“Someone Has to Pay for This! – There Will Be Retribution!” – Aunt of J6er Matt Perna Who Committed Suicide After Evil Biden Regime Slapped 1512(c) Charge on Him Reacts to SCOTUS Decision

Matthew Lawrence Perna (June 1984 — Feb. 2022)

Matthew Perna

Matthew Perna, a non-violent Trump supporter who was arrested after January 6, committed suicide. He was never accused of violence or vandalism. He walked inside the US Capitol.

The newly released Jan 6 footage shows Matthew Perna calmly walking through the Capitol alongside police.

Newly released footage of Matthew Perna (seen in red sweatshirt) shows Matthew walking calmly in the Capitol shooting video.

Matthew pled guilty to initial charges, believing he may face 6-12 months in prison.

Only after pleading guilty did the DOJ inform Matthew that they… pic.twitter.com/1vu0vrLCFe

— Brandon Straka (@BrandonStraka) November 18, 2023

His government targeted him, made up charges against him, and then destroyed him. In the end, it was too much.

In December, Matthew Perna pleaded guilty to felony obstruction of Congress and three misdemeanor charges associated with his entry into the Capitol on Jan 6, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia reported. He had been scheduled for sentencing on March 3.

Matthew Perna was 37 years old when he put a rope around his neck and took his own life.

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court threw out the 1512(c) charges that were made up to target and ruin Trump supporters who attended the protests on January 6, 2021. Violence broke out that day after Nancy Pelosi and General Mark Milley refused to bring in National Guard members to protect the US Capitol that day as President Trump had requested.

Matthew Perna committed suicide after the government decided to add on the 1512(c) charge on top of his misdemeanors to purposely lengthen his time in prison and ruin his life.

On Wednesday, Matthew Perna’s Aunt went on Tipping Point on OAN to discuss this latest Supreme Court opinion. Geri Perna wants those individuals who are responsible for her nephews death to face justice for their evil actions.

Geri Perna: I just started sobbing. And it was a sobbing about what could have been if this had not happened to Matt. I am more than grateful that the motion, that the charge was overturned by Skotas. But it Because it benefits the January 6thers that are still living. But for those that are gone, this is just a slap in the face. This was a very difficult day for me when I heard this news. I sobbed the entire day because Matthew is dead, and he’s dead because he was afraid to go to prison for several years over a charge that we now know was misused.

So who is going to fix this now? No one can fix it for my nephew. And what about the January 6ers who have been in prison already for three years or have already completed their sentences for this felony? Are you going to give their lives back to them somehow? How? That’s my question…

…Matthew was charged with the same four felonies that everybody else is, parading, truspassing, the same four misdemeanors. And then a couple of weeks later, he was slapped with the felony of an obstruction of official proceeding. And Matt had gone into the Capitol. He was in there 14 minutes. There’s video footage. Unfortunately, the video footage was just recently released this year that showed him him peacefully walking past five or six Capitol police officers, holding his cell phone up in the air, just as he told the prosecutor that he had done.

He was going to plead guilty. He did plead guilty. Then in the last minute, the prosecutor came back with this threat of a terrorism enhancement (the 1512(c) charge). That would have taken Matt’s sentence to upwards of 9, 10 years in prison, and it was more than he could take. He killed himself. He hanged himself in his garage at 37 years old. And the day before Skotas made this decision last week would have been Matt’s 40th birthday. And I had to call his dad and his brother and tell them that it had been overturned by the Supreme Court. That was a very difficult phone call for me to make because it just reiterated to me and my family that Matt killed himself over nothing. Nothing.

And someone has to pay for this. Somehow, somewhere, someday, there will be retribution for this.

Via OAN.

The post “Someone Has to Pay for This! – There Will Be Retribution!” – Aunt of J6er Matt Perna Who Committed Suicide After Evil Biden Regime Slapped 1512(c) Charge on Him Reacts to SCOTUS Decision appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

UPDATE: Zelensky Spokesman Ukrainian President Is Not Planning Interview with Tucker Carlson

As reported earlier by Cullen Linebarger, Tucker Carlson had stunning news Wednesday on X that he has secured an interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. As Gateway Pundit readers know, Tucker has been a vociferous critic of Zelenskyy’s corrupt government for years.

He has also lambasted the Biden regime’s never-ending aid to the war-torn nation.

