In 1976, as America celebrated its 200th birthday, the number one song in many of the nation’s churches was Neil Enloe’s “Statue of Liberty.” The Dove Award Song of the Year likened the cross to the statue as a powerful symbol of freedom. In the same year, Jimmy and Carol Owens popularized a song that helped a generation of Christians memorize 2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV): “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” During America’s bicentennial year, nostalgic yearning for better days created a unique historical context. In “God and Country” worship services, “If My People” was performed and accompanied by patriotic symbols like the American flag. Sight and sound fixed in many minds that 2 Chronicles 7:14 was about America. “My people” were Americans, and “their land” was the United States. And in 1976, the United States needed healing. In the three years prior, Americans had endured the energy crisis, Roe v. Wade, the Watergate hearings, Richard Nixon’s resignation, the fall of Saigon, the worst tornado outbreak on record, unprecedented divorce rates, and a recession that ended the post–World War II economic expansion. America had lost her way, and the reason was obvious to the nation’s evangelicals: America left God, so God was leaving America. But if they returned, God would heal the nation and restore American greatness. In 1977, Peter Marshall coauthored The Light and the Glory. Marshall’s Ivy League credentials bolstered his claims that the American people were meant to be “a light to lighten the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32, KJV) and that America was “God’s new Promised Land.” Marshall’s work provided the cement that joined 2 Chronicles 7:14 to the U.S. In 1980, with a view to bringing America “back to God,” evangelicals helped elect Ronald Reagan. America now had a wise Solomon, and hope was growing that God would heal the land’s spiritual, economic, and military sickness through political means. On January 20, 1981, Reagan was sworn in on the Capitol steps, with his left hand on his mother’s Bible open to 2 Chronicles 7:14. The cement had cured. There are two common mistakes regarding 2 Chronicles 7:14. The first is to abuse it, using it to justify a flag-wrapped form of prosperity theology. The second is to excuse it, as if it weren’t “written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4). Because it’s God’s Word, it’s wise to ask, How should we apply 2 Chronicles 7:14? Here are four guidelines. 1. Clarify the context. The famous verse addresses a specific people, place, and time. The “people” is Israel. The place is the promised “land.” The time is Solomon’s reign while the Mosaic covenant is active. If Israel obeys, God will bless them in the land by securing their borders and strengthening their economy. But if they turn from him, he’ll raise up adversaries and ruin their crops. By wounding their land, he’ll provoke them to repentance. In love, he’ll sacrifice their comfort to secure their commitment. There are two common mistakes regarding 2 Chronicles 7:14. The first is to abuse it. The second is to excuse it. The promise is to God’s redeemed people in the promised land during the only legitimate theocracy in history. Israel’s kings were duty-bound to execute idolaters, blasphemers, and false prophets. By walking in God’s ways and purging the land of rebels, the kings forestalled God’s judgment. When the kings failed, God sent his people into exile as a landless “holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). Under the new covenant, God’s redeemed people are likewise a landless “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). Scattered over the earth, we build houses, raise families, go to work, and “seek the welfare” (Jer. 29:7) of our nation by cooperating with non-Christians in economic and political pursuits for the common good. Like synagogues in the exile, churches represent the true God among idolaters. We cross national borders with Bibles, not bombs, and multiply peacemaking embassies among the nations. Because our time and place drastically differ from Solomon’s, we proceed with caution. 2. Consider the church’s ‘wicked ways.’ While the verse doesn’t directly apply to America, it certainly applies to the  American church. The four conditions of humbling, praying, seeking, and turning are elements of biblical repentance. Does the church in America need to repent of wicked ways? Are we guilty of pride, idolatry, greed, ingratitude, corrupt leadership, financial and sexual scandal, factions, false teaching, counterfeit gospels, partiality, and injustice? While the verse doesn’t directly apply to America, it certainly applies to the  American church. Are whole denominations in moral rebellion against God? Is there more reliance on clever strategies, branding, and rhetorical skill than on the Holy Spirit? Has political activism supplanted desperate pleas for God to open hearts to “pay attention” to the gospel (Acts 16:14)? Is there more passion for telling non-Christians how to vote than how to know Christ? Do we pursue church growth while neglecting church discipline? Are third-order controversies diverting energy from disciple-making? Are church members theologically inept, biblically illiterate, and digitally gullible? Are Very Online pastors wasting precious time on social media? Are evangelical leaders slandering one another to impress their theological tribe? Second Chronicles 7:14 isn’t given to us to judge Americans outside the church. It’s given to us to judge our own hearts. It’s not a rebuke to “them.” It’s a rebuke to “us.” It’s not a window through which