Month: July 2024

On Monday, The American Conservative’s Executive Director Curt Mills facilitated a panel at the fourth annual National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C. called “Breaking the China Addiction.” Speakers included TAC contributor and economic strategist David Goldman, corporate lawyer and businessman David Harvilicz, President of The American Strategy Group Brian Kennedy, and General Robert Spalding.

Goldman focused on China’s continued dominance in the global south in manufacturing and workforce capabilities in comparison to other countries, particularly the United States. He said, “We are more dependent on Chinese supply chains under President Biden than we ever have been before.”

Goldman noted that China’s “skilled workforce is exploding” rapidly, saying that, for example, six times the number of engineers graduate from Chinese schools as the rest of the world combined. At the rate China is going compared to the United States, it will take trillions of dollars to play a game of catch up with infrastructure and supply chains in the global south. 

Yet, “We have to go all in. Incremental measures will not cut it anymore,” Goldman concluded. 

Harvilicz emphasized how important it is to wake the “Sleeping giant of American ingenuity.” However, this path will be difficult, due to the exorbitant costs of training American workers to perform jobs that can be done at a much lower cost in China. Nevertheless, he suggested the creation of a “Made in America mandate” that would ensure all energy transformers to be made in the United States. Such a move would be beneficial to America and its citizens in the long run.

Harvilicz also suggested a “Patriot Pledge,” which would mandate that presidential appointees agree to a lifetime ban of working for CCP-related brands. “We didn’t beat the Soviets with timid gestures,” he said.

Kennedy cautioned that we “are at war with Communist China” and that conservatives should not be disillusioned by “political optimism” going forward to the November election. Like the panelists before him, he emphasized how reliant the United States is on China and how the latter is blatantly serious about becoming “the master race of this earth.” He said that America’s heavy dependence has made the country “engaged in a national suicide.”

Spalding made a callback to Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, which said, “Never attempt to win by force, what can be won by deception.” An example of Chinese deception is through TikTok, which Spalding claimed is feeding America’s youth misinformation subversively. This is the “digital currency” with which the Chinese can wage a second Cold War. 

Finally, Spalding warned that the only political enemy that matters, more so than the Democratic party Republicans will face in November, is the Chinese Communist Party, and America must do all that is necessary to prepare itself against it. 

The post NatCon: ‘Breaking the China Addiction’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

On Monday at the National Conservatism Conference in D.C., the former senior advisor to President Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, gave a fiery speech about immigration and the upcoming November election, arguing that the current resettlement program is aiding “the world’s fugitives, the world’s predators, the world’s rapists, and murderers” in coming into the U.S. and putting the American people at risk.

Miller singled out the Biden administration’s policy on resettlement for “mass releasing” military-age illegal aliens and preventing their removal until after a subsequent criminal conviction. Miller added “we can sit here for days” to try to determine “how many murders, how many child-rapists, how many aggravated assaults, how many people who are engaged in kidnapping and drug-dealing” were let into the country due to this policy.

“There’s no issue I can think of more than the open border where the pain and suffering of the American people is met with cruelty, callousness, craziness, by the corrupt elites that are running this country,” Miller said.

Miller argued that the open border is “a matter of choice and design,” which he blamed on Democrats, stating that “every single person that died because of this release policy…died because Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party let them in.” 

“What are you doing to help achieve justice for those victims and a brighter future for all of America’s children?” asked Miller.

Miller stated that he believes that the November election is the “fulcrum” and “the decision point for the West.” “Either the West will be saved…or it will fall,” said Miller, who exhorted Americans to “choose victory” and “choose optimism.” 

The post Miller: Biden Admin Bringing ‘World’s Predators’ Into America appeared first on The American Conservative.

We Are The Majority

Welcome to NatCon4!

I know this is early for some of you. But I can’t apologize for my energy this morning. Because yes, I’ve been up with my four-week old baby since 3:30am. And if they scheduled me any later in the program, I might sound like Joe Biden outside the hours of 10 and 4. 

As you may know, I was supposed to be joined in this session by our friend Steve Bannon, who last week became the latest political prisoner of Merrick Garland’s Committee for Public Safety.

No doubt the media thinks this is a potential “gotcha” side-bar to NatCon4. As usual, their narrative is not only wrong, it’s corrupt.

Let’s be very clear about who the people are snickering and high-fiving about persecuting Steve Bannon.

They’re the same politicians, donors, and journalists who celebrate the serial sexual predator Bill Clinton. Who say nothing about Senator Bob Menendez, federally indicted for being bribed by a foreign nation, still voting on legislation in the United States Senate. Who protected Jeffrey Epstein—and continue to protect both his murderers and his child-abusing Democrat clients. And who cheerlead the illegally open borders now facilitating the trafficking of children, fentanyl, and violent criminals into our country.

That’s who put Steve Bannon behind bars last week—for the “crime” of refusing to cooperate with their three-year insurrection against the Constitution and the rule of law. The media thinks the story is a bad look for us!

In reality it’s just another reminder that no matter how fed up you are of what the left is doing to our country today—you’re not fed up enough.

And yet, look around. The mood of this conference is not anger but excitement. Because we know this is the first conservative conference in memory when we can look at our country and the world and say we’re winning.

