Former President Trump is all but certain to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and he will defeat President Biden in November — if the voters are allowed to decide the outcome. Though a number of polls show Trump leading in most if not all of the seven states that will be truly competitive this year‚ only Georgia and North Carolina have enacted meaningful election integrity legislation since the last presidential contest. The remaining five have doggedly refused to adopt serious reforms that will ensure fair and honest elections. Not coincidentally‚ they include states that Biden won in 2020 by tiny margins after protracted post-election vote counting. [B]eing ahead in the polls on Election Day means virtually nothing in an all mail-in state. Arizona provides an illustrative example. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average‚ Trump leads Biden in the Grand Canyon State by 4.5 points. This obviously suggests that his chances of capturing its 11 electoral votes‚ particularly considering that he won them in 2016 and only lost to Biden by a miniscule 0.4 percent in 2020. The fly in the ointment is Arizona’s Democratic governor‚ Katie Hobbs. Despite the chaos and controversy that has characterized her state’s last two elections she has vetoed 21 election integrity bills passed by the Republican legislature. This won’t surprise anyone who read the guest editorial she wrote for the far left Democracy Docket about attacks on “our democracy” by the wicked GOP: Across the country‚ Republican legislatures are hard at work passing laws to restrict and deny the fundamental and sacred freedom to vote. Even worse‚ conspiracy theorists are running for public office … There is no mistaking what these Republicans are doing. They are explicitly and unapologetically making the ballot box inaccessible for voters‚ especially for people of color and seniors. The freedom to vote is fundamental to our democracy. Hobbs is by no means the only Democratic governor of a battleground state to wield the veto pen in the war against election integrity. In Wisconsin‚ where the RCP polling average shows Trump leading Biden by less than 1 point‚ Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed every election reform bill passed by the state’s Republican legislature. In 2022‚ he killed nine such bills‚ including legislation that would ban election officials from accepting grants from private entities (e.g. Zuckbucks). Evers also vetoed a measure that would have banned automatic mailing of absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. In 2023‚ he vetoed legislation that would have required the state Elections Commission to verify voter citizenship. In nearby Michigan‚ where the RealClearPolitics polling average shows Trump leading Biden by 5.1 points‚ Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has made common cause with her Arizona and Wisconsin counterparts in their war on election integrity legislation. She has vetoed bills meant to make absentee ballot fraud a felony. Whitmer has killed measures that would have strengthened voter ID requirements. She has vetoed legislation requiring Michigan to clean up its voter rolls‚ ignoring a report from the state’s Auditor General that found multiple failures by the state’s Bureau of Elections to remove deceased voters and those who have failed to vote since the last century. Readers will find her rationalizations all too familiar: I vetoed legislation that would have perpetuated the “Big Lie” or made it harder for Michiganders to vote. Right now‚ Michigan Republicans are participating in a coordinated‚ national attack on voting rights that is designed to undermine confidence in our election system and systematically disenfranchise Black voters‚ communities of color‚ older voters‚ and college students. I will have no part in any effort that grants an ounce of credence to this deception. In Pennsylvania Trump’s poll numbers are underwhelming and election integrity legislation was throttled in the cradle by the current governor’s predecessor. Before his term ended in early 2023‚ Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed legislation that would have strengthened voter ID requirements‚ decreased the abuse of mail-in ballots‚ and tightened the rules governing ballot drop boxes. The current incumbent‚ Democrat Josh Shapiro‚ has been spared the necessity of using his veto pen on election reform because Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is divided. Republicans control its Senate and Democrats control its House of Representatives. Even if an election reform bill reached his desk‚ it would be vetoed by Shapiro. (READ MORE