In his tweet making the announcement, Tucker notes that he and his team had been trying for two years to make this happen and intensified their pursuit following his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin back in February.

On Thursday morning Zelensky’s spokesman, Sergi Nykyforov, responded to the announcement of Tucker Carlson’s upcoming interview with the Ukrainian president.

Zelensky spokesman Sergii Nykyforov

Nykyforov posted an insulting remark on Facebook.

Nykyforov: Mr. Tucker Carlson should more carefully check his sources in the FSB. The President of Ukraine has a completely different schedule, and Tucker Carlson is not there.

Zelensky press office to Tucker Carlson:

Mr. Tucker Carlson should verify his FSB sources more carefully. The President of Ukraine has a completely different schedule, and Tucker Carlson is not on it.

So, no interview ever to be scheduled despite Tucker Carlson post pic.twitter.com/K0n5TUKaWs

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) July 4, 2024

This comes as no surprise. The Zelensky team knows he would have a difficult time defending his war policies and tyrannical rule in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

The post UPDATE: Zelensky Spokesman Ukrainian President Is Not Planning Interview with Tucker Carlson appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Happy Independence Day 2024 – Please Pray for Our Country

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY 2024!

Psalms 31:24: “Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the LORD.”

Pray for our great country and do not lose hope.

Don’t forget to fly the American flag today…

Happy Independence Day 2024!

Here is our annual message to American patriots:

Celebrate with the American flag on July 4th – Bring the kids to a parade.
It will help them become patriotic.

Exposure to Independence Day parades makes children more patriotic.

It’s not just parades that make kids pro-American…
A study found that exposure to the American flag only boosts Republicans (not Democrats).

A 2011 study found that even a brief exposure to an American flag shifts voters to Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior.

Thousands of Trump supporters wait for President Trump to speak in Wildwood, New Jersey, hours before his arrival. – screen grab

 

The post Happy Independence Day 2024 – Please Pray for Our Country appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As Calls to Replace Joe Biden Grow Louder, Dem Delegate Warns: Black Gals Will ‘Blow the Party Up’ If White Man is Picked Over Kamala (Video)

Dem Delegate Areva Martin tells Stephen A. Smith if Democrats try to replace Biden with a White man and bypass Kamala Harris, Black gals will ‘blow the party up.’/Image: Video screenshot.

Areva Martin, an attorney and California delegate for Biden for President has a message for Democrats.  If you replace feeble Joe Biden with a White man and bypass VP Kamala Harris, Black gals will ‘blow the party up.’

Martin joined “The Stephen A. Smith Show” to discuss Biden’s disastrous debate performance and what might happen if Democrats try to replace the nursing home-eligible candidate at the top of the ticket.

Martin said that Dems should “stay the course” with Joe and that passing over Harris with a “White man” would be a dealbreaker with black women.

She told Smith, “First of all, Stephen, who are we agreeing? There is a long list of Democrats: Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer. ”

“The list goes on and on and on … Where is there a consensus? You’ve got to build consensus and there is not consensus right now. If you pick a white man over Kamala Harris, black women, I can tell you this, we gon’ walk away,  we gon’ blow the party up.”

Smith followed up, asking Martin who Black female voters might move to if Dems chose another candidate.

She replied, “So where are we getting agreement from on who this ideal Democratic candidate should be?” Tell me that”.

“Nobody’s told me who it should be. And then tell me how you’re gonna get the 4,000 delegates, which I am one of them. I’m a delegate coming from California. So who’s going to step out? One, tell Joe Biden he’s got to step aside because … everyone is not being mature about this process.”

Adding, “Joe Biden is not just the president; there’s a whole team of people, there’s an administration.”

“So if Joe Biden, when he gets reelected, which my prediction is that he will, he brings with him Kamala Harris, the most diverse administration in the history of this country. Y’all need to just stay the course. We got more black judges appointed under Joe Biden than anyone, even President Barack Obama.”

Watch:

‘We Gon’ Blow The Party Up’: Delegate Warns Black Women Will Destroy Dems If They Choose ‘White Man Over Kamala’ pic.twitter.com/gzxMozxOpz

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 2, 2024

The post As Calls to Replace Joe Biden Grow Louder, Dem Delegate Warns: Black Gals Will ‘Blow the Party Up’ If White Man is Picked Over Kamala (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

INGRASSIA: Remembering President Trump’s Stirring Independence Day Speech At Mount Rushmore – Four Years Later

President Trump delivers remarks at Mt. Rushmore on July 4, 2020

Four years ago, America was being ransacked by Antifa and BLM from coast to coast, bringing cities like Portland and Minneapolis to near-ruin in what were some of the most destructive riots and darkest months in our nation’s history.