As we gather today for this fourth Conference on National Conservatism, we do so with the wind at our backs. The left is in a global panic. The corporatist right is utterly irrelevant.

National conservatism today is the undisputed majority political coalition and persuasion not simply in the Republican Party and in America, but across the West. 

We’re not PART of the conservative movement. We ARE the conservative movement!

And yet, national conservatives must express this fact not as a boast, but as a responsibility. The country we love—the country we would lead—is in grave danger. 

Helping America through this moment will be the greatest challenge any political coalition has faced since the Civil War.

But we’re up to this challenge for the same reason we’re national conservatives in the first place. We see the fight we’re in for what it is. 

Our movement is America’s slow-kindled corrective to the Washington Republican establishment’s willful neglect. We’re America’s answer to the hollow men who betrayed our workers to corporate exploitation, our taxpayers into unsustainable debt, our sons and brothers into un-winnable wars, and our citizens into unconstitutional servitude. 

We are—and must be—conservatives of action. This is what sets national conservatism apart. We don’t live in a fantasy world of what ought to be. We live in, and will fight to fix, the wreckage of what is.  

Beginning of the Story: The Enemy Above

National Conservatism is not an ideology or a faction; it’s a perspective. It’s the realization that the trajectory and stakes of our national politics have fundamentally changed. Even labels like “extremism,” “fanaticism,” and “weaponized government” fail to capture what the elite left has become.   

They literally convicted their chief political rival of felonies without proving he ever committed a crime. They literally helped a genocidal, enemy regime cover-up its creation of a global pandemic. They literally conspire to kidnap struggling, mentally ill children that parents refuse to mutilate.

And almost every corporation, university, government agency, newsroom, and Democrat politician and staffer in the country agrees with them.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are no more Rubicons to cross. There are no more norms to uphold. America is fighting for its life—and America’s elites are on the other side.

It’s been a long time coming, this realization. But for anyone paying attention, it has been coming.

I’m a millennial. In my adult life, I’ve lived through the elite lies that led us into the Iraq war. The boondoggle that was Afghanistan. The financial collapse. The failure of Obamacare. Mass, warrantless surveillance by government and corporations. The China shock, which hollowed out middle America. The opioid epidemic. Covid and its paranoia and coverup. Hillary Clinton’s Russia hoax. The Black Lives Matter riots and the neo-racist DEI regime. 

The real scandal is not that we have endured this generational orgy of corruption, dishonesty, and betrayal. The scandal is that the elites responsible for all of the above were protected, promoted, enriched, and even celebrated for it.

And even today, establishment Washington is led by people who think that’s okay. 

Because they participated in the system. Or got rich off it. Or live in fear of being cut off from it.

For decades, as elite institutions were captured and corrupted, Republican elites husbanded their influence, hoarded their privilege, and reserved their ire for…us.

Whenever any conservatives tried to stop or defund the Left’s march through the institutions, we were smeared by our ostensible leaders as “far right…” “arch conservatives…” “isolationists”…or even “unChristian.” 

We were told to “respect norms” and “play the long game” while our sovereignty, economy, and culture went up in flames.

Like the false prophets in Jeremiah’s day, those who claimed to lead us“healed [our] wound…lightly, saying ‘peace, peace’ when there [was] no peace.”

National Conservatism is America’s answer to a left destroying our country and a right that wouldn’t lift a finger to stop them.

The bad news is that the Republican Establishment is unprepared, ill-equipped, and too weak to face this moment and its perils, let alone overcome them. Those unwilling to perceive reality cannot be persuaded by argument. They must be replaced—now. 

The good news is they are being replaced by us.

Zero Sum 

Do not be tempted by talk about a “new fusionism,” sharing a “big tent” with the corporate, congressional yes-men who voted to fund the Left’s anti-American jihad all these years. Their time has passed.

On the other hand—and however tempting—National Conservatives need not punish old guard Republicans. All we need to do is ignore them. They wet their beds—now they can sleep in them.

Our focus must be on the Left and the elite institutions they wield like cudgels. For the fight we’re engaged in now is not merely existential. It’s also zero-sum. Only one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. National Conservatism represents the side that will not, cannot, and must not compromise away or give up on America. 

So yes, National Conservatives will fight. But: to win, we must lead.

How to Lead and How Not To

And we must lead as only National Conservatives can today: as the true, sole majority of the American Right. 

To reunite the conservative movement, we need to understand how we became so divided under the Establishment.

The fusionist conservative coalition of the 1980s succeeded because it met the needs of its time. The Republicans who inherited Ronald Reagan’s coalition tried to freeze its agenda in amber—even as the country and the threats facing her mutated.

Today Reagan’s “pro-growth” economics and “strong national defense” have descended into mindless military adventurism and misguided economic abstractions that have only accelerated the degradation of our culture, traditions, and sovereignty.

A National Conservative coalition must reunify the Right by reclaiming the real moral and intellectual traditions the fusionist generation actually drew on! On this point, pearl-clutching pundits and social media trolls are both wrong. National Conservatism does not demand deviation from Reaganism, fusionism, and constitutionalism…but a reconnection with what those movements actually were.