from David Catron: Is This What Biden Meant By ‘Unity’?) The fifth state in which election integrity will be a serious problem in 2024 is Nevada. This should be a good state for Trump. The RCP average shows him leading Biden by 7 points‚ but the Silver State has now become the latest to conduct elections entirely by mail and ballot harvesting is legal. As former Senate candidate Adam Laxalt discovered in November of 2022‚ being ahead in the polls on Election Day means virtually nothing in an all mail-in state. It is no coincidence that every state that conducts its elections entirely by mail (California‚ Colorado‚ Hawaii‚ Oregon‚ Utah‚ Vermont‚ and Washington) have become single-party fiefdoms — all but one of which is controlled by Democrats. Nevada is unlikely to be an exception. Where does this leave Trump’s bid to become the second President in American history to be elected to nonconsecutive terms? Assuming Trump wins every state he won in 2020‚ plus Arizona‚ Georgia‚ and Nevada he will still need a “blue wall” state to hit 270. Unless the bottom falls out due to a conviction for one of the “crimes” he has been charged with‚ he may well win Michigan. If a significant percentage of Muslim voters refuse to vote for Biden because of his (tepid) support for Israel or Trump picks up a lot of the union vote‚ it’s plausible. If he wins those 15 electoral votes‚ he could afford to give up Arizona or Nevada. This will overcome Trump’s swing state challenge and restore the public’s faith in our elections. READ MORE from David Catron: College Grads for Trump Trump Ballot Bans and the Specter of Bush v. Gore The post Trump’s Swing State Challenge appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’ve been stating for a decade that men will save America from the forces of leftist darkness‚ and this election year should be the turning point. Because time is running out‚ as more young women turn to the dark side. But the entertainment medium which once helped guide the two sexes toward their essential separate roles has spent this century denying both and diminishing one — manhood. Today‚ screen fiction can’t even present a classic male hero story without sinking it in woke garbage. Case in point — the new Amazon Prime series‚ Zorro. Portela sticks reasonably close to the original great story … but his liberal deviations damage it beyond repair. There’s a reason Zorro has been a popular character for more than a hundred years‚ preceding yet inspiring all the comic-book heroes that followed‚ in particular Superman and Batman. The idea of a lone mystery man using his exceptional warrior skill to fight societal tyranny but disguising it under a meek persona never gets old. For‚ sadly‚ neither does societal tyranny. And the contemptible clot now wrecking America certainly deserves to be branded by a Z‚ the mark of Zorro. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Look What They’ve Done to My Song) The rot starts at the top with the decomposing zombie in the White House. His corrupt Department of Justice and other legal minions hunt nonviolent ideological opponents with Stasi-like zeal. Last week’s conviction of six pro-life Christians who did nothing more than pray outside a Tennessee abortion center cries out for dynamic intervention. The group could face more than ten years in prison‚ while the illegal-alien muggers of two New York City policemen strut out free from the courthouse‚ one flipping his middle finger at the camera. A crimson Z across his chest would be very appropriate. During the now effectively over Republican primary‚ I actively supported Ron DeSantis‚ the best state governor in my lifetime. I knew he would drain the liberal swamp politically‚ not violently like Zorro. Last week‚ DeSantis didn’t just talk‚ he acted. He deployed members of the Florida National Guard to Texas to support governor Greg Abbott’s border-closing effort‚ defying the Biden Administration’s open-border adamance. And as a nightcap‚ a federal judge tossed out Woke Disney’s crybaby lawsuit against DeSantis for being a meany to them. However‚ the septuagenarian former president beat DeSantis‚ practically guaranteeing a rematch between two tired old men‚ one of them senile. In a way‚ it had to be thus — the last gasping battle cry of a generation about to lose power forever. I’ll back Trump with everything I got‚ short of a rapier‚ because now only he can stem the darkness. And this time it’s personal. Unfortunately‚ Zorro won’t be riding to the rescue this year‚ perhaps in 2024. What about his latest screen incarnation? The new show could have been decent but falls short‚ brought down by the inescapable gravity of