The agitators belonged to the Far Left but had the support of the mainstream Democratic Party – including Joe Biden, whose political philosophy aligned with the rioters in significant ways.

The goal of the riots was always to “fundamentally transform America,” in the portentous words of Barack Obama.  In other words, destroy the best of our national heritage; the monuments dedicated to our Founding Fathers and past heroes, and everything that once made America great, its Constitution and commitment to human liberty and the rule of law, above all.

It was against that backdrop of national pandemonium that President Trump gave some of his most stirring remarks of his entire presidency, which lifted the morale of a country that many seriously doubted would survive beyond the summer months.

In sharp contrast with the tear-it-down nihilism that defines the Progressive Left and has informed so much of the policies and lawfare we have observed during the Biden years, President Trump reinvigorated the spirit of our nation by recommitting to our founding principles.

While the subject matter of the speech was superficially a dedication to the four great statesmen whose faces adorn Mount Rushmore – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt – the President’s deeper message was to celebrate our history using the achievements of its four greatest heroes.

In this regard, the speech served two purposes.  The first was to depict a positive vision for America’s future, by paying respectful tribute to its past greatness.  As the President himself said, “[n]o nation has done more to advance the human condition than the United States of America.”

Rather than creating a place of oppression and evil, the achievement of 1776 was, in the President’s moving words, “the culmination of thousands of years of western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason.”

In other words, America stood as the apotheosis of enlightened achievement coupled with Biblical morality.  It was the only nation founded on explicitly rational principles, which made possible two and a half centuries of technological, scientific, and political innovation – innovation that “unleashed the greatest leap of human advancement the world has ever known.”

The greatest of these achievements, of course, is our freedom – which the Left has attempted to topple with blind rage and envy.  In the four years since, we have even better knowledge of where all that rage and hatred leads to: the weaponization of our justice system and the political persecution of President Donald Trump, which has been nonstop in the years since he departed office.

The second purpose of the speech was to espouse a positive policy agenda for the nation.  President Trump used the four national heroes on Mount Rushmore as a frame of reference to highlight his own legacy, adeptly situating that moment in time within the broader cultural tapestry of our nation’s storied history.

In doing this, President Trump demonstrated how Make America Great Again was in the right because it was the cultural descendant of the American Revolution; not the “left-wing cultural revolution” still burning cities down as the President spoke these words “designed to overthrow” it.

President Trump cleverly took virtues from each of his four greatest predecessors in order to reignite a movement that was depleted on morale and provide a roadmap for navigating out of those turbulent waters.

In describing the Father of our Country, George Washington, President Trump noted “when defeat seemed absolutely certain, he took what remained of his forces on a daring nighttime crossing of the Delaware River.”  Because of this bravery, by the next morning Washington’s troops “seized victory at Trenton … forcing the surrender of the most powerful empire on the planet[.]”

On Thomas Jefferson, this nation’s third president, President Trump described him “as the author of American freedom.”  As the writer of the Declaration of Independence, “one of the greatest treasures of human history,” Jefferson laid down the moral and philosophical underpinnings for American freedom, including “a model for our cherished First Amendment.”

No explanation is needed for why the First Amendment is of critical importance in today’s times: our fundamental rights to speak, assemble, and worship have weathered relentless attacks by the Left – all of which have only escalated in the intervening four years, from the crackdown on January 6th demonstrators to the suppression of conservative voices on Big Tech .

The latter case resulted in President Trump’s ban from every major social media platform for simply contesting election fraud in the aftermath of the November 2020 election.  Hence why the preservation of Jefferson’s handiwork – his professional and personal commitment to human freedom – remains of utmost importance to us.

The last two presidents honored on Mount Rushmore – Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt – each confronted crises that parallel our own.  Roosevelt embodied the spirit of American exceptionalism.

Against the spirit of self-loathing and national desecration constantly promoted by the Left, President Trump aptly underscored Roosevelt’s “unbridled confidence of our national culture and identity,” which is sorely needed today.  He went on to describe Roosevelt as seeing “the towering grandeur of America’s mission in the world,” which he “pursued … with overwhelming energy and zeal.”

