growth and prosperity, or dependence and poverty under Democrats.
  • A nation in Ascent, or a nation in Decline under Democrats.
  • Energy independence, or energy poor under Democrats.
  • Peace, or constant war under Democrats.
  • Law and order, or rampant crime under Democrats.
  • Low taxes, or more taxes under Democrats.
  • Less federal spending, or more federal spending under Democrats.
  • Pro-parent, or parents as domestic terrorists under Democrats.
  • Less federal debt, or unending federal debt under Democrats.
  • Fewer regulations, or more regulations under Democrats.
  • America first, or America last under Democrats.
  • Defend the police, or defund the police under Democrats.
  • American families first, or American families last under Democrats.
  • Alpha males and females, or beta males and females under Democrats.
  • Honesty and openness, versus corruption under Democrats.
  • Protecting innocent girls and boys, or rampant human trafficking by Democrats.
  • Drug free American, or drug addicted America under Democrats.
  • Peace in the Middle East, the Abraham Accords, or violence and war in the Middle East.
  • Freedom, or slavery under Democrats.
  • Pro-life, or pro-death of the unborn under Democrats.
  • Economic security, or economic dependency on other under Democrats.
  • Military strength, or military weakness under Democrats.
  • Marriage between one man and one women, or marriage defined as anything and everything under Democrats.
  • Happiness, or human pain and suffering under Democrats.
  • Conservationism, or radical environmentalism under Democrats.
  • Faith, family and liberty, or godlessness, destruction of the traditional family and tyranny under the Democrats
  • A Constitutional Republic, or Communism under Democrats.
  • Free and fair elections, or cheating and stealing under Democrats
  • God loving, or God and Godliness under attack by the Democrats.

As we have written it is time to fight like we have never fought before to save America.

The Bottom Line

Remember what Donald J. Trump said at his inaugural address,

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government, while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs, and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes, starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment — it belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today, and everyone watching, all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration, and this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country, will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction, that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public, but for too many of our citizens a different reality exists. Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories, scattered like tombstones across the across the landscape of our nation, an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge, and the crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

This says it all. Power to the people.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump to run for president in 2024 election

Republicans Take The House of Representatives Despite Widespread Democrat Election Rigging and Fraud

Kari Lake Calls Out Stolen Election: “Arizonans Know BS When They See It”

MORE ARIZONA DATA: Only 17% of Maricopa Election Day Voters Were Democrat, But Democrats Claim To Win 50% of Delayed Election Day Totals

Patriots Call For New Midterm Election On December 6… Or Else They’ll “Peacefully Descend” On Their Government

Texas Gov. Abbott Invokes Constitutional Authority to Declare and ACT On an Invasion at Southern Border

What American voters did not know about FTX, Democrat elites and the Ukraine War

There isn’t a significant electorate in New York City that doesn’t hate America

You’ve Been Gaslighted – Democrats Just Stole Another Election

Trump Announces 2024 Presidential Run

Former President Donald Trump officially launched his 2024 presidential campaign at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, making a run for the White House for the third consecutive time.

Trump announced his run after highlighting what he did in his first term, as well as inflation, the open border and record-breaking gas prices under the Biden administration.

“I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again,” Trump said.

“Our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now. We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ We need a leader that can bring back our jobs, can bring back our manufacturing, can bring back our military, take care of our Vets. Our Vets have been abandoned!” Trump said, after noting that “America’s comeback starts right now.”

He officially filed his candidacy with the Federal Election Commission as a Republican for 2024.

Trump had teased the announcement the day before the midterms by saying he had a “very big announcement” set for Nov. 15, and had repeatedly hinted that he would run in 2024. Reports had ramped up about Trump’s impending announcement before the midterms, with sources suspecting that he would officially declare his campaign during his rally for Ohio’s J.D. Vance. Axios reported that the former president’s inner circle had marked Nov. 14 as the official launch date.

If he wins in 2024, Trump would be the first U.S. president since Grover Cleveland to win another four-year term after losing re-election.

After Republicans did not secure a red wave in the midterms, Republicans splintered on whether Trump should announce his candidacy while the results are still being tabulated.