wokeness. Writer-creator Carlos Portela sticks reasonably close to the original great story by Johnston McCulley in his 1919 novel‚  The Curse of Capistrano‚ but his liberal deviations damage it beyond repair. What do Portela and the series producers care that the book sold more than 50 million copies to be one of the bestselling books of all time? Or that the 1920 Douglas Fairbanks adaptation‚ The Mark of Zorro‚ was one of silent cinema’s biggest hits. Or that the 1940 Tyrone Power version‚ The Mark of Zorro‚ is the best swashbuckler ever made‚ featuring the greatest swordfight in film history. They just had to modernize it‚ which in showbiz speak means feminize‚ which in reality means ruin. (READ MORE: Beauty Survives the Left) The pilot episode begins with the death of Zorro. That is the Latino Indian embodying Zorro‚ who it turns out even the bad guys know is a succession of different men. This idea rather diminishes the Zorro mystique. Portela should have checked out The Phantom‚ Lee Falk’s hugely popular‚ enduring comic strip about a seemingly immortal Zorro-like hero in Africa nicknamed “the ghost who walks‚” really the first-born male of one family going back centuries. Then the real female trouble starts. An Indian warrioress — a typical modern Hollywood fabrication — played by Dalia Xiuhcoatl demands that the medicine man make her the new Zorro (or is that Zorra?). The resulting sound isn’t the Indian spirits but the channel being changed by every boy who knows she’d last about half a minute in a swordfight. The remaining spirits choose young Diego De La Vega (a tolerable Miguel Bernardeau)‚ whose father was also just murdered by the corrupt regime. So where in all good versions of the tale‚ Diego seeks justifiable vengeance against the ruling tyrants of Los Angeles‚ this Diego is reluctantly drafted. It’s a major dent in his knightly armor. Soon follows the next fatal blow for girl power over enjoyment. Diego’s childhood girlfriend Lolita (a stunning Renata Notni) sees him riding toward her father’s hacienda. She runs up to her bedroom and gets into a lovely red dress‚ becoming a rare screen vision of feminine beauty. For a moment‚ some naïve viewers might think the vision will hold. Until Lolita apparently remembers her girl-boss obligation and says‚ “No!” She appears to Diego wearing a hideous hat and manly dress. Diego still kisses her‚ but as he’s riding away‚ she fires a rifle at his hat and blows it away. That’ll teach him for his “Me too” violation. (READ MORE: The Boys in the Shaky Boat) Eventually‚ Diego must also contend with Indian Warrioress‚ who challenges him to a fight for snubbing her as Zorro. This being a modern rendition of the story‚ Indian Warrioress wins. Consequently‚ the mark of Zorro is no longer Z but L — for loser. But male and female viewers won’t be sticking around to see more of him The post The Woke of Zorro appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The loud pro-Hamas protests that have unfolded across Europe and North America for the past few months are the latest manifestation of a transformation that has been going on for decades. Many protesters carried Islamic flags and chanted “death to the Jews” or “from the river to the sea‚ Palestine will be free.” They attempted to disrupt the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in New York City‚ with some shouting “burn it down.” They blocked roads‚ targeted shops‚ disrupted gatherings‚ and harassed Western leaders and politicians‚ from King Charles to Justin Trudeau‚ Keir Starmer‚ and Joe Biden‚ to name a few. The elites have instigated a demographic change‚ resulting in crime-ridden‚ divided‚ poorer‚ and less tolerant societies. In Montreal‚ thousands gathered to listen to a man masked with a Palestinian kufiyah in the style of Hamas chief terrorist Abu Obaida. He asked his audience what they wanted‚ and they replied: a revolution — “intifada.” The same slogan was repeated on January 13th at a demonstration in front of the White House. The Elite Universities and Terrorism While the world was reeling from the shocking brutality of the October 7th attacks‚ vocal groups in the West began praising Hamas and justifying its crimes. In a staggering display of callousness‚ 31 student organizations at Harvard University‚ consisting mainly of students from the Middle East and Asia‚ issued a lengthy statement indicting Israel for Hamas’s crimes‚ hours after the attacks. They stated that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for the unfolding violence.” A student group at Tufts University issued an even more disturbing statement‚ claiming that “Since Friday‚ Palestinians have been launching a historic