we criticize the world’s wickedness. It’s a mirror by which we call out our own. 3. Confirm what God promised. Under the Mosaic covenant, God promised to bless obedient Israel with both spiritual and material prosperity. But God made no such promise to the U.S. or its churches. Some of the world’s most faithful churches and obedient Christians endure poverty, not prosperity; persecution, not peace. For now, God only promises to bless the faithful church with spiritual blessings such as salvation, forgiveness, unity, fruitfulness, endurance in suffering, and his faithful presence (Eph. 1:3). Material blessings do await the church. God does promise health and wealth to his people. As the adopted children and legal heirs of the Father, all that is his belongs to all who are his. In the new earth, “death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain” (Rev. 21:4). We already have the spiritual blessings of the new covenant, but unending health and wealth come after we finish the race, not before (Heb. 12:1–3). Second Chronicles 7:14 isn’t a window through which we criticize the world’s wickedness. It’s a mirror by which we call out our own. Even if the church in America experiences historic revival, there’s no covenantal guarantee that God will pour out physical, material, military, and economic blessings on America. For his own secret purposes, God “makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away” (Job. 12:23). 4. Concentrate on passages directed to all nations. At least since 1976, evangelicals have asked too much of 2 Chronicles 7:14. Other passages can carry the load because they address nations that, like America, are not theocratic Israel. Rome received God’s wrath because of its moral rebellion (Rom. 1:18). Nineveh postponed God’s wrath because it repented (Jonah 3:10). Sodom incurred God’s wrath because it didn’t repent (Jude 7). God holds the U.S. government responsible for enforcing the second table of the Ten Commandments (Rom. 13:1–10), so we pray for officials to wisely maintain public order and to guard our freedom to publicly obey the first table (1 Tim. 2:1–4). True Patriotism And this is where we can agree with those patriotic, neighbor-loving impulses of 1976. If we love America, we’ll intercede for her. We’ll plead for justice, peace, and prosperity in our communities. We’ll pray with a willingness to be God’s answer to our prayers through faithful witness, mercy ministries, peaceful protest, and principled political engagement. We’ll petition God with the confidence that a hundred thousand years from now, the U.S. will have gone the way of all nations, but his church will be flourishing on the earth. We’ll pray knowing that God is the Potter, the nations are clay, and he has declared his sovereign prerogative to bless any nation that “turns from its evil” and to withhold good from any nation that doesn’t (Jer. 18:7–10). How will America hear God’s voice? Through the humble, praying, God-seeking, sin-hating, spiritually healed churches of America. For judgment begins “at the household of God” (1 Pet. 4:17).

Once again, MSNBC host Joy Reid is offering viewers proof evident that she has terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome, as evidenced by the string of incoherences she rattled off to start tonight’s broadcast. These particular incoherences centered around the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and the continued candidacy of President Joe Biden. Watch Reid ramble about the futility of debating over who the next Democrat nominee might be, and the rambling bleatings that follow: JOY REID:  Democrats are the anxiety people. They're always freaking out, assuming they're going to lose. They are also a normal political party. And debating whether an elderly president is the right choice to beat American Hitler is unsurprising, and honestly pretty politically healthy. If ill-timed, given the emergency our democracy is in. And who the Democrat nominee is is important on one level, because it speaks to the strategy of how to keep King Donald off the Iron Throne. But, real talk, it kind of doesn't matter. No, actually, it really doesn't matter. Because honestly, any Democrat, Biden, you name the popular Democratic governor or senator, Vice President Harris, any of them would be solid presidents, and far preferable to the Republican alternative, because all of them believe in the rule of law. Each of them would follow the traditional role of the presidency, and not try to be American Putin. None of them would use S.E.A.L. Team Six to assassinate their rivals, or expand presidential powers to turn the Justice Department into a witch hunt squad. None of them would arrest the entire Trump family and charge them with treason and put them in public show trials. None of them would round up millions of migrants and send them to concentration camps. Or make them fight in Fight Club like the Romans did. None of them would turn this country into a Christian Nationalist hellhole and ban books and criminalize teachers and drag shows.  And I guarantee you 100% not a single one of them would outlaw birth control, and the abortion pill, and IVF and force women and teenage girls into being forced birth chattel for the State. But you know who would do those awful things? That would-be king. Trump. Trump. Through his weak, spineless party, and the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 plan. And the Leo Six on the Supreme Court say that’s exactly what should happen. The president must be bold and rule by fiat. Eff the law. That shouldn’t even apply to him. And they have made clear that they would partner with King Trump.  