“Every ounce of Republican energy, every last ounce needs to go into that Georgia race because it could potentially be what makes or breaks the Senate,” former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.

Some, including Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, have questioned whether Trump represents the future of the Republican Party, given that several of his handpicked candidates underperformed in the midterm elections.

Other Republicans, including Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik and Vance, have argued that Trump needs to be back in the White House to complete what he started in his firm term.

The former president has also launched verbal attacks on other potential Republican presidential candidates by taking credit for their electoral victories, calling Ron DeSantis an “average” governor and saying Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s name “sounds Chinese.” The outward criticism of DeSantis comes after the governor secured a major victory in Florida, defeating his opponent by nearly 20%.

Several polls show that a majority of voters prefer DeSantis over Trump, with the Florida governor leading Trump by 3% in a YouGov poll conducted after the midterms.

Trump’s announcement marks the first major presidential candidate to officially declare their bid for the 2024 election. President Joe Biden has insisted throughout his presidency that he intends to run for another term, but hedged his statement on Nov. 9, saying that it’s “ultimately a family decision.” 

Former Vice President Mike Pence has also said he’s potentially eyeing a 2024 presidential bid, telling ABC on Monday that he’s giving it a “prayerful consideration.”

AUTHOR

DIANA GLEBOVA

White House correspondent.

RELATED TWEET: 

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘We’re Going To Have Discussions About It’ 2024 Run, Biden Says While Addressing Midterm Results

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

Defense Department Records Reveal U.S. Funding of Anthrax Laboratory Activities in Ukraine

Washington, D.C. – Judicial Watch announced today it received 345 pages of records from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a component of the U.S. Department of Defense, revealing that the United States funded anthrax laboratory activities in a Ukrainian biolab in 2018. Dozens of pages are completely redacted, and many others are heavily redacted. The records show over $11 million in funding for the Ukraine biolabs program in 2019.

The records were obtained in response to a February 28, 2022, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for records regarding the funding of Black & Veatch involving work of any manner with biosafety laboratories in the country of Ukraine.

Three phases of work are discussed in the records, several of which are indicated to have occurred “on site” at the Ukrainian labs.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency provided a report titled “PACS [Pathogen Asset Control System] at the [redacted (b)(3), which exempts information from disclosure when a foreign government or international organization requests the withholding, or the national security official concerned has specified in regulations that the information’s release would have an adverse effect on the U.S. government’s ability to obtain similar information in the future] Phase 2 On-the-Job Training Report, December 11-13/December 26, 2018” The Executive Summary includes information regarding “on-site” activities, likely referring to a Ukrainian biolab:

  • PACS [Pathogen Asset Control System] on-the-job training was conducted for users of the [redacted (b)(3)] on December 11-13, under Phase 2 implementation activities, Anthrax Laboratory activities were conducted on December 28, 2018.
  • PACS existing configuration and customization were checked jointly with the on-site PACS Working Group
  • Phase 1 implementation activities including progress and current status were reviewed; issues and problems discussed and resolved;
  • Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for PACS use at [redacted (b)(3)] was updated to include Subculturing Operation process – the updated SOP submitted to the on-site Working Group.

The report provides a list of titles of “OJT [on-the-job training] Participants” with all participants names from Black & Veatch redacted, citing exemptions (b)(6) for personal privacy and (b)(3).

Senior Researcher Laboratory of Anacrobic Infections

Leading Researcher Laboratory of Anacrobic Infections

Senior Researcher Laboratory of Anacrobic Infections

Researcher Laboratory of Anacrobic Infections

Leading Veternarian Laboratory of Anacrobic Infections

Senior Researcher Laboratory of Bacterial Animal Diseases

Head of Anthrax Laboratory

Researcher Anthrax Laboratory

Senior Research Scientist Laboratory of Mycotoxicology

Leading Veternarian Laboratory of Mycotoxicology

Junior Researcher Laboratory of Leptospirosis

Laboratory Assistant Neuroinfection Laboratory

Research Scientist Sector of International Relationships and Geoinformation

A section titled “Future Activities” notes: “Phase 3 implementation agreed for March 2019.”