Contrary to the neocon op-eds, the Cold War was won by a nationalist conservatism that resisted global communism and also American imperialism and hubris. Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan all pursued strategies and alliances that prevented wars—not ones that constantly drew us into them. 

Similarly, National Conservatives should reclaim Reaganism from libertarian economic revisionists. Like Reagan, National Conservatives can distinguish between free trade in theory, and free trade in practice. We understand that predatory foreign commerce must be met with the economic self-defense used by Reagan himself—import quotas, protection of American industry, and where appropriate, tariffs, levied in pursuit of freer, fairer trade. There’s nothing “Reaganist” about enriching our geopolitical adversaries by giving them free access to our industries, workers, intellectual property, and markets. 

Nor should National Conservatives dismiss the prudent skepticism of libertarians—from Murray Rothbard to Ron Paul—about sovereignty-stealing outfits like the World Trade Organization and treaties rigged for Wall Street against Main Street.

Like William F. Buckley, National Conservatives can remind the right not to accept corporate tyranny simply because it’s perpetrated by the private instead of the public sector. 

National Conservatives should, on principle, hold corporations accountable when they threaten the values that make this country work. When they de-bank conservative customers, suppress patriotic speech, and monopolize and distort free markets, they must pay a swift, severe, and certain price.

We must signal to Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, and Big Finance that the conservative movement is not their partisan shield. Our principles are not for sale. National Conservatives are shrewd enough not to be bought by some sponsored op-ed or “consulting” expert manipulating words like “liberty” and “free markets” to cloak corporate cronyism. 

That kind of vending-machine partisanship is how the Republican Establishment got us all into this mess in the first place.

Congress must finally do its job—and get control of the federal and state agencies the left has weaponized against the American people. 

No constitutional republic can exist with a Department of Homeland Security who believes “being religious” is an indication of domestic extremism. 

With an FBI that shows up at the homes of peaceful pro-life demonstrators with their guns drawn. 

With a surveillance state that bucks any check on its own power. 

These institutions must be drastically reformed or dismantled and rebuilt. Not as part of some committee white paper or press conference. This has to happen next year.

And for goodness sake, National Conservatives must restore accountability to the federal work place. If bureaucrats underperform or abuse their power, they either go to jail or get fired. Period.

Finally, we need a political coalition that has the courage to understand where we are—and what is required to battle this country back to a Constitutional order. The elite left has no shame or fidelity to their oaths of office. They’re not inspired to their better angels because the right sets a better example. We have seen for decades: They’re emboldened by our inaction. They laugh at it.

The left isn’t going to stop weaponizing institutions against us until they have a taste of their own medicine. Until they truly believe the right will use the left’s own precedents against them. 

As during the Cold War, no one wants to live under Mutually Assured Destruction. But as long as amoral adversaries embrace lying, treachery, and terror as legitimate partisan tactics, it sure beats unilateral assured destruction.

No one is happy that American politics has become so totalizing. But that’s what happens when you stand up to totalitarians. Appeals to the Constitution and the Founders and “disagreeing without being disagreeable” will not move the Alvin Braggs and Fanni Willises and Jack Smiths of the world.

National Conservatives are and must be constitutionalists. But for the Constitution to matter again—at all—the right must be prepared to fight on the left’s absolute terms. Like it or not, ready or not, they are coming for our rights, our freedoms, and our kids for God’s sake! To them, the Establishment Right has always said, let’s make a deal.

 To them, National Conservatives must say, molon labe. 

Take The High Ground

Let the Establishment talk of the high road. We will take the high ground. 

We can unite and lead the conservative movement. We can unite and lead the nation. We can win this fight. 

Conservative principles are not meek and deferential—that was just our failed, former leaders. Our ideas are battle-tested over centuries and forged in the fights that have come before—against authoritarianism, communism, tyrants great and petty. They have triumphed over atheism, relativism, nihilism, and fascism. Our values were made for this moment, and they cannot be compromised. The stakes are too high. 

The fight we’re in is to preserve our whole way of life, as heirs to the Western tradition. And we will win because unlike the left, we know who we are—that we’re made in the image of God, that men are men, that women are women, that each precious human person is unrepeatable and unmatched in dignity and worth from conception to natural death. 

And we define our common identity not by our creed or our tribe or our race or pronouns, but by our country, the sovereign land in which we have built the freest society the world has ever seen.

America was built by Americans, not simply by ideas. It can only be saved by Americans, too. The left understands this. They are working right now to make us into a different country. It’s a perilous time for the values and the country we hold dear—but champions of the good, the beautiful, and the true do not change with the times… we change the times.

As National Conservatives, we may not have chosen this moment. But as the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote, we are called to serve faithfully not in the moment of our choosing, but of our testing. The political coalition necessary to save this country is forming now, today, with all of us. 

With the courage of our convictions, love of our country, and faith in our Living God…let’s get to work.

Thank you.

The post National Conservatives are Fighting for You appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Republican Party unveiled its 2024 platform on Monday ahead of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin next week.

A draft of the platform obtained by The American Conservative, titled “2024 GOP Platform,” bears the long-time slogan of the former President Donald Trump as its subtitle: “Make America Great Again!” It’s an appropriate subtitle for the party’s platform, which reflects Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, tensions on some issues remain—particularly on the issue of abortion.