attack on the colonizers. Footage of the liberation fighters from Gaza paragliding into occupied territory has shown the creativity necessary to take back stolen land.” Columbia University’s Students for Justice in Palestine claimed that Hamas’s actions were “a counter-offensive against their settler-colonial oppressor.” On January 23rd this year‚ during a pro-Hamas protest held at that university‚ the gathered students praised the violence and called (in Arabic) for the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews. From the Halls of Power to the Streets In contrast to Western governments‚ most of which condemned Hamas and supported Israel‚ two Muslim American congresswomen‚ along with 19 Muslim MPs in Britain‚ failed to denounce the terrorist organization‚ or even urge it to release the children and women they had kidnapped. Instead‚ they have raucously condemned Israel and the governments which support it. For instance‚ the British MP for Birmingham‚ Tahir Ali‚ accused the British Prime Minister of having “the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands.” Muslim American congresswoman Rashida Tlaib‚ who came to the U.S. as a refugee‚ defended posting the first half of the slogan: “From the river to the sea‚ Palestine will be free‚” claiming that it is a call for peace. In contrast‚ British PM Rishi Sunak affirmed that “Those who chant ‘from the river to the sea’ are either useful idiots who do not understand what they are saying or worse‚ people who wish to wipe the Jewish state from the map.” One Country but Not One Nation In France‚ a poll conducted a month after the Hamas attacks revealed that 50 percent of French Muslims under 25 years of age and 53 percent aged over 50 characterize Hamas atrocities as “resistance against colonization.” Nineteen percent of the questioned French Muslims affirmed that they support Hamas. This contrasts sharply with the French general public‚ 90 percent of whom view Hamas attacks as war crimes and terrorism. A similar disparity exists in most other European countries. The gap between immigrant societies and native communities in Europe encompasses a wide array of essential values‚ from views on homosexuality‚ women’s rights‚ human rights‚ freedom of expression‚ and the role of religion in daily life. Did the leaders of the Western world understand this disparity when drafting their immigration policies? Revolutionary Vision of the Mediocre The ruling political parties of western Europe oversaw a mass migration of people mainly from Africa and Asia to the West‚ aiming to improve the prosperous‚ peaceful‚ homogeneous‚ aging populations with multicultural‚ multi-ethnic‚ diverse communities. They argued that this would bring a surplus of laborers‚ progressive voters‚ more tolerance‚ and prosperity. Angela Merkel is a prominent example of a politician who pursued this policy. She argued that Germany should have no limits in accepting illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. In 2015‚ she reportedly asked then-Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to censor criticism of her decision to allow millions of illegal immigrants into Germany. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is another staunch champion of multiculturalism and mass migration; he allowed over a million immigrants in the past three years and has repeatedly affirmed that “Diversity is Canada’s strength.” The newcomers were encouraged to maintain their cultures‚ beliefs‚ and social identities and to look down on the culture of the host societies. For instance‚ in 2006‚ Sweden’s then-Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said while visiting a town known for its large immigrant population that ‘Swedish indigenous culture was simple barbarism. Civilization had come from outside.” The number of Syrian-born individuals living in Sweden increased from less than seven thousands in 1990 to 197‚799 in 2023; Iraqi-born from 9‚818 to 146‚831; and Somali-born from 1‚441 to 69‚477. Over six million people immigrated into Germany alone between 2013 and 2022‚ and an additional 351‚915 individuals applied for asylum just last year: 104‚561 from Syria‚ 62‚624 from Turkey‚ and 53‚582 from Afghanistan. In France‚ the number of asylum applicants in 2023 was 142‚500‚ and in the UK‚ a further 93‚296‚ with Afghans constituting the largest portion. Criminal clans‚ grenade attacks‚ rape pandemic‚ no-go zones‚ mass shootings‚ honor killings‚ terrorism‚ and gang warfare became the new norms in Sweden‚ Norway‚ Denmark‚ Finland‚ among other European countries‚ with migrants and asylum seekers having been blamed for them. The Paris attacks of 2015‚ the Charlie