Included in the records is an Order for Supplies or Services dated August 1, 2019, is issued by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp. The total amount of the contract award is $11,289,142.00. The order contains approximately 35 contract line items set forth in a statement of work (SOW), dated March 5, 2019, titled: “Electronic Integrated Disease Surveillance (EIDSS) and Pathogen Asset Control (PACS) Implementation” The statement of work, consisting of 24 pages, was not provided, nor was there an explanation for the withholding.

A report titled “PACS [Pathogen Asset Control] Implementation at the [redacted (b)(3)]. Phase 3 On-the-Job Training Report, November 28-29.2018” states in its Executive Summary:

  • B&V has completed the final stage of PACS implementation at the [redacted (b)(3)]. The site has been fully commissioned in operations of PACS functionality.
  • PACS on-the-job training and on-site activities were conducted for users on November 28-29, 2018 under Phase 3 implementation activities
  • PACS existing configuration and customization were checked jointly with the on-site PACS Working Group
  • Phase 2 implementation activities were reviewed; issues and problems discussed and resolved;

report titled “PACS [Pathogen Asset Control] Implementation at the [redacted (b)(3)]. Phase 3 On-the-Job Training Report, April 3-5, 2019” has its Executive Summary and other portions redacted, citing FOIA exemptions (b)(4) trade secrets, (b)(5) interagency or intra-agency communications and/or attorney-client privilege.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency also provided a 2018 report titled “PACS [Pathogen Asset Control System] Implementation Plan at [redacted (b)(3)]. Phase 2 On-the-Job Training Report, September 25-27, 2018.” The Executive Summary includes: “PACS on-the-job training was conducted for users of the [redacted (b)(3)] on September 25-27, 2018, under Phase 2 implementation activities.”

A list of “OJT [on-the-job-training] Participants” from contractor Black & Veatch includes job descriptions but all names have been redacted through exemptions (b)(6) personal privacy and (b)(3). Some of those job descriptions include:

  • Head of Laboratory Virology
  • Department of Molecular Diagnostics and Control
  • Researcher of Pigs Diseases Research Laboratory
  • Scientist of Laboratory of Virology
  • Department of Avian Diseases
  • Researcher of Department of Avian Diseases
  • Laboratory for Biosafety, Quality Management
  • Engineer of the Laboratory for Biosafety, Quality Management
  • Laboratory of Biotechnology
  • Researcher of the Laboratory of Biotechnology
  • Head of the Brucellosis Laboratory
  • Senior Researcher of the Brucellosis Laboratory
  • Head of the Molecular Diagnostics and Control
  • Head of the Tuberculosis Laboratory
  • Researcher of Tuberculosis Laboratory
  • Researcher of the Laboratory of Virology
  • The report also contains a section titled “Future Activities:”
  • PACS [Pathogen Asset Control System] users to continue with material registration, moving and destruction operations.
  • PACS users to reflect the process of Subculturing in PACS.
  • B & V to update Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to include the Subculture operations process.

[Redacted (b)(3)] to perform check of PACS interface and provide feedback (if any).

Phase 3 implementation agreed for December 2018.

A December 19-21, 2018, Pathogen Asset Control System report begins with an Executive Summary that states: “B & V has completed the final stage of PACS [Pathogen Asset Control System] implementation at the Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine of the National Academy Agrarian Sciences (NAAS) of the Ukraine. The site has been fully commissioned in all operations of PACS functionality.”

In a report titled “PACS Implementation Plan at the [redacted (b)(3)]” has the subtitle “Phase 3 On-the-Job Training Report, October 30 – 31, 2018 / November 14, 2018” The Executive Summary provides in part:

B & V has completed the final stage of PACS implementation at the [redacted (b)(3)]. The site has been fully commissioned in all operations of PACS functionality.

PACS on-the-job training and on-site activities were conducted for users on October 30 – 31, 2018, under Phase 3 implementation activities. Virology Department “activities” were conducted on November 14.

A section of the order titled “Special Contract Requirements” cites the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act and states the contractor “shall not engage in activities that incur expenditures in the Russian Federation, such as project management activities, procurement and shipping activities, travel or direct and indirect cost incurrences.” The contractor may, however, procure Russian-origin equipment from a Russian or non-Russian vendor located outside of Russia.