The draft platform takes Trumpian tones, down to the eccentric capitalization of important words, on immigration, trade, foreign policy, and other policy arenas. In a far cry from the pre-Trump GOP’s attitudes, immigration takes center stage in the draft platform and is woven throughout. “SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION,” the draft platform reads, “CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.” 

On trade, the platform states, “Our Trade deficit in goods has grown to over $1 Trillion Dollars a year. Republicans will support baseline Tariffs on Foreign-made goods, pass the Trump Reciprocal Trade Act, and respond to unfair Trading practices. As Tariffs on Foreign Producers go up, Taxes on American Workers, Families, and Businesses can come down.” On foreign policy, “Republicans will promote a Foreign Policy centered on the most essential American Interests, starting with protecting the American Homeland, our People, our Borders, our Great American Flag, and our Rights under God,” the platform says, and vows to “PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST.” 

The Trump campaign sent a release announcing the RNC Platform Committee had adopted Trump’s platform. “President Trump’s platform serves as a contract with the American voter that makes clear what we can and will deliver under a President Trump administration with the Republican Party leading the country for the next four years,” the release read in part. It underlined 20 major points expressed in the platform, such as the above provisions on border security and deportations, as well as ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 

This would also be the first GOP platform since the Trump-led overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the RNC Platform Committee’s meeting, the Trump campaign laid the groundwork for potentially changing the GOP platform’s abortion provisions, fearing that Democrats could savage Republicans on the issue on the campaign trail. The Trump campaign got to work seeking to appoint and secure the support of platform committee members on the proposed abortion moderation. Trump advisers went about selecting and whipping platform committee delegates.

The 2016 platform, previously the most recent GOP manifesto, refers to “abortion” 35 times throughout its 66 pages. In the 2024 platform draft, which spans just 16 pages, abortion is only mentioned once, in reference to the GOP’s opposition to late term abortions. 

Under the header “Government of, by, and for the people,” the ninth chapter of the 2024 draft platform reads, in part, that “Republicans Will Protect and Defend a Vote of the People, from within the States, on the Issue of Life. We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.”

“After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments),” the draft continues.

Before the 2024 draft platform’s release, pro-life organizations prepared for even less success. “If the Trump campaign decides to remove national protections for the unborn in the GOP platform, it would be a miscalculation that would hurt party unity and destroy pro-life enthusiasm between now and the election,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, claimed in a statement last week. 

“If the GOP is for 9 of 10 abortions…and the Democrats for 10 of 10 abortions, there is no real pro-life option,” Students for Life Action tweeted. 

Students for Life Action’s president, Kristan Hawkins, said “Pray for the GOP platform committee” in a quote tweet. In another tweet before the draft platform was released, Hawkins said, “RNC Platform Members that were actually allowed to join the Platform Committee are still waiting to start work as word is Trump is still editing the platform. It is completely unnecessary & harmful for President Trump to try to single-handily change the GOP’s entire platform.”

Some changed their tune, however, upon the draft’s circulation. “The GOP has announced the 2024 Party Platform, stating that the 14th Amendment “guarantees” legal protection for the preborn,” Hawkins said in another tweet. “This is a significant contribution to the fight for legal rights for ALL!”

It’s quite the change from 2016. Gone are provisions that advocate for a 20-week federal limit on abortions or argue that life begins at conception. The final product appears to be the result of the Trump campaign’s discrete effort to exercise control of the platform process.

Nevertheless, Hawkins may not be wrong for celebrating. Though the proposed platform’s abortion provisions are much shorter, moderate, and logically inconsistent, it is an olive branch the Trump campaign probably did not need to extend.

When it came time for the platform’s delegates to discuss and vote on the draft platform, the Trump campaign had near-total control of the process. Not only were the delegates hand-selected by the Trump campaign, but sources familiar with the matter told TAC that the Trump campaign drafted the text unilaterally, unveiling the text to the delegates when the meeting convened Monday morning. The amendment process, which was previously reported to take place on Tuesday, was canned.

“The platform process was rigged from the start,” one source familiar with the matter told TAC. “The RNC stacked the delegates (they even booted several delegates they felt were too committed to the pro-life issue) and handled drafting of the document unilaterally.”

The source added that the Trump camp at the platform meeting “took almost zero input from conservative stakeholders,” and “refused to show delegates the language until the morning of—and then blocked amendments, turning the whole thing into an up or down vote.” 

“Everyone left with a sour taste in their mouths. Just a disappointing process all around,” the source concluded.

The platform is headed for a vote by the convention’s delegates next week.

The post GOP Unveils Trumpian Platform—And Rankles Some Social Conservatives appeared first on The American Conservative.

On Monday at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., the former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman ascribed the blame for the Tories’ crushing defeat on the ineffectual 14-year-old Conservative government. Braverman described former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s tenure to be “a cosplay of right-wingery only to be socialism-lite.”

Braverman highlighted how the Tories allowed “BLM homilies” and left-wing political bias to flourish within the British Civil Service, permitted the government to fly the “Pride progress flag,” and failed to prevent anti-white “unconscious bias training” from being implemented. Braverman stated “we Tory ministers…allowed this to happen.” Braverman declared, “My party governed as liberals and were defeated as liberals.”