As his loyal hands to rule us.  The segment actually opens with Reid dumping on Independence Day. REID: On the eve of America's Independence Day, when we commemorate the white male land and slave owners who declared themselves free from the yoke of the British king  To the race essentialist, everything becomes about race.  It is then that Reid rambles on about the Supreme Court opinion that clarified presidential power. Rather than informing her viewers, Reid launches into multiple tangents on ridiculous hypothetical scenarios. Rather than discussing what the opinion actually says, she evokes violent imagery as originally imagined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s emotional dissent in Trump v. United States. The segment was constructed for the purpose of bashing the Court, make no mistake. Last I checked, these hostile mentions of the Supreme Court sound very insurrection-y.  Once Reid is done vomiting nonsense, she begins her interview of Sherilynn Ifill on these very same subject matters, treading the same derivative ground, making arguments that would only make sense had Reid read the op-eds.   At their heart, these goofy hypotheticals are about projection. The authoritarians are on the left are who have weaponized government against everyday citizens. But, these arguments are con You, dear reader, may be inclined to feel a twinge of compassion for those of us who watch this bile so you don’t have to. But, as Hyman Roth said to Michael Corleone: this is the business we’ve chosen. Click “expand” to view the partial transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on MSNBC’s The ReidOut on Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024: MSNBC THE REIDOUT 7/3/24 7:01 PM JOY REID: And we begin tonight with Hurricane Beryl hurtling toward the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. So be safe out there. Well, politically, we're weathering a different kind of storm here at home. On the eve of America's Independence Day, when we commemorate the white male land and slave owners who declared themselves free from the yoke of the British king, the Leonard Leo Six on the Supreme Court have decreed that the American president is, in fact, a king. So by that logic, all hail King Biden, am I right? Because America’s king right now, per the conservative Supreme Court majority, is Joe Biden. He is also the Democratic Party's candidate to be president/king again. And despite some Democrats jumping ship and saying he should drop out, and the frantic meetings and calls taking place inside the Democratic Party, today Biden told his campaign staff the following. Quote: “let me say this as clearly as I possibly can. As simply and straightforward as I can.I am running. No one’s pushing me out. I'm not leaving, I'm in this race to the end and we’re going to win.  ♪♪ And I am telling you ♪♪  Okay, look. The truth is, this is basically who Democrats are, okay? Democrats are the anxiety people. They're always freaking out, assuming they're going to lose. They are also a normal political party. And debating whether an elderly president is the right choice to beat American Hitler is unsurprising, and honestly pretty politically healthy. If ill-timed, given the emergency our democracy is in. And who the Democrat nominee is is important on one level, because it speaks to the strategy of how to keep King Donald off the Iron Throne. But, real talk, it kind of doesn't matter. No, actually, it really doesn't matter. Because honestly, any Democrat, Biden, you name the popular Democratic governor or senator, Vice President Harris, any of them would be solid presidents, and far preferable to the Republican alternative, because all of them believe in the rule of law. Each of them would follow the traditional role of the presidency, and not try to be American Putin. None of them would use S.E.A.L. Team Six to assassinate their rivals, or expand presidential powers to turn the Justice Department into a witch hunt squad. None of them would arrest the entire Trump family and charge them with treason and put them in public show trials. None of them would round up millions of migrants and send them to concentration camps. Or make them fight in Fight Club like the Romans did. None of them would turn this country into a Christian Nationalist hellhole and ban books and criminalize teachers and drag shows.  And I guarantee you 100% not a single one of them would outlaw birth control, and the abortion pill, and IVF and force women and teenage girls into being forced birth chattel for the State. But you know who would do those awful things? That would-be king. Trump. Trump. Through his weak, spineless party, and the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 plan. And the Leo Six on the Supreme Court say that’s exactly what should happen. The president must be bold and rule by fiat. Eff the law. That shouldn’t even apply to him. And they have made clear that they would partner with King Trump.  As his loyal hands to rule us. So, the fantasy football conversation in the mainstream media about the Democratic?, Okay, go for it. Just remember, there is no one on the Democratic side, including the super-old guy, who is a threat to American democracy. Pay as much attention as you can to the candidate debate as you need to. It's a worthy debate. Just make sure that you’re prepared to vote in November for whoever that person is, and every Democrat below them on the ticket. Because the alternative is King Trump and Project 2025 as the new rule of law.  

CNN's Jim Acosta Weighs in on Biden 'Napgate' and Gets Exactly the Responses He Deserves

Even in those without long COVID.