The records include 10 reports titled “Report of Transfer of U.S. Government Property Ownership.” between the Defense Threat Agency and the [redacted (b)(3)]. All of the property listed in the reports is redacted, citing exemptions (b)(3) and (b)(6). The total value of the property is $20,293.05

The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine claims the U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program is purely for bio-threat reduction:

The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases.  The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures. The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.

“These new documents shed needed light on U.S. involvement in the management and handling of pathogens in Ukrainian biolabs,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

On March 8, 2022, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland admitted to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned that Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach.”

On March 26, 2022, the New York Post reported that Hunter Biden helped secure funds for a U.S. biolab contractor in Ukraine.

According to a webpage expunged from the website of the State Department:

PACS [Pathogen Asset Control System] was first installed in Ukraine in test mode in November 2009 at the Interim Central Reference Laboratory of the Especially Dangerous Pathogens (ICRL). Since then, Sanitary-Epidemiological Department (SED) of the Medical Command of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense received four mobile laboratories from DTRA with the goal of reinforcing the system of epidemiological surveillance in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

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

A Way Forward for Public Policy and Marriage in the U.S.

Creating a healthy marriage culture is not a job for governments alone. 


This is a lightly edited excerpt from the Witherspoon Institute’s recently published book, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (Second Edition).


When it comes to family life, the great paradox of our time is this: every society that we think of as generally best for human flourishing—stable, democratic, developed, and free—is experiencing a radical crisis around human generativity. Family fragmentation and fatherlessness are increasing enormously, usually coupled with the collapse of fertility to levels that, if continued, spell demographic and social decline. Suddenly, developed nations are finding themselves unable to accomplish the great, simple task of every human society: bringing young men and women together to marry and raise the next generation together.

With legalized same-sex marriage and historically low marriage and fertility rates, the United States has accelerated its own descent into this state of affairs. For the first time in our nation’s history, older people are projected to outnumber children by the year 2030. In the face of decline, however, we are witnessing a “marriage movement” and pockets of reasoned resistance. The great task for America in our generation is to energize a return to and renewal of traditional marriage. We need to transmit a stronger, healthier, and more supportive marriage culture to the next generation, so that each year more children are raised by their own mother and father united by a loving marriage, so that they can grow up to have thriving marriages themselves.

Our task is a daunting one. Creating such a marriage culture is not a job for the government. Families, religious communities, and civic institutions must point the way. But law and public policy are also teachers; they will either reinforce and support these goals or undermine them. We call upon our nation’s leaders and our fellow citizens to support public policies that strengthen traditional marriage as a social institution. This nation must reestablish the normative understanding of marriage as the union—intended for life—of a man and a woman, who welcome and raise together any children who are the fruit of their self-giving love, extending the family tree into a flourishing grove where other citizens can rest in its shade.

In particular, we advocate the following eight actions toward undergirding and strengthening marriage:

1. Maintain the legal distinction between married and cohabiting couples.

Powerful intellectual institutions in family law, including the American Law Institute, have proposed that America follow the path of many European nations and Canada in erasing the legal distinction between marriage and cohabitation. But since such a shift in law would create further harm by sending a false message to the next generation that marriage itself is irrelevant or secondary, we encourage our legislators to refuse to extend legal marital status to cohabiting couples. We believe it is unjust as well as unwise to either impose marital obligations on people who have not consented to them or extend marital benefits to couples who have not promised marital responsibilities.

2. Investigate divorce-law reforms.

Under America’s current divorce system, courts today provide less protection for the marriage contract than they do for an ordinary business contract. We believe that the current system is a failure in both practical and moral terms, and deeply in need of reform. We call for renewed efforts to discover ways in which laws can strengthen marriage and reduce unnecessarily high rates of divorce. We affirm that protecting Americans from domestic violence and abuse is a critically important goal. But because both children and adults in nonmarital unions are at vastly increased risk for both, encouraging high rates of family fragmentation is not a good strategy for protecting them. Proposals we consider worthy of more consideration include the following:

Extend waiting periods for unilateral no-fault divorce. Require couples in nonviolent marriages to attend (religious, secular, or public) counseling designed to resolve their differences and renew their marital vows.