Braverman described how the Tory government allowed “trans fanatics” to implement their will on Britain by allowing children to undergo “gender-reassignment” surgeries. She also highlighted how wet Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had been on the UK’s immigration crisis, firing her as home secretary and failing to execute upon the plan to deter illegal immigration by flying migrants to Rwanda. Braverman stated that “it was a choice” for the Rwanda scheme never to be effectuated, and that Sunak, despite claiming to want the Rwanda plan, never meant it.

Braverman dubbed Nigel Farage and the Reform Party “a credible threat” to the Conservative Party, and deemed their rise a “moment of existential crisis” that will allow the left to rule Britain in perpetuity. She said the rise of Reform was “due to how repulsive our record has been,” and prescribed moving to the right, saying that “if the Tory Party has a future, it is by being conservative.”

The post Braverman: ‘If the Tory Party Has A Future, It Is by Being Conservative’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

In a controversial and widely criticized event, the “Patriot Front” group recently staged a march in Manhattan, raising suspicions and conspiracy theories about the involvement of federal agencies. Videos of the event, which circulated widely on social media, show the group in matching outfits and masks, leading many to question the authenticity of the group’s origins and motives.

The “Patriot Front,” often described as a white supremacist and neo-fascist organization, was seen marching through Manhattan carrying flags and shields. This demonstration, like previous ones in other cities, has fueled speculation that the group is actually a federal operation designed to incite unrest and entrap unsuspecting individuals.

Our government is so corrupt they have the FBI dress up as commies to stir up a White Supremacy narrative that does not exist…

They call themselves Patriot Front. pic.twitter.com/VngburyD9x

— Gunther Eagleman (@GuntherEagleman) July 7, 2024

Critics argue that the highly organized and uniform appearance of the group, along with the frequent police escorts, suggest an orchestrated effort rather than a genuine grassroots movement. Prominent figures, including podcast host Joe Rogan and billionaire Elon Musk, have voiced their doubts about the group’s legitimacy. Rogan described the group’s coordinated appearance as “too uniform,” while Musk questioned why members weren’t unmasked during arrests.

This skepticism isn’t new. The “Patriot Front” emerged from the aftermath of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where violence erupted and resulted in the death of counter-protester Heather Heyer. The group’s leader, Thomas Rousseau, previously associated with Vanguard America, rebranded the organization with a focus on propaganda and public demonstrations.

Every time the “Patriot Front” gets “arrested” there is not one single bit of footage of them unmasked.

Holy Fed Psyop. pic.twitter.com/aY3bwqg7Xr

— Steve (@SteveLovesAmmo) April 28, 2024

Conservative commentators and Republican figures have echoed these concerns, suggesting that the group’s activities might be part of a larger strategy by federal agencies to sow discord and justify increased surveillance and control. They point to the history of federal informants infiltrating extremist groups to provoke illegal actions as a precedent for these suspicions.

The recent Manhattan march has only intensified these theories. Videos showed the group taking public transportation and moving in an organized fashion, prompting questions about their logistical support and planning. Critics argue that such operations are beyond the capabilities of a typical grassroots extremist group and more indicative of a coordinated federal operation.

Despite these allegations, federal agencies have denied any involvement with the “Patriot Front.” However, the lack of transparency and the historical context of federal infiltration in extremist movements keep these suspicions alive. As investigations continue, the debate over the true nature of the “Patriot Front” and its demonstrations remains a contentious issue among conservatives and the broader public.

The ongoing discourse highlights a significant distrust in federal institutions and raises important questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties. As more information comes to light, the scrutiny of these events will likely persist, reflecting deeper concerns about government overreach and the manipulation of public sentiment for political ends.

The post Feds Parade ‘Patriot Front’ in Fake Hate Group Marches appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Moscow –Russian President Vladimir Putin has intensified his nuclear threats amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, raising global concerns about the potential use of nuclear weapons. This escalation comes as Putin faces significant setbacks on the battlefield and mounting pressure from Western nations supporting Ukraine.

Putin’s latest move involves ordering tactical nuclear weapon drills, a stark reminder of the nuclear capabilities at Russia’s disposal. This provocative action aims to deter Western intervention and maintain a strategic upper hand as Ukraine continues to reclaim occupied territories with the support of U.S. and NATO allies.

Russia just issued a warning to Ukraine, the USA, France, and the UK:

“If NATO sends troops to Ukraine to defeat Russia, nukes will hit American decision-making centers and launch sites, France will be “disarmed in an instant”, …”and I apologize to any Irish …the British… pic.twitter.com/3mvpKeJ3aP

— RoamingRN (@roaming_rn) April 28, 2024

The Kremlin has made explicit threats, suggesting that nuclear missiles could target Western capitals like London and Washington if Russia is forced to retreat from Ukrainian lands. These threats are seen as an attempt to fracture the resolve of NATO and create fear of escalation beyond conventional warfare.

Western analysts argue that Putin’s nuclear posturing is largely rhetorical, aimed at leveraging fear rather than signaling immediate action. However, the risk of miscalculation remains high, with both sides engaging in a dangerous game of brinkmanship that could inadvertently lead to catastrophic consequences.