Lincoln endured a constitutional crisis of a magnitude that threatened to tear our republic by the seams. Much like the ongoing strife that President Trump has stewarded our country through, Lincoln similarly “led the country through the darkest hours of American history, giving every ounce of strength that he had to ensure that government of the people, by the people, and for the people did not perish from this Earth.”

Doubtlessly, President Trump must have felt the gravity of those words on a personal level, knowing that the fate of America depends, much like in Lincoln’s time, on his ability to navigate us out of our own national crisis, where government of the people similarly hangs in the balance.

Indeed, in a related context, it was Lincoln who also offered these prescient words: “whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last.”

Like Lincoln, President Trump also had some prophetic words of his own.  Towards the end of his speech, he seemed to forecast the weaponization of our criminal justice system which has targeted political dissidents of all kinds, from President Trump down to the J6 demonstrators, in the four years since.

First, President Trump condemned “the radical ideology attacking our country” that “advances under the banner of social justice.” “But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society.”

He then predicted how this subversive ideology would destroy America: “It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.”

President Trump’s resounding vision for America was to “declare that the United States … is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on Earth.”  He sharply contrasted this with the vision of the Left: “their goal is not a better America, their goal is the end of America.”

After naming a litany of other American heroes, from every walk of life – statesmen to military leaders to sports heroes to entertainment superstars – President Trump ended his spirited remarks with a promise: “the best is yet to come.”

Though it may have been four years longer than expected, let us end this Fourth of July with the hope that the worst is behind us, and while we are far from victory, perhaps we can be slightly more optimistic – and a little more certain – than we were at this same moment four years ago, knowing that, come November – aided by God’s good grace – the best now is truly yet to come.

The post INGRASSIA: Remembering President Trump’s Stirring Independence Day Speech At Mount Rushmore – Four Years Later appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

ABLECHILD: Covenant Shooter, Audrey Hale’s “Mental Health Treatment” Would Make the Angels Weep

Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission

#image_title

Covenant Shooter, Audrey Hale’s “Mental Health Treatment” Would Make the Angels Weep

Republished with permission from AbleChild

New mental illnesses and prescribed psychiatric drug information for the Covenant School shooter, Audrey Hale, is released daily by Tom Pappert of The Tennessee Star. And it seems deliberate that this information is being withheld by law enforcement and will only see the light of day if it is leaked to reporters. Otherwise, if the public was to get its hands on Hale’s complete mental health/psychiatric drug record, it would make the Angels weep.

Last week it was reported that four prescribed mind-altering drugs (Lorazepam, Buspirone, Lexapro and Hydroxyzine) were found during the search of Hales parent’s home after the shooting. Since then, two more articles have revealed that Hale had been prescribed Prozac (Fluoxetine) for depression when she was in high school and became suicidal while taking the drug. No surprise there. Prozac, like all the antidepressants, carries the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) black box warning for suicidality.

Hale’s parents told investigators that their daughter “had to go through a series of medications to find one that was appropriate for her.” So, naturally, according to Hale’s parents “she experienced pretty serious side effects” from the various medications, saying “both of her legs ballooned.” Apparently Abilify, the antipsychotic, caused these severe side effects. “Swelling of your face, lips, tongue or throat,” may occur as a side effect. But insomnia, aggression, anxiety, delirium, homicidal ideation, and suicide also are possible side effects.

So far, the drip of information coming out about Hale reveals a mental health experiment. Hale had been prescribed six prescription mind-altering drugs that only reflects some period during her high school years and just prior to the shooting incident.

What about all the other years? Remember Hale was being “treated” at Vanderbilt University Hospital since she was six years old. The parent’s attorney reported to police that Hale had been diagnosed with five mental illnesses including anxiety disorder, social phobia, dysthymia disorder, major depressive disorder, and autism spectrum disorder in approximately 2011. But Hale had already been a patient at Vanderbilt for five years. What was Hale’s diagnosis when she arrived at Vanderbilt for “treatment,” and how did they “treat” Hale for those first five years. Furthermore, what drugs were provided to Hale in 2011 as “treatment” for the five mental illnesses?

If Hale’s parents remember Hale going through a “series of medications” what were the medications that “didn’t work” and which drugs “did work?” Based on the leaked information, Hale was just another in a long line of mental health patients who was diagnosed and drugged but wasn’t getting “better.” Sadly, the mental health industry believes that throwing chemicals at the brain will make the patient “better” despite being fully aware that the known possible side effects are deadly serious.