Hebdo shooting‚ the Manchester Arena bombing‚ the Brussels bombings‚ the Berlin attack‚ the 2015-16 New Year’s sexual assaults in Germany‚ the 2010 Stockholm bombings‚ the 2017 truck attack‚ and the 2018 Freiburg gang rape are a few of the countless major crimes perpetrated by immigrants and asylum seekers. While steadfastly pursuing their agenda‚ the elites have demonstrated a striking disregard for the larger public’s opinion and the facts on the ground. They don’t tolerate dissenting voices and cast those who don’t conform to their ideas as evil‚ greedy‚ unwilling to share with others‚ and ignorant. The way Gordon Brown dealt with a Labor voter who confronted him about the economy and immigration policies during his 2010 election campaign exemplifies the elite’s mentality. Brown feigned compassion while listening to the sincere woman‚ but once in his car‚ was overheard calling her a “bigoted woman” whom he “shouldn’t have met with.” The elites have instigated a demographic change‚ resulting in crime-ridden‚ divided‚ poorer‚ and less tolerant societies. This change has caused immense harm to the natives‚ not just the many victims of terrorism and crimes but also all taxpayers‚ who bear the burden of supporting foreigners unwilling to contribute or assimilate into society. Legal immigrants eager to integrate might be the most adversely affected by illegal migration. Meanwhile‚ the elites‚ along with a portion of their supporters‚ have benefited from this transformation. The promise of improving Western societies by creating policies based on notions such as open borders‚ positive discrimination‚ equity‚ diversity‚ inclusion‚ and multiculturalism has been successfully employed to secure electoral victories‚ fame‚ and influence. Many corporations have made fortunes from lucrative government contracts dedicated to providing housing‚ healthcare‚ education‚ and other services for illegal immigrants. In 2023‚ Germany spent at least 48.2 billion Euros of taxpayers’ money on migrants.  (READ MORE: Georgetown University Stumps for the Muslim Brotherhood) The people who have instituted the societal transformation have largely remained sheltered from its negative effects. Angela Merkel was re-elected after she allowed the entry of millions of unvetted‚ illegal immigrants‚ including terrorists and rapists. Fredrik Reinfeldt‚ who played a significant role in changing the demographics of Sweden‚ remained in power for eight years. The demographic change has already occurred‚ at a price to the people on the ground‚ while benefiting the elites. The mass migration and demographic transformation will continue as long as the decision-makers are not directly affected by the adverse consequences. Until the elites are held accountable for what they have done‚ there won’t be any meaningful reform. READ MORE: American Muslims Must Repudiate Pro-Hamas Charities ‘Holocaust Envy’ and the New Anti-Semitism Islamist Academics and Activists Shill for Jailed Jihadists The post Hamas and the West’s Demographic Transformation appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It is not hard to detect almost a sigh of relief amidst the left-wing panic over the supposed attempt by so-called “Christian nationalists” to return American to a more religious time. At just the moment when progressivism is experiencing a political backlash for its anti-Semitic sympathies‚ its opposition to controlled immigration‚ and its costly net-zero agenda‚ the idea that a group of white‚ right-wing extremists are plotting a theocratic revival of the country must seem like … well … a Godsend. [T]he Christian nationalist measures the welfare of a nation by the extent to which its people are allowed to serve God’s will as they understand it. The left’s handwringing over this alleged conspiracy actually dates back to just before Covid. Ever since late 2019‚ America Magazine‚ the Center for American Progress‚ the New Yorker‚ NPR‚ and other liberal opinion makers have been breathlessly reporting every conceivable sign that the Christian right has mobilized to reverse the secular progress made possible by the New Deal and the Great Society. (READ MORE from Lewis Andrews: Fix the Economy and Conservative Values Will Follow) But the paranoia really kicked into high gear last November when the leftist press began claiming that Republican representative Mike Johnson’s ascension to the post of House speaker had been engineered by a secret network of Christian activists. If the election of a seeming unknown comes as a surprise to the larger world‚ the Nation warned its readers‚ it does not to the oil barons and other fundamentalist power brokers on the right: “They’ve been