Permit the creation of prenuptial covenants that restrict divorce for couples who seek more extensive marriage commitments than current laws allow. (The enforcement by secular courts of Orthodox Jewish marriage contracts may provide a useful model, as well as Louisiana’s “Covenant Marriage” option.)

Expand court-connected divorce-education programs to include divorce interventions (such as PAIRS or Retrouvaille) that help facilitate reconciliations as well as reduce acrimony and litigation.

Apply standards of fault to the distribution of property, where consistent with the best interests of children. Spouses who are abusive or unfaithful should not share marital property equally with innocent spouses. The laments of spouses whose mate has left them against their will—especially in order to form a new union—ought to be heard and considered.

Create pilot programs on marriage education and divorce interventions in high-risk communities, using both faith-based and secular programs. Track program effectiveness to establish “best practices” that could be replicated elsewhere.

3. End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.

To address the growing racial and class divisions in marriage, federal and state governments ought to act quickly to eliminate the marriage penalties embedded in means-tested welfare and tax policies—such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Medicaid—that affect couples with low and moderate incomes. A recent study found that where there was an anticipated loss of income-tax credit due to a marriage penalty, lower-income women were less likely to marry and more likely to cohabit; thus, financial disincentives are potentially affecting the marriage decisions of millions of low-income women. It is unconscionable that government levies substantial financial penalties on low-income parents who marry. Other approaches to strengthening marriage for couples and communities at risk include public information campaigns, marriage education programs, and jobs programs for low-income couples who wish to get and stay married. Experimenting with such new initiatives allows scholars to determine which measures are best suited to the task at hand.

4. Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.

The tax code ought to privilege institutions that stabilize society and help those making sacrifices to ensure the next generation.

5. Protect the interests of children against a powerful fertility industry.

Treating the making of babies as a business like any other is fundamentally inconsistent with the dignity of human persons and the human rights of children. At the very least, we urge our legislators to consider restricting reproductive technologies to married couples. In addition, we believe the following proposals are worthy of further investigation:

Ban the use of anonymous sperm and egg donation for all adults. Children have a right to know their biological origins. Adults have no right to strip children of this knowledge to satisfy their own desires for a family. Countries such as the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand, and the UK all have banned this practice to protect the identity rights of donor-conceived children.

Ban all surrogacy. Some countries, such as Thailand and India, have banned commercial surrogacy; others, such as Nepal and Sweden, have banned all surrogacy. The European Parliament has condemned surrogacy as “reproductive exploitation” that “undermines the human dignity” of women, particularly “vulnerable women in developing countries.” Surrogacy also commodifies the children being carried, subjects them to increased health risks, and disregards their rights by prioritizing adult desire over a child’s best interests.

Refuse to create legally fatherless children. Require men who are sperm donors (or the clinics that trade in gametes) to retain legal and financial responsibility for any children they create who lack a legal father. The most important forces underwriting the current United States fertility industry are not technological; they are social and legal. Both law and culture have stressed the interests of adults to the exclusion of the needs of children. Parents seeking children deserve our sympathy and support. But we ought not, in offering this, deliberately create an entire class of children deprived of their natural human right to know their own origins and to experience the unique love of both a mother and a father.

6. Protect the freedom to live out and express belief in the uniqueness of traditional marriage without fear of government coercion and institutional hostility.  

Instances of intolerance for individuals who hold a traditional view of marriage grow more numerous by the day and are increasingly accompanied by legal efforts to compel either violations of individual conscience or religious beliefs. For instance, faith-based adoption and foster-care providers have been forced to compromise their belief that placing children in homes with a mother and a father is in the best interest of the child—or to cease offering services entirely, leaving vulnerable children in need. In a similar way, sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws are often used by their backers as a sword “to punish the wicked,” as multimillionaire activist Tim Gill refers to his goals for such laws. We can only interpret this kind of language to indicate an intention to silence and stamp out dissent, violating legitimate individual and religious liberty.

7. Protect the freedom to conduct scholarly inquiry and promote dissemination of accurate research findings on marriage and related topics.