When will the “treating” psychiatrists at Vanderbilt be required to explain first, how they deduced the five mental illnesses that Hale apparently suffered from and, secondly how will they explain the chemical lobotomy that Hale was subjected to? Audrey Hale was diagnosed and drugged practically her entire life. Those responsible for her “treatment” cannot hide from their handywork. Release all Hales files and let’s have a conversation about the shooter’s “treatment” at the hands of the professionals. If there was no problem drugging her for decades, they should have no problem discussing the brilliance of their “treatment.”

Be the Voice for the Voiceless

Every dollar you give is a powerful statement, a resounding declaration that the struggles of these families will no longer be ignored. Your generosity today will echo through generations, ensuring that the rights and well-being of children are fiercely guarded.Don’t let another family navigate this journey alone. Donate now and join us in creating a world where every child’s mind is nurtured, respected, and given the opportunity to thrive. As a 501(c)3 organization, your donation to AbleChild is not only an investment in the well-being of vulnerable children but also a tax-deductible contribution to a cause that transcends individual lives.

The post ABLECHILD: Covenant Shooter, Audrey Hale’s “Mental Health Treatment” Would Make the Angels Weep appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

“I Fear the Far Left” – Renowned Nazi Hunter Serge Klarsfeld Urges Jews to Vote Right-Wing in French Elections

Renowned Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, France’s globalist president Emmanuel Macron took a massive gamble calling for a snap election following an enormous defeat in the EU elections earlier last month.

Now, his bet has officially blown up in his face as Marine Le Pen’s right-wing party,RN,  won the first round of legislative elections.

The lefties responded by taking to the streets to riot. 

Now, renowned Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld has come out publicly to urge Jews to support France’s right-wing party.

ABC News reports:

But Klarsfeld told The Associated Press in an interview at his Paris apartment that the far-left France Unbowed party has militant pro-Palestinian supporters and “antisemitic overtones,” while Le Pen’s party supports Israel and Jewish people.

“Marine Le Pen is the head of a party which supports Israel and supports the Jews,” Klarsfeld said in the interview Tuesday. “So we gave this advice to those who will be faced with this runoff between the far left and what used to be the far right, which for us is now a populist party, to vote for the right,” he said.

Klarsfeld continued, “I fear the far left. The far left has a deep-seated hatred of Israel and has … militants who are pro-Palestinians.”

In the months following the Hamas terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, pro-Hamas mobs have repeatedly taken to the French streets to cheerlead for terrorists.

The Gateway Pundit reported that Khaled Mashal, the former leader and founding member of Hamas, called for a global Muslim uprising in support of Palestine. During a recent address posted on YouTube, Mashal emphasized the need for Muslims to sacrifice and carry Jihad, including the willingness to offer their blood and souls to advance the Palestinian cause.

In response, thousands of Muslims took to the streets to protest for Hamas in Paris.

Le Pen herself has been vocal with the concerns about the changes that have happened to her country as French culture is smothered.

In 2017, she refused to go to a meeting with Lebanon’s top cleric for Sunny Muslims after being told she must wear a headscarf.

Marine Le Pen refuses to go into a meeting with Lebanon’s top cleric for Sunni Muslims after she is handed a veil.

“I will not wear a veil/hijab, you can pass on my message to Grand Mufti.” pic.twitter.com/zS2kwzpxyD

— Daily Reports (@dailyreportsx) July 3, 2024

She has warned that the push for Islamist fundamentalism in France is a major danger to their freedoms.

Marine Le Pen: “There is a push for Islamist fundamentalism in France, which is helped by the political class. It is a major danger for our freedoms. I find the veiling of little girls appalling. It puts us all on the verge of nausea.”

Do you agree with her? pic.twitter.com/b4a5tKhOX6

— Cillian (@CilComLFC) July 2, 2024

Watch:

« Si j’ai le choix entre LFI et le RN je voterais sans hésitation pour le RN. »
Serge Klarsfeld pic.twitter.com/jXzOqxLZYW

— Damien Rieu (@DamienRieu) June 15, 2024

The post “I Fear the Far Left” – Renowned Nazi Hunter Serge Klarsfeld Urges Jews to Vote Right-Wing in French Elections appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Is It Time for South Korea to Get the Bomb?

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.

There Is No Guarantee the Rassemblement National Will Rule

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.

Our Joey

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.