Foreign Affairs Is It Time for South Korea to Get the Bomb? “Extended deterrence” is fraying. (Photo by Kim Jae-Hwan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) The Russo–Ukrainian war is reshaping security concerns around the world. Washington’s proxy war against Moscow encouraged the latter to strike back globally, challenging American policy in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Most dramatic may be Russia’s revival of relations with North Korea. Highlighted by President Vladimir Putin’s trip to Pyongyang, the two governments signed a new mutual defense pact and intimated that ties go well beyond the sale of artillery shells and missiles to Moscow. Putin appears to have implicitly accepted the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a nuclear power. Moreover, Western policymakers fear Russian technical support for the North’s missile and nuclear programs. Although the Putin government has reason for caution in aiding Pyongyang, U.S. support for Ukraine has helped the latter kill Russian personnel and destroy Russian materiel. Moscow must be tempted to empower the North to strike America rather as Washington has enabled Kiev to hit Russia. This has helped fuel rising support in the Republic of Korea for a tougher line toward the DPRK. For many South Koreans, that means backing a homegrown nuclear program to match the North. A newly released survey by the Korea Institute for National Unification, conducted before the Putin-Kim summit, found that two thirds of those polled supported the ROK’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, up from 60 percent last year. Some 45 percent preferred producing nukes over maintaining an American military garrison, compared to just 34 percent last year. In the past popular support for a nuclear option failed to generate significant political backing. Official policy is to rely ever more tightly on the U.S., clinging to the Washington Declaration, by which the Biden administration promised to risk the incineration of American cities to protect the ROK. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell opined “that the mechanisms that we’ve put in place … the Washington Declaration and the strategic initiatives that have been launched to underscore the added signification of American extended deterrence, particularly in situations like Korea, I think it’s given us what we need to work with now.” South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol is publicly on board. So is Won Hee-ryong, a former cabinet minister running to head the ruling People Power Party: “We need to boost our nuclear deterrence against North Korean threats by ensuring the effectiveness of the declaration.” However, burgeoning Russian-North Korean military cooperation is challenging the status quo. Observed Allison Hooker, a member of President Donald Trump’s National Security Council staff, “I think we cannot rule out the fact that South Korea continues to move, maybe more rapidly, towards its own nuclear program.” Last year, President Yoon observed that if the North Korean threat “becomes more serious, we could acquire our own nuclear weapons, such as deploying tactical nuclear weapons here in ROK.” Senior members of his party are now taking up the issue.  For instance, Han Dong-hoon, who also is running for PPP leader, contended that “we should move at least to the point of equipping ourselves with potential capabilities to go nuclear whenever we decide to do so, just like Japan is now.” He added, “The global security situation is constantly changing, so there are limitations to relying solely on our allies.” Nevertheless, fearing sanctions, he opposes moving directly to building nuclear weapons. Assemblywoman Na Kyung-won, another candidate for party head, went further: “The history of the international community shows that only countries with the power to suppress external threats have survived. This is why we must keep all doors open and consider nuclear armament now.” She added that “even if nuclear weapons development is restricted due to Korea-U.S. relations or international norms, we will prepare to develop nuclear weapons in a short period of time right now.” More radical is Daegu Mayor Hong Joon-pyo, who proposed withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He asked, “Can the United States defend Seoul while risking New York turning into a sea of fire,” as threatened by the DPRK? Indeed, six decades ago French President Charles de Gaulle asked a similar question, withdrawing his nation from NATO’s integrated military command structure and producing nuclear weapons.  “Now is the time that we show our determination like de Gaulle’s,” declared Hong. He also pointed out that “Ukraine was the world’s third-largest nuclear power, but it disarmed its nuclear weapons following security assurances from the U.S., Britain and Russia and as a result, Ukraine is now facing Russia’s nuclear attack.” Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, a potential PPP presidential candidate, contended that the ROK required “an ‘active nuclear umbrella’ or its own nuclear weapons,” since “a ‘passive nuclear umbrella’ that depends entirely on the will of the United States is inadequate.” Other officials who previously pushed the nuclear option include National Assemblyman Cho Kyoung-tae and retired general Leem Ho-young.  