grooming Johnson for this position for many years.” And in a piece for Salon‚ former Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem declared that the new speaker‚ working secretly with Christian nationalist allies‚ constituted a “bigger threat to America than Hamas could ever be.” More recently‚ we have the December announcement from liberal filmmaker Rob Reiner that his latest documentary‚ tentatively titled “God and Country‚” will be released to theaters in February. Describing his production as a look “at the implications of Christian nationalism‚” Reiner promises audiences it will show “what happens when a faith built on love‚ sacrifice‚ and forgiveness grows political tentacles‚ conflating power‚ money‚ and belief into hyper-nationalism.” The timing of the documentary’s release is likely not a coincidence. Having argued that the Republican party is under the influence of Christian nationalists and having identified the shadowy cabal’s agenda as returning the U.S. to a more explicitly and repressively religious era‚ Democrats clearly plan to hype the joint claims as much as possible before the November elections. The left is right about one thing: Christian nationalism does exist. Which is to say that it always has been‚ and continues to be‚ an important intellectual movement in U.S. history. But for Democrats to suggest that the heirs to this tradition would want to impose a more religious form of government today ignores the fact that even in more religious times Americans never had‚ or wanted‚ such a government. Early American Christians were sufficiently versed in the history of Europe’s Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) to know that any effort to make their Constitution and Bill of Rights overtly theological could well prompt an ugly struggle among the country’s various denominations to dictate the final draft. Even worse‚ it might produce the very kind of European state religion which had prompted so many religious minorities to seek freedom of worship in the New World. That is why‚ for the three centuries from the founding of Harvard until World War I‚ the Protestant clergy running nearly every U.S. college and university never used their influential platforms to advocate for a more overtly Christian government. Down though American history‚ the goal of Christian nationalists has always had much less to do with forcing the state to echo their religious convictions than with minimizing the ways the state might compel them to compromise those convictions. They especially wanted to make it possible for a Christian to serve or to work in government without having to violate his or her faith. The current progressive demonization of Christian nationalism would clearly have baffled those non-Christians in times past. Probably the best-known result of such efforts is the body of law surrounding conscientious objection to war. As far back as the American Revolution‚ states such as Pennsylvania allowed those who believed any killing immoral to avoid joining local militias in return for paying a fine equal to the time they would have spent drilling. During World War I conscientious objectors were permitted to serve the armed forces in noncombatant roles‚ such as ambulance driver‚ and eventually to become either auxiliary farmhands in the U.S. or relief workers in war-torn parts of Europe. (READ MORE: Progressivism Is Aggravating America’s Mental Health Crisis) With the Second World War came the option to join the Civilian Public Service (CPS) as a firefighter‚ mental health worker‚ conservationist‚ or in some other socially needed capacity. Religious civilians who objected to funding combat by buying war bonds were provided alternative savings vehicles. Today‚ the spirit of Christian nationalism is very much alive in events like last October’s sixth annual conference on “Christianity and National Security” in Washington‚ DC. Sponsored by the Institute for Religion and Democracy‚ it brought together Georgetown professor Matthew Kroenig‚ Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs‚ former U.S. Special Envoy J. Peter Pham‚ and other experts to discuss the intersection of Christian ethics and American foreign policy. Among the topics they addressed were how to live one’s faith while representing the U.S. government in a country with different values‚ what policymakers can learn from the Christian concept of a “just war‚” and what individual Americans can do to help other peoples displaced by war. Because of their desire to preserve the believer’s ability to express his or her sense of God’s calling‚ no matter how it may differ from what is most convenient for the state‚ Christian nationalists generally share in social conservatism’s advocacy of small government‚ free markets‚ and traditional morality. But whereas the social conservative tends to stress the need for large institutions to reflect and promote that morality‚ the Christian nationalist places a greater emphasis on the simple freedom to go wherever the spirit leads‚ regardless of what others might believe. Just as the seventeenth-century Puritan radicals understood that everyone’s life has the potential to help incarnate a better — if unforeseeable — world‚ so the Christian nationalist measures the welfare of a nation by the extent to which its people are allowed to serve God’s will as they understand it. A very old idea in American history‚ indeed the one idea that all the early Christian colonies would have either subscribed to or at least respected‚ despite their denominational differences. The current progressive demonization of Christian nationalism would clearly have baffled those non-Christians in times past who understood that the freedoms it created in the U.S. could not only be enjoyed by citizens of all faiths but even guide other countries in how to better reconcile religion and government. When it was learned‚ for example‚ that First Dutch Reformed Church pastor and U.S. Congressman Julius Hawley Seelye would stop in Bombay on his 1872–73 around the-world tour‚ educated Hindus prevailed upon him to deliver a series of lectures which were published widely throughout India. Twenty years later‚ Chicago hosted the World’s Parliament of Religions as the centerpiece of its four-hundred-year anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the New World‚ in part to satisfy the growing curiosity about Christian nationalism in places as far away as China. The event attracted seven thousand participants representing faiths from every part of the world and was covered for seventeen days on the front pages of U.S. newspapers from coast to coast. In our own time‚ the journal Providence carries on the Christian nationalist tradition of seeking ways to maximize spiritual freedom in the political realm‚ both at home and abroad. Its contributors include journalist Fred Barnes‚ who most famously appeared as a regular panelist on TV’s McLaughlin Group‚ and the Wall Street Journal’s Global Views Columnist‚ Walter Russell Mead. (READ MORE: Meet the Suburban Parents) All this is not to say that Christian nationalism has ever represented some kind of one-world philosophy or followed the Enlightenment tendency to see all religions as the same. Self-declared Christian nationalists are‚ and always were‚ Bible believing followers of Jesus. But unlike their current progressive attackers‚ they have long understood that it is far more dangerous for government to command a better society than to allow its citizens to build it by their own lights. Dr. Andrews is president of the Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation. His latest book is Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Books). The post Christian Nationalism Benefits All Americans appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Mercantilism 2.0‚ the economic manifestation of multipolarity‚ is streaking across the geostrategic firmament.  The sun has set on globalization‚ the economic manifestation of a unipolar world order reflecting American primacy.  The transition to a new economic order of the emerging multipolar world is occurring against the backdrop of Cold War 2.0 which has been ushered in by the Ukraine — Russia War.  For those thinking in time‚ Feb. 22‚ 2022 will serve as a useful marker of the tectonic shift in the world’s trajectory. In a decoupling scenario‚ the U.S. would cease buying goods and services from China and instead buy the same or comparable goods and services from India. So‚ what is Mercantilism 2.0?  In its simplest form‚ Mercantilism 2.0 is characterized by trading with friendly countries while avoiding and abstaining from commercial intercourse with unfriendly countries that are viewed as actual or potential national security threats. The driving force of Mercantilism 2.0 is national security‚ which is symbolized by the inextricably intertwined trinity of military security‚ political security‚ and economic security.  The unchanging reality of the economic world is scarcity of resources and unequal endowment of such resources‚ so absolute autarky is an impossibility for a state and‚ therefore‚ resource imbalances must be intermediated through trade among states.  