1/3 of Russians approve the use of Nukes on Ukraine

According to a recent survey by the “Levada Center” conducted in June 2024, a significant number of Russian citizens, more than a third, believe that using nuclear weapons against Ukraine is justified. Specifically, 10% of… pic.twitter.com/id7N3ADGIE

— Redneck Azn (@LMFireSystems1) July 8, 2024

The international community has condemned Russia’s nuclear threats, emphasizing the importance of diplomatic solutions to prevent further escalation. The Biden administration has reaffirmed its commitment to Ukraine’s defense, warning that any use of nuclear weapons would be met with severe consequences.

Putin’s nuclear rhetoric also reflects domestic challenges, as his administration grapples with diminishing public support for the war and increasing economic strains. The Russian president’s reliance on aggressive tactics underscores his desperation to maintain control and project strength amidst a faltering military campaign.

In response to Russia’s threats, NATO has bolstered its defensive posture, with increased military exercises and deployments along its eastern flank. This show of unity aims to reassure member states and deter any potential aggression from Moscow.

As the conflict enters its third year, the prospect of a prolonged stalemate looms, with neither side willing to concede. The West’s continued support for Ukraine and Putin’s unyielding stance suggest that the path to peace remains fraught with peril and uncertainty.

The global community must remain vigilant, seeking avenues for dialogue while preparing for any contingencies. The specter of nuclear conflict, though remote, highlights the critical need for responsible leadership and robust international cooperation to navigate these turbulent times.

The post Putin’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling Escalates Tensions in Ukraine Conflict appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

This is how lawfare works. The Supreme Court on June 28 likely exonerated 350 of 351 January 6 riot defendants, rebuking President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice for abusing an existing law to go after them and turn them into felons. You wanna guess who the one last defendant still in trouble is?

Donald Trump remains charged with two counts of obstructing an official proceeding. At issue was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Title 18, Section 1512(c)(2)), which was enacted after the collapse of the energy giant Enron. The law contains a catchall provision that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. The justices rejected the idea that this statute, initially intended to criminalize things like shredding documents or tampering with evidence in corporate malfeasance cases, could be stretched by the Justice Department to include the disruptions of the counting process that took place on January 6.

The SCOTUS case is Fischer v. United States, brought by defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer seeking to dismiss the charge of obstructing an official proceeding—namely the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. The law was repurposed against J6 defendants, claiming their protest obstructed the business of Congress certifying the election of Joe Biden to the presidency. This novel use of the law made the J6 protesters’ actions felonies, rather than the typical misdemeanor charges for illegal or disruptive protesting.

There are also First Amendment issues with criminalizing protests against the government that were more or less ignored in these cases (although Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett did touch on the 1A in her dissent, and during oral arguments stated, “People are going to worry about the kinds of protest they engage in, even if they’re peaceful, because the government has this weapon.”)

Trump is in the picture because he too is charged with obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct, with the government claiming he worked in a variety of forms to overturn the 2020 election and make himself president for a second term. (that this was Constitutionally and technically impossible is somehow not relevant.) One aspect of this was Trump’s efforts to “exploit” the Capitol riot to his own ends, from which the obstruction charge arises. Specifically, the indictment says 

Donald J. Trump did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote.

SCOTUS said in its recent decision the interpretation used to convict 350 men was wrong. They said prosecutors overstepped the bounds of the law in using an obstruction statute to charge members of the group that stormed the Capitol. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, read the law narrowly, saying it applied only when the defendant’s actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence.

Lower courts will now apply that new, stricter standard, and it will no doubt lead them to dismiss charges against many defendants. Future trials will not include the obstruction charge. Left unspecified at present is the fate of the 52 people convicted exclusively under the law challenged in Fischer, with no other charge—27 of whom are still serving sentences for that in federal prison.

But don’t worry about those J6 guys getting off too easily. The New York Times, practically salivating, writes, “Some federal judges in Washington who are handling the January 6 cases have already signaled that they are willing to increase the sentences defendants receive on crimes other than the obstruction count in order to make up for any loss in prison time.” Still, Trump saw the decision as a plus, posting on Truth Social that this was “a massive victory for J6 political prisoners.”

But what about Defendant 351, Trump himself? Special Counsel Jack Smith stated Trump’s charges will not be affected, saying Trump’s conduct could be considered a crime under even the narrow SCOTUS reading of the law. The former president is accused of tampering with documents (the law reads “have taken some action with respect to a document, record or some other object”) through his plot to create false slates of electors claiming he won in states actually carried by President Biden.

The accusations against him include that scheme to concoct illegitimate documents to disrupt Congress’s processing of electoral college votes, namely, fake elector ballots “cast” for Trump by fake electors. In other words, the J6 guys obstructed the vote count through their protest, acts now deemed by the Supreme Court to be an over-application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Trump is charged under the same law but for different actions: those fake elector ballots.

Because that’s how lawfare works, ignoring the intent of any given law—common sense, in many cases—in favor of microscopically picking out and if necessary reinterpreting those parts of the law might lead to a conviction. The goal is not justice or a search for truth; it is 3D Tetris designed to see if some set of actions can be twisted to fit any available law that might lead to a conviction.