Hong articulated the essential flaw in the doctrine of extended deterrence, by which Washington guarantees the security of many, indeed, most of its allies through use of nuclear arms, if necessary. For what are Americans prepared to turn their homeland into a battleground? The Cold War infused such promises with greater credibility. Even more important, in the case of North Korea, the U.S. seemed safe since Pyongyang lacked both nukes and ICBMs. War would be costly, but only the Korean peninsula would be at risk. That is no longer the case. The North is a nuclear power. It could have hundreds of nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. It is developing ICBMs along with multiple warheads. Virtually no one believes that the North will surrender its arsenal. Given the risks of military preemption, the U.S. and ROK must learn to live with a nuclear North Korea. A Second Korean War could end with a North Korean nuclear attack on American cities. Of course, Kim Jong Un is unlikely to launch a first strike, which would guarantee his own destruction. If Washington endangered his regime, he could respond by threatening mutual Götterdämmerung. What American president would risk the American homeland for an alliance that, despite its closeness, is not vital for his or her nation’s survival?  South Koreans realize this. Yoon admitted last year, “What we call extended deterrence was also the U.S. telling us not to worry because it will take care of everything, but now, it’s difficult to convince our people with just that.”  As for Washington’s boilerplate affirmations of eternal affection and love, South Koreans should remember the toothless Budapest Memorandum, issued to encourage Ukrainians to yield their Soviet-era nuclear weapons. The Washington Declaration offers no greater assurance. To suggest that Uncle Sam cannot be believed generates mild hysteria in Washington. The Declaration is cited as if possessing talismanic powers, able to ensure America’s continued protection of South Korea without risk. Not everyone is so sanguine, however.  A few years ago, the Hoover Institution’s Michael Auslin pointed out,  While few believe Kim Jong Un would launch an unprovoked nuclear strike, most seasoned Korea watchers believe that he would no doubt use his arsenal once it became clear he was about to lose any war that broke out. As this risk increases, Washington will find it increasingly difficult to avoid reassessing the country’s multi-decade alliance with South Korea. The threat to American civilians will be magnified to grotesque proportions, simply because Washington continues to promise to help South Korea. What if the U.S. drops its defense guarantee? The argument for America to provide the conventional defense of the ROK is long expired. The South is far wealthier than its northern neighbor. The former has a larger population and is a major international actor. Seoul can handle its own conventional defense.  Nevertheless, the DPRK’s nuclear weapons pose a unique danger. Perhaps powerful conventional weapons would offer sufficient deterrence. Perhaps not. Would South Koreans accept the risk of going naked, so to speak? If not, Seoul would have to build its own nuclear arsenal. Of course, the idea is a lot simpler in theory than when transformed into policy. The opposition Democratic Party rejects the idea. And there are real downsides. More nukes create more opportunities for proliferation and accidents. Nuclear powers China and Russia would be opposed, though they might do little in practice to punish Seoul. Japan would be plunged into a fractious debate about following suit. The ROK’s civilian nuclear export industry would be vulnerable to international restrictions.  Still, all that would really matter would be Washington’s reaction. No doubt, nonproliferation lobbyists would battle alliance advocates. There would be a blizzard of competing webinars, podcasts, op-eds, and policy papers on the issue. If opposed, the U.S. could apply diplomatic pressure, organize international opposition, impose economic penalties, propose UN sanctions, withdraw American military forces, downgrade or even end the alliance, or take some combination of these actions.  However, if Washington forthrightly dropped extended deterrence, it could not easily demand that the South remain exposed to North Korea’s growing nuclear capability. The U.S. can easily disengage since it possesses an overwhelming nuclear deterrent. The ROK understandably might then choose to deploy its own deterrent. Which Seoul could shape to meet its own needs and control to defend its own interests. Nonproliferation would suffer, but North Korea’s arsenal already has ruptured the NPT regime. Moreover, the US accommodated its British and French allies when they went nuclear, closed its eyes and ears when Israel chose the atomic option, and reluctantly abandoned sanctions when India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons. It is a bit late for Uncle Sam to declare that interest and honor prevent acceptance of a ROK bomb. The DPRK’s growing nuclear arsenal will irrevocably change the Korean peninsula’s balance of power. Russia’s enhanced relationship with Pyongyang, even if short-lived, will accelerate this process. Despite Washington’s desperate attempt to preserve extended deterrence, the policy will steadily lose credibility as Americans become less likely to risk their homes and South Koreans become less likely to believe that Americans will do so. Then what?  Waiting for a crisis could yield disaster. Seoul and Washington should begin to discuss the nuclear future of Northeast Asia. The possibility of friendly proliferation has been broached in Washington. For instance, Ohio’s then-Representative Steve Chabot proposed that the U.S. “enter into talks with both Japan and South Korea about considering nuclear weapons programs themselves.” It wasn’t his preferred option, but he said he hoped that “even talking with [the South Koreans] would get the PRC’s attention and maybe they would actively act to restrain North Korea for the first time.”  Extended deterrence is losing credibility on the Korean peninsula. What should replace it? As North Korea becomes a more formidable nuclear power, a South Korean nuclear weapon becomes ever more likely. It might not be a good option. However, it might be the best alternative available. We should prepare for a very different future. The post Is It Time for South Korea to Get the Bomb? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs There Is No Guarantee the Rassemblement National Will Rule Aversion to the right remains strong. (Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP via Getty Images) In view of the wild statements by some American journalists about the first round of the French elections last week, it behooves me to offer a few corrections about those contests and what they produced.  The single most misleading interpretation of the outcome that I’ve encountered (there may be worse ones I haven’t seen) came in a far-from-objective story in the New York Post. A staff reporter, Steve Janoski, summed up the elections this way: “A right-wing party could seize power in France for the first time since the Nazis occupied the country in World War Two—with Marine LePen’s national Rally making huge gains in the first round of a high-stakes snap election.” Except for the facts that the Rassemblement National took 29.5 percent of the votes cast last Sunday and that if we include friendly members of Éric Ciotti’s Les Républicains, Marine Le Pen and her coalition are up to 33.5 percent, there is nothing in Janoski’s account that need be taken seriously. There is absolutely no ideological or historical connection between the RN or Éric Zemmour’s further right La Reconquête and the Vichy regime, which took power after Nazi Germany’s victory over France in June 1940 with the support of the victors. The collaborationist Vichy government passed antisemitic laws (although it did refuse to surrender indigenous French Jews to the Nazis). Not at all incidentally, the head of Reconquête is a Moroccan Jew, and many mostly Sephardic Jews vote for his party and that of Le Pen. By far the main issue for the French right is Muslim immigration into France. Undisguised opposition to the liberal immigration policies of the French left and the globalists in Macron’s party is what drives the present French right. Moreover, in their call for immigration restriction, the French right can find ample support in the views of emphatically nonfascist national leaders of the past. Historical figures like De Gaulle and Georges Marchais, head of the French Communist Party in the 1980s, warned against the immigration policies that were even then becoming popular with French corporations and the multicultural left. The parties of the French right are not about to deport all Muslims, as their critics insist. Rather they call for assimilation into a once established French civic culture for those Muslims who are already in their country. Unfortunately, the culture and patriotism that the RN invokes may be in diminishing supply in a country that has been strongly influenced by late modern fashions and values. This right, however, which is thoroughly Gaullist, should not be confused with an older French right, which called for a return to monarchical institutions. The RN clearly does not take that position. Marine Le Pen’s party has done well in France’s northeast and southeast and along the Mediterranean coast, all of which areas have been affected by Muslim immigration and the attendant crime problem or have suffered under the European Union’s pricing and production arrangements. Farmers and factory workers have been reacting to this complex of grievances for decades. Further, like American populists, their French counterparts come largely from those without college educations. What is rarely asked by those who mock these voters is whether their lack of academic exposure indicates mental crudeness or the absence of leftist indoctrination.  Contrary to reports that the French right had crushed Macron’s party, I see no evidence of this development. Although Macron’s Renaissance Party picked up only 20.04 percent of the vote in the first round of the elections, it can definitely make an alliance with the motley leftist coalition in Nouveau Front Populaire, which gained 27.99 percent of the vote. The two sides may not agree entirely on economic policy (Macron speaks for the globalist capitalist class, while the Popular Front includes old-line communists and socialists), but they are indistinguishable on woke cultural issues and equally open to further Muslim immigration. Typically, a lot of horse trading (tripotage) occurs during the second round of French elections, in which those candidates who are unlikely to exceed the 50 percent threshold, withdraw in favor of potential allies. These withdrawals (désistements) are usually carried out among ideologically similar parties, which in the current European political culture means cutting the “far right” out of interparty deliberations.  Those parties that coalesce and cooperate with each other in Western Europe are committed to the same feminist, LGBT agendas and generally permissive immigration policies. They almost always support the liberal interventionist foreign policy pushed by American neoconservatives and neoliberals, unlike the “extreme right,” which is more flexible in this regard. Unless I’m mistaken, the neoconservative New York Post may be bothered by Le Pen’s statements suggesting her willingness to negotiate with Putin and her reluctance to follow the dominant American party line in foreign affairs.  