In a multipolar world‚ such trade is deliberately fragmented and restricted to a subset of friendly states rather than conducted freely among the universe of all states. The core objective of Mercantilism 2.0 is to forge resilient and secure supply chains binding together a group of countries with converging vital national interests and converging perceptions of the threats to such interests. Accordingly‚ the foundation of Mercantilism 2.0 is economic security within the framework of a symbiotic geostrategic ecosystem. (READ MORE: Biden’s ‘Buy American’ Requirement Will Hurt Domestic Broadband Providers) By contrast‚ the driving force of globalization was comparative advantage‚ not national security.  In the erstwhile unipolar world‚ national security was not the determinant of world trade as no other state had accumulated sufficient power to mount a credible challenge to America’s position as the sole superpower with global reach.  With no threats to its national security on the horizon‚ the United States could focus on nurturing economic prosperity reflecting the logic of comparative advantage‚ i.e.‚ exporting goods and services that the U.S. could produce at a lower economic cost than other countries‚ while importing goods and services which could be produced by other countries at a lower economic cost. The end of globalization does not mean the end of world trade — it simply means the end of world trade based on comparative advantage.  Mercantilism 2.0 heralds the reordering and rearrangement of world trade to reflect a new pattern based on national security considerations. Given the recognition that China is likely to be America’s greatest national security threat for the foreseeable future‚ the U.S. would like to counterbalance China by forging a security partnership with India to address the Middle Kingdom’s ambition to be Asia’s hegemon.  Likewise‚ India increasingly views China as its greatest national security threat for the foreseeable future.  So‚ Mercantilism 2.0 would prompt a recalibration and rebalancing of the trading pattern among China‚ India‚ and the United States reflecting geostrategic priorities. Accordingly‚ the U.S. could shift its imports away from China and instead redirect them to India.  Similarly‚ India could shift its imports away from China and redirect them to the U.S.  For example‚ reflecting comparative advantage‚ in 2022 U.S. imports of goods from China amounted to $536.3 billion‚ while U.S. imports of goods from India amounted to only $85.5 billion. Likewise‚ for the comparable period India’s imports of goods from China amounted to $98.5 billion while India’s imports of goods from the U.S. were $50.2 billion. In a decoupling scenario‚ the U.S. would cease buying goods and services from China and instead buy the same or comparable goods and services from India. Similarly‚ India would cease buying goods and services from China and instead buy the same or comparable goods and services from the U.S.  China’s loss would be gains for India and the U.S. respectively‚ but the total amount of world trade would remain the same. (READ MORE: The US Needs Help for Its China Addiction) Enlisting Mercantilism 2.0 as a Cold War 2.0 instrument to resuscitate U.S. primacy as has been suggested by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is likely to be a detour to a dead end. Ultimately‚ the real challenge for America is to shape the transition from unipolarity and globalization to multipolarity and Mercantilism 2.0 with realism and restraint so that it reflects pragmatic flexibility rather than ideological rigidity. Instead of being part of the problem‚ Mercantilism 2.0 can be part of the solution for a modus vivendi that facilitates a pathway from Mutual Assured Destruction to Mutual Assured Survival. Samir Tata is founder and president of International Political Risk Analytics‚ an advisory firm based in Reston‚ Virginia‚ and author of the book‚ Reflections on Grand Strategy (Palgrave Macmillan‚ 2022).  The post Cold War With China Requires Mercantilism 2.0 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Mac Slavo‚ SHTF Plan: ​What Powell Said On January 24th‚ NATO began a drill called Steadfast Defender 2024. One week later‚ I have hardly seen media coverage about it‚ so I want to make sure that you aren’t left out and know exactly what’s happening. Comprised of 90‚000 soldiers‚ 50 ships‚ 1‚100 combat vehicles‚ and […]

by Mike LaChance‚ The Gateway Pundit: Last week‚ insane left wing activists threw soup at the Mona Lisa painting at the Louvre Museum in Paris. This has become a common tactic for climate cultists because it gets them the attention they so clearly can’t live without. It does nothing to advance their cause‚ but that’s not their […]

from BANNED.VIDEO:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/