In tandem with the widespread misrepresentation of research findings both in academia and public media on the subject of marriage, a disturbing trend toward actual suppression of research based on ideological rather than scientific grounds appears to be emerging and altering the playing field in the study of sexuality and gender. For example, in August 2018, Brown University professor Lisa Littman published a study that explored the recent statistical upsurge of adolescent and young-adult gender-dysphoric girls and the possibility of social media and peer influence as a contributing factor. Despite being peer reviewed and found acceptable, the study was immediately denounced online by gender ideology activists, since it suggested that some of the girls could have been influenced by forces outside of themselves. In response to the attacks, Brown University removed the article from its news distribution on the basis that it “could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth,” while the journal editors posted a comment of concern and conducted an additional review that ultimately resulted in the publication of a revised version, even though the article’s results were unchanged. A former dean of Harvard Medical School spoke out against the journal’s and Brown’s actions.

8. Restore the public understanding of marriage as uniquely the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife.

In 2015, the Supreme Court redefined marriage and imposed a new legal standard of what marriage means, with some justices erroneously declaring that our historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is rooted in animus or ignorance. While these legal mandates won’t be easily reversed, we can seek to restore the public’s understanding of the unique goods of traditional marriage for society. Our best hope in the years ahead is to foster a nonpartisan cultural renewal so that a new generation of legislators and justices will arise to legally reestablish the institution of marriage for the good of all Americans. Families, religious communities, community organizations, and public policymakers must work together toward a great goal: strengthening marriage so that each year more children are raised by their own mother and father in loving, lasting marital unions. The survival of the American experiment depends upon it. And our children deserve nothing less.

This article has been republished from Public Discourse, the journal of the Witherspoon Institute.

AUTHOR

Witherspoon Institute

The Witherspoon Institute, located in Princeton, New Jersey, is an independent center that renews culture by fostering the intellectual and moral formation of students, families, and tomorrow’s leaders. More by Witherspoon Institute

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

‘So Pissed Off, I Cannot Even See Straight’ — Ted Cruz Blames Mitch McConnell For GOP Midterm Losses

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell during a Monday podcast, saying the GOP should have won the majority of the upper chamber and blamed McConnell for not supporting Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters.

Cruz released an episode of his podcast, titled Verdict with Ted Cruz, where he and co-host Ben Ferguson discussed the midterm elections and the GOP’s failure to recapture the Senate. Cruz mentioned his frustration, saying there was no excuse for McConnell to abandon Masters, calling it “indefensible.”

“Well, Ben, let me start off by saying I am so pissed off, I cannot even see straight,” Cruz said.

“We had an extraordinary opportunity. We had a generational opportunity. This should have been a fundamental landslide election. We should have won the House and the Senate. We should have a 30, 40, 50 vote majority in the House. We should have 53, 54, 55 Republicans in the Senate,” Cruz continued.

McConnell’s PAC reportedly yanked $8 million in campaign spending from Arizona after Masters won his primary election, according to Fox News.

Cruz was also asked if McConnell would donate to Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker’s campaign in a run-off. Cruz replied he likely will, but said he believes the GOP could have won Arizona.

“Oh, look, I’m sure he will raise money and invest in the race … But if you look at this last cycle, Mitch McConnell pulled the money out of Arizona. We could have won — won Arizona. We nearly won Arizona and abandoning Blake Masters was indefensible,” Cruz said.

“Explain to me, Senator, why in a race where the polling showed that we had a legitimate chance of winning there. Why did he pull out that money from Masters who desperately needed it?” Ferguson asked Cruz.

“Because Masters said he would vote against Mitch McConnell, and so Mitch would rather be leader than have a Republican majority. If there’s a Republican who can win, who’s not gonna support Mitch, the truth of the matter is he’d rather the Democrat win. So he pulled all the money out of Arizona,” Cruz responded.

Cruz also said that “the country is screwed for the next four years” due to the GOP’s failure to regain the majority, saying “because of this, we’re gonna see horrible Left-wing judges confirmed for the next two years, because of this. We’re gonna see judges taking away our free speech rights, our religious liberty rights, our Second Amendment rights. It is an enormous missed opportunity. And I gotta say, it is hard to describe my feelings as anything other than rage,” Cruz concluded.