Finally, there is no way that the French right, as opposed to the faux conservatives in Macron’s party, can take power given the likely outcome of the second round of elections this month. Macron’s voters who are concerned with their social reputations may wish to keep their distance from a right that’s beaten up in the international press. Most of these voters, which includes the vast civil service, would be determined to keep the French right out of a ruling coalition. They would be far less concerned about the wokesters and revolutionaries or the disproportionately large Muslim voting base of the NFP than having contact with the Untouchables on the right. Given this situation, there is no certainty that the RN will come to power. The post There Is No Guarantee the Rassemblement National Will Rule appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Our Joey Is this the end for Joe Biden? For Joseph R. Biden, Jr. the high-water mark, if not of his career then of his reputation, came on January 12, 2017. It was on that unusually warm Thursday afternoon that President Barack Obama bestowed upon him, in a surprise ceremony only days before the end of their second term, the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  “To know Joe Biden,” said the president to a room packed with friends, family and staff, “is to know love without pretense, service without self-regard, and to live life fully.” Having at last earned the goodwill of the American people thanks to dignity with which he endured the obsequies of his eldest son Beau, Biden was talked out of running for the office which he had long coveted. Obama believed Hillary Clinton was the surer bet in 2016. And, if Biden had been wise, he might have seen that moment in the East Room of the White House for what it surely was: a capstone moment, the end of a long career that had, let’s face it, not been marked by too much distinction. But a mere two years later, ol’ Joe was back on the hustings. Yet the story that the tragic events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017 moved him to run for the presidency for a fourth time was transparently ridiculous—absurd even by Biden’s standards. And cannier politicians than he understood that his entry into the 2020 race was likely a mistake—a decision driven by a combination of hubris and the demands of an aggressively, even ravenously, greedy family. That canniest politician of all, his old boss Obama, had his doubts. “Joe,” he told him, “you don’t have to do this.” But, in the end, the party elders—including Obama (who is said to have persuaded both Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Pete Buttigieg to exit the race on the eve of Super Tuesday), Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) (who handed Biden the South Carolina primary) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (the most powerful House speaker since Sam Rayburn) were persuaded (or acted as though they were) that Charlottesville did indeed touch the better angels of Biden’s nature—that the moment called for Joe Biden. Yet there were warning signs all along—signs that indicated that Joe, Dr. Jill, and the rest of the clan were not really the answer to Trump (or really to anything). Recall that upon learning of the affair their son Hunter was conducting with Beau’s widow, Joe and Jill issued a statement that read: We are all lucky that Hunter and Hallie found each other as they were putting their lives together again after such sadness. They have mine and Jill’s full and complete support and we are happy for them.  A more appropriate reaction to the new intra-family arrangement, made privately, but leaked to the press later on, came from Obama himself, who reportedly described it as “weird sh*t.” Weirder still was the now infamous Corn Pop speech of June 2017, in which Biden recounted a racially-charged confrontation he had in the early 1960s with a reputed gang member named Corn Pop. The confrontation occurred while Joe was serving as a lifeguard in Wilmington—a job the Washington Post told readers the future president took to “learn more about the black community.”  That Biden’s presidency has been a disaster is only too clear; the main question now, after his halting, dazed performance on the debate stage last week, is whether or not he will find a way to gracefully exit the race. While it is clear for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that he is not fit for office, much less a grueling national campaign, there is reason to believe he will stick it out.  And the most frequently cited reason one hears both publicly and privately is: The Family. The Family. At first, there were the four Biden siblings—products of a postwar American boom that passed them by. But one of them, our Joey, made it to the big time while the other three—Valerie, Jimmy, and Frank—clung to him like parasites. Joey became their meal ticket, their passport to bigger and better things. The Bidens are emblematic of a particular subclass of postwar ethnic Catholic families forced to straddle, through circumstance or, in their case, bad luck, that razor’s edge separating the American working and middle classes. Families such as the Bidens are an instantly recognizable type: suspicious, clannish, acquisitive, consumed with appearances, almost comically insecure. Every neighborhood up and down the I-95 corridor has their conniving, striving Joeys and Jimmys and Vals and Franks. It is by now de rigueur that any account of the life of the 46th president includes the tale of the secretive, spendthrift father, whose career took a wrong turn on the road to prosperity. Joe Sr. almost grasped the brass ring, but it slipped through his fingers.  In 1946, chasing the dream of postwar affluence, the Bidens relocated to Garden City, New York. But, within a short time, they landed back in Scranton. By 1953, the family settled in Clayton, Delaware. The brief interlude in Garden City represents an under-appreciated but significant ‘what if?’ in the life of the president: What might have become of him if Daddy hadn’t been a derelict and the family had managed to plant roots in that bedroom community of nouveau riche lax bros? Though they couldn’t have known it at the time, Biden Sr.’s misfortune was Biden Jr.’s making. He needed a stage commensurate with his talents, and he found it in Delaware. If the Bidens had remained in Garden City, he might have ended up as a stockbroker or insurance salesman. Maybe even a car dealer like Dad. But President of the United States? Unlikely. Fate surely then intervened on Joey’s behalf, but has the result been a happy one? Look at Joe and Jill now, up there in the stratosphere, standing alongside the Clintons and the Obamas, amidst the glitz and glamour, among the good and great of Hollywood and the Hamptons—yet they seem, because they are, hopelessly outmatched.  