That was the essence of Trump’s felony counts in the so-called “hush money” trial. What was essentially a bookkeeping error, labeling money paid to lawyer Michael Cohen as “legal expenses” when it was actually something else (reimbursement for money he supposedly gave to Stormy Daniels), grew into serial felonies because the prosecutor wanted it to.

As an example, the Clinton campaign committed the exact same bookkeeping error, labeling money for Michael Steele to produce the infamous Russian dossier legal expenses, and faced only a fine of $8,000. No jail time, no attempt to halt the campaign for president, not even a decent slap on the wrist. That’s lawfare. Republican lawmakers, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, filed a brief in Fischer’s case saying the Justice Department is using the law as an “all-purpose weapon against perceived political opponents.”

Same for those classified documents. Classified material was found purloined and improperly stored by Joe Biden (never mind Hillary Clinton and her email server) but no charges were filed. Trump is looking at a raft of charges for essentially the same act, without much explanation other than “face it, kid, that’s lawfare.”

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, surprisingly voting this time with the majority in Fischer, wrote courts concerned about the uneasy fit between this law and the J6 protesters’ actions should not lose sight of “the backdrop of a real-world context” Congress wrote into the law after the document destruction in the Enron scandal. “There was nothing as far as I can tell in the enactment history as it was recorded that suggests that Congress was thinking about obstruction more generally,” she said. Nothing but lawfare, she might have added.

There’s one last wrench to throw into the works: immunity. Following the verdict in Fischer, the Court one work day later ruled in Trump v. United States the former president is entitled to absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts, and sent his J6 case back to the lower court. The SCOTUS ruling does draw a critical distinction between official and private conduct. The VP-hopeful Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) called it a “massive win,” as did Trump himself on Truth Social. Practically speaking, this all probably delays any verdict on Trump’s J6 actions until after the election, when it will not matter. Lawfare, however, is here to stay, and it is unlikely that Trump will be its last victim.

The post SCOTUS Delivers Setbacks to Anti-Trump Lawfare appeared first on The American Conservative.

France’s second round of legislative elections Sunday delivered a surprise victory to Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s hard-left “New Popular Front” (NFP), which came in first in the seat count. Marine Le Pen’s conservative Rassemblement National party, which was projected to win a plurality of seats, came in third, despite winning a plurality of the vote and 54 seats.

According to the official results, across both rounds of voting, the NFP won 181 seats despite winning only 25.8 percent of the vote. President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble party won 166 seats with only 24.5 percent of the vote. Le Pen’s RN, along with minor RN-aligned parties, managed to win a large plurality of the popular vote with 37 percent, but won only 143 seats. Nevertheless, these numbers improved on those of the 2022 legislative elections, which saw Le Pen win only 89 seats and 17.3 percent of the vote in the second round. 

What critics have dubbed “an alliance of dishonor” was responsible for keeping RN from power. After a strong RN performance in the first round, Macron and his prime minister, Gabriel Attal, decided to work with Mélenchon and the left despite earlier promises not to do so. While this strategy was heavily criticized due to the extremist actions of several NFP candidates, it seems to have paid off.

As the result was unexpected, it is unclear what the political fallout will be. Attal has announced that he will resign as prime minister. While Mélenchon has declared his intention to govern, without a majority in the National Assembly he has little ability to do so. 

The post French Elections: Macron’s ‘Alliance of Dishonor’ Pays Off appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Jesuits: A History, by Markus Friedrich, translated by John Noël Dillon, Princeton University Press, 872 pages

In Evelyn Waugh’s masterpiece Brideshead Revisited, a Canadian bounder named Rex Mottram converts to Catholicism in order to marry the novel’s leading lady, Julia Flyte. As part of his conversion, Rex is catechized by the Flyte family’s priest, Father Mackey. In one oft-quoted scene, Father Mackey recounts the previous day’s lesson to Julia:

Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: “Just as many as you say, Father.” Then again I asked him: “Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said ‘It’s going to rain,’ would that be bound to happen?” “Oh, yes, Father” “But supposing it didn’t?” He thought a moment and said, “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.”

Waugh himself was a convert to Catholicism. He used Rex as a mouthpiece for the Anglo-American stereotype of Catholics. Rex doesn’t care about religion one way or the other. He’s only interested in the beautiful Julia—and her family’s fortune. The Flytes are a family of recusants: English Catholics who refused to convert to Anglicanism during the Reformation. The Flyes themselves represent Waugh’s preferred brand of Catholicism. Unlike Rex, they have culture and breeding. They were all educated by Jesuits, the brainiest religious order in the Catholic Church.

What’s funny is that the Jesuits—the Society of Jesus—were founded on solid Mottramist principles. In his book Spiritual Exercises, the order’s founder, St. Ignatius Loyola, declares: “To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it.”

Ever since Ignatius founded the Society of Jesus in 1540, it has found itself at the center of countless conspiracy theories, most of them related to the Pope. Throughout the centuries, whispers of “Jesuit plots” have spread across Europe, America, and Asia. Like most conspiracy theories, these ones are quite true.