Cruz’s criticisms follow former President Donald Trump’s criticisms of McConnell over the Blake Masters campaign. Trump’s critics have responded that the former president did not use the $100 million his PAC has collected to support GOP candidates in the midterms.

“McConnell allied groups spent $13.1M in Arizona,” a One Nation spokesperson told the Caller.

“During the summer, Steven Law, the head of a McConnell-aligned super PAC, told the financier Peter Thiel, who had spent millions supporting Mr. Masters, that Mr. Masters had scored the worst focus group results of any candidate he had ever seen,” The New York Times reported.

The Daily Caller contacted McConnell’s office about Cruz’s comments.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior Congressional correspondent. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘We Didn’t Pick Up A Single Seat?’: Watters Blasts Trump, McConnell Over Campaign Spending In Senate Races

Blake Masters: Mitch McConnell ‘Doesn’t Deserve’ Leadership Post

ANALYSIS: Election Night Was Good For Conservatives. They Just Don’t Know It Yet

Rep. Bob Good Says Republicans ‘Got Rolled’ In Midterms, Blames Kevin McCarthy At Conference Meeting

Fox News Hires Tulsi Gabbard

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

National Exit Polling Shows that Securing the Border and Removing Illegal Aliens Are Top Immigration Priorities for Voters

Washington, D.C. — National exit polling of voters who participated in the midterm elections indicate that immigration was important to their vote. The polling also found that Congress has a clear mandate to secure our borders and ensure that immigration laws are enforced.

By a wide margin, 62 percent to 32 percent, voters favor strong action to secure our border and remove illegal aliens over granting amnesty to illegal aliens or increasing the number of people we admit legally.

Half of voters nationwide, said “securing the border and stopping illegal immigration” should be the top immigration issue for the 118th Congress to address. An additional 12 percent of voters said that “finding and removing illegal immigrants” is their top priority.

Fewer than 9 percent said that “granting legal status to people who are in the country illegally,” should be the first action, while 23 percent want more people to enter the country legally, not illegally.

Americans’ immigration priorities also represent a sharp rebuke of the Biden administration’s policies. 55.3 percent of voters believe that the “administration’s policies have encouraged illegal immigration,” compared with just 11.2 percent who think the president’s policies “have discouraged illegal immigration.” In order to discourage continued mass illegal immigration, 67.7 percent support requiring asylum seekers to file their claims from outside the United States.

“Republicans, who seem likely to control the House of Representatives in the 118th Congress have made explicit promises to the American public that they will use their majority to hold the Biden administration accountable for their deliberate and destructive border and immigration policies. Voters want the border brought under control, the wall built, and our nation’s immigration laws enforced,” noted Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

“The likely Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, pledged that a border security bill will be the first piece of legislation he brings to the floor next year, and he has a clear mandate to fulfill that pledge. Additionally, the House must use its power of the purse to ensure that this administration is not given a blank check to spend taxpayer money to undermine immigration laws, as they have for the past two years. When it comes to immigration and border enforcement, the Biden administration has betrayed the trust of the American people. It is now up to congressional Republicans to show they can earn that trust,” concluded Stein.

The national exit poll of 2,000 midterm voters was conducted by Zogby Analytics on behalf of FAIR. Among the key findings of the FAIR national exit poll:

  • 83 percent of voters said immigration was an important factor in their voting decisions.
  • 56 percent believe the border is currently insecure, or out of control.
  • 64 percent want to see the border security wall completed.
  • 55 percent believe Biden’s policies encourage mass illegal immigration, compared with only 11 percent who think his policies discourage it.
  • Two-thirds of voters want to end widespread abuse of our asylum process
  • 50 percent of voters believe that securing the border is the most pressing immigration policy issue facing the nation, while 12.3 percent think removing illegal aliens already here is the top priority.
  • Only 8.8 percent of voters believe granting amnesty to illegal aliens is a priority, while 23.2 percent think we should expand legal immigration to accommodate those who wish to come legally.

The full results of the national exit poll, conducted between Nov. 9 and Nov. 11 can be found here.

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