Whatever one thinks of them, it is surely the case that Bill and Hillary and Barack and Michelle were each in their own way blessed with some combination of luck, brains, and charisma. Jill and Joe have none of these (and one suspects they know it.) But goaded on by The Family and dreams of bigger things they remain undeterred—one last dash to the finish line, and then, hopefully, to the big payoff.  A story Trump tells on the stump with some regularity, must—if indeed Biden is aware of it—sting because this one, unlike so many of Trump’s vignettes, has the unmistakable ring of truth to it.  Trump recalls asking his “friend” from Palm Beach, Teddy Kennedy, about who Kennedy thought were the smartest and dumbest members of the Senate. About the smartest, Kennedy, …gave me a name—I won’t say it, because it was a person I didn’t like very much, so I don’t want to give it….” I said who’s the dumbest in the Senate?” Let’s see, probably Joe…” I said ‘Joe who’?” Joe Biden.” The Family has gathered once again. They have circled the wagons, trying to weather the storm. The AP reports that both Jill and Hunter believe, The president shouldn’t bow out when he’s down, and believe that he can come back from what they see as one subpar performance. The family questioned how he was prepared for the debate by staff and wondered if they could have done something better, the people said. The mythology Biden and his hagiographers have painstakingly constructed over the years may help him through the current rough patch. Again and again, the public has been regaled with tales of Biden’s reputation for hard work and innate decency—tales that are meant to highlight the supposed contrast with Trump. With regard to Biden’s work ethic, the Wall Street Journal informed readers last month that, For much of his career, Biden enjoyed a reputation on Capitol Hill for being a master negotiator of legislative deals, known for his detailed knowledge of issues and insights into the other side’s motivations and needs—and for hitting his stride when the pressure was on. Winslow Wheeler is a longtime defense expert who was the only Senate staffer to ever work simultaneously on the staffs of a Republican and a Democrat. Wheeler saw Biden in action for years and tells me the above assessment is, “Complete, total, utter horse sh*t. He was known to everyone as a loudmouth.  He always came to hearings unprepared and winged it.” Biden’s reputation for decency may be overdone as well. Speaking from the White House Briefing Room in January 2021, Biden won plaudits for setting out a kind of zero tolerance policy for bad behavior among his staff,  I’m not joking when I say this: If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot.” But, then again, Biden himself seems to have a less-than-honorable record as a boss.  A senior administration official told Politico this week that White House staffers “are scared sh*tless of him.” Longtime Clinton advisor James Carville recently told Axios, Biden “Doesn’t have advisers. He has employees.” And it is a near certainty that at least some of those employees will be scapegoated for his performance on June 27th. A longtime Democratic operative tells me Biden’s current campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon is not widely seen as “capable” enough to manage a national campaign, while White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients is a “non-factor” among the top echelons of the Biden hierarchy. If there are to be scapegoats for June 27th, those who actually prepared Biden for the debate—longtime aide and Washington PR figure Anita Dunn, her husband Bob Bauer and former Chief of Staff Ron Klain—will probably escape the guillotine. In Biden-world, they have tenure, whereas Dillon does not. Biden’s debate performance also brought to the fore the deep resentments—long simmering, but always there—within the Democratic Party. It was no coincidence that only minutes after the debate ended, denizens of Obama-world were among the first to suggest Biden step aside. Through tears, former Obama adviser Van Jones said Biden needed to consider dropping out; a noticeably less upset David Axelrod concurred. Meanwhile, the Obama ‘Pod Bros,’ the one-time wunderkinds now approaching middle age, lit into the president and his team. What to make of all this?  An administration figure I spoke to soon after the debate says the temper tantrums emanating out of Obama-world will have “no impact—zero.” Biden-world realizes, as do many associated with Clinton-world, that Kamala Harris isn’t up to the task—indeed, she might just be the only person who might do worse against Trump come November 5th.  “Who are we going to run,” they asked, “J.B. Pritzker?”  The bench is not deep. Time is running short. The Democratic Party knows it and so too does The Family. The post Our Joey appeared first on The American Conservative.

Twelve U.S. government employees who resigned in protest of President Biden’s handling of Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip are accusing the administration of prioritizing politics over “fair policymaking,” and offering recommendations to change course.  The dozen signatories on a joint statement represent a wide spectrum of government staff, including former employees of the State Department, Department of Interior and White House, as well as former...

ASTANA, July 3 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping hailed their Eurasian security club on Wednesday as a force for global stability at a summit of the regional body, which is seen by Moscow and Beijing as a tool to counter Western influence. Putin and the Chinese president have expanded the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a club founded in 2001 with Russia, China and Central Asian nations, to include India, Iran and Pakistan as a counterweight to the...

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F first appeared on Worth it or Woke.