Loyola himself was a man of great holiness and charity. He was also a nobleman, a knight, and a bit of a social-climber. According to one official Jesuit history, Ignatius possessed a “great appetite for honor and glory.” He used his courtly upbringing to recruit high-quality priests—including St. Francis Borgia, great-grandson of both King Ferdinand II of Spain and the infamous Pope Alexander VI—as well as powerful and wealthy patrons. Ignatius lived to see his Order become a powerhouse in European politics.

Of course, whatever social-climbing occurred was in the service of a higher cause: preventing the spread of Protestantism in Europe. For the Jesuits, Protestantism could only be countered by a strong papacy. Indeed, “papalism” might be called the Jesuit charism. In addition to the usual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to one’s superiors, the Jesuits take a fourth vow: total obedience to the Roman Pontiff.

This papalism has landed the Jesuits in several tricky situations throughout their history. Shortly after their founding, the pope urged the Jesuits to set up shop in Portugal. Within a hundred years, they enjoyed a virtual monopoly over the country’s education system. Ironically, this led to their persecution in Ignatius’s homeland: the Spanish throne suspected them of being Portuguese agents. In fact, they were: when Portugal seceded from Spain in 1640, the Jesuits preached sermons and published pamphlets championing the House of Braganza. 

In 1589, Henry IV became King of France. A Protestant by birth and conviction, Henry openly boasted that he converted to Catholicism merely to secure the throne. (“Paris vaut bien une messe.”) As sovereign, his religious policy was both tolerant and “localist.” Of course, he was opposed stridently by the Jesuits. The Order had been partisans of the ultraconservative Catholic League; its priests preached sermons and published pamphlets demanding that the Kingdom of France be purged of all Protestant influence and that ecclesiastical authority be centralized in the Vatican. After an attempt was made on Henry’s life by a partisan of the Catholic League, the Jesuits were banned in several parts of France. Henry survived the attempt on his life only to be cut down in 1610 by yet another partisan of the Catholic League.

It was also in the 1850s that the Jesuits launched their first mission to England, where the Catholic Church had once again been outlawed by Elizabeth I. In all, twenty-seven members of the Society of Jesus were martyred in England, including two of England’s greatest saints: Edmund Campion and Robert Southwell. These young men insisted that one could be both a loyal Catholic and a patriotic Englishman. They meant it, too. Unfortunately, their superiors felt otherwise. A group of powerful Jesuits led by David Wolfe, then papal legate to Ireland, began scheming for the violent overthrow of the House of Tudor. As in France, the Order would accept no compromise with Protestantism. All effort must be made to eradicate resistance to the Pope—no matter the means, no matter the cost. And so the Jesuits loudly supported the Spanish Armada. Of course, this seemed to confirm Elizabeth’s suspicion that “papists” were disloyal to the Crown. All hopes of a peaceful Catholic mission to England were dashed.

Rumors of “Jesuit plots” have long plagued the United States, fueling anti-Catholic bias. This was deeply unfair to ordinary Catholics. However, the Jesuits’ reputation as agents of papal political influence was hard-earned.

Nor, of course, was their influence purely political. In fact, the order was largely responsible for the largest sea-change in Western spirituality since the dawn of Christianity. 

First, Ignatian spirituality (as it is known) places a heavy emphasis on the use of the imagination. This was a significant departure from the Christian tradition, which generally discourages the use of the imagination in prayer. As the fifth-century mystic Hesychius the Priest warned, “Only by means of a mental image can Satan fabricate an evil thought and insinuate this into the intellect in order to lead it astray.” 

Second, there was an intense (some would say inordinate) focus on the suffering and death of Christ and His Mother. This was in keeping with atonement theology, which originated with St. Anselm of Canterbury and flourished in the medieval West. Graphic depictions of Christ’s Passion were still comparatively rare: because Christians had little use for the imagination, Christian art traditionally placed a low premium on realism. 

Markus Friedrich describes what happens when these two elements come together: 

The vividness of these imagined visions was crucial. While meditating, the Jesuit should envision the tiniest detail of Jesus’s suffering. In 1670, the Jesuit preacher Philipp Kisel of Worms calculated that Christ had shed exactly 97,035 drops of blood on the cross, every one of which was grounds for a sinner to repent.

Some might posit that Ignatius propagated this “guilt-and-gore” spirituality in order to frighten Europe into embracing his Mottramist ecclesiology. A few might go further and say that such an ecclesiology was promoted largely for the sake of advancing the pope’s political power. That, however, would be reductive and uncharitable.

All the same, since 2014, when the Church was blessed with its first Jesuit pope, faithful Catholics have begun to suspect that the papacy is not an intrinsically “conservative” institution. 

In 2021, Pope Francis published an encyclical severely restricting access to the traditional Latin Mass. He titled the encyclical Traditionis Custodes, or “Guardians of Tradition.” Of course, the guardians to which he refers are the popes; the tradition to which he refers is papal authority. At first this seems like a mean joke. However, Francis is of a mind with Pope Pius IX, who promulgated the dogma of papal infallibility. “I am the Tradition!” Pius once declared; “I am the Church!” Rex Mottram would approve of the sentiment, and so would Ignatius Loyola.

The post Jesuit Plots appeared first on The American Conservative.