Twenty-Five Years Later

 

Twenty-five years later, 9/11 still lingers in our nation’s memory, though not as strongly as it should.

9-11 was the third time our country sustained an attack from a foreign state on our soil. The others occurred during the War of 1812, with the British invading Washington DC and torching the White House, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7^th, 1941.

The murder of three thousand Americans still shocks, and yet it’s so easy to forget that horror. The passage of time is a distraction in itself, and the quiet confidence of restored order can give the public an unwarranted sense of complacency.

Also, a string of foreign and domestic policy victories can dull our commitment to remain vigilant. In 2026, the United States enjoys robust leadership that is putting America First and has made the defense of our homeland a priority, so that a similar terrorist attack could never take place. President Trump has targeted Latin American drug cartels along the southern border. He is taking an aggressive stance against China’s predatory trade practices as well as the nation’s territorial aspirations. Trump’s welcome arrest of communist narco-dictator Nicolas Maduro and the realignment of Venezuela’s politics with American interests have been a boon for American safety and sovereignty.

Lastly, Trump’s necessary war with Iran is the culmination point of a clash of civilizations that exploded on our shores on September 11, 2001.

Al-Qaeda, one of many radical Islamic sects seeking our country’s destruction, succeeded in its long venture to cripple our country with a terrorist attack on that grim September morning. They did cripple us, but our nation fought back, wiping out the Taliban in Afghanistan, then taking out Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks a decade later.

Radical Islam will not rest until the United States—and the rest of the West—submits to Allah or is destroyed. We cannot let that happen. Radical Islam takes no prisoners, insisting on destroying all resistance to its megalomaniacal tyranny.

And that is the real danger: the rise of radical Islam in our nation, among our politicians, with a fawning media class and a clueless electorate unaware or unwilling to challenge its orthodoxy and extension.

In this regard, the United States has forgotten what we should have learned from that awful day.

With the rise of Islam, socialism, and anti-Semitism, all collectivist ideologies contrary to the core values and constitutional norms of our country, we have witnessed increased strife and division among our citizens. Al-Qaeda hoped to ignite this internal strife with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Thankfully, that effort failed, at the time.

For at least a year after 9/11, the American people were united. The churches were filled with citizens praying for our country. Democrats as well as Republicans worked together to mourn for the country, demanding to know how the illegal alien hijackers, including VISA overstays, could remain in the country undetected and undisturbed, long enough to get flying lessons, explosives, and plane tickets without facing deportation.

The world was also united in grief over our terrible loss. From China’s head of state to the French newspaper Le Monde, which declared on its front page “We Are All Americans,” the world stood in solidarity with us. Even Muslim-majority countries like Azerbaijan condemned the attacks. Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to contact Bush and share condolences (even if he may not have meant them). Putin later paid his respects by visiting the memorial site two months after the attack.

Such comity and commiseration are unthinkable in our fractious world today.

Twenty-five years later, the New Yorkers elected a radical Muslim immigrant for mayor, who condemns America, who calls collectivism ‘warm,’ who attacks Israel with impunity over false charges of genocide, who refused to condemn Hamas; who, having signed an executive order commemorating 9-11, handed the pen to the former attorney for Al-Qaeda operatives; whose very presence would make a mockery of the victims and their families, hence those same families having signed a petition banning him from the memorial ceremony.

However, I can’t share in their sorrow too much, since the same voters elected Commie Muslim Mamdani as their mayor. There’s a price to pay for forgetting.

Is there a remedy?

Commemorating those losses, that tragic day is a starting point, but what do you do about an entire city that elects a man who spitefully dishonors the memory of those victims? What do you do when an entire political party (the Democrats) is siding with radical Islam, determined to cover up the crimes of evil doers while pretending to care about the past harms done to our country?

We have a choice, and we have a responsibility, not just to remember what happened, but to understand why it happened, and to remain vigilant so that the circumstances and plots which led to the horrid harms on our nation’s soil never happen again. Are Americans willing to meet that challenge?

 

Rest in Peace, Charlie

 

A year has passed, and Charlie Kirk’s absence still hurts.

I didn’t believe it the day that it happened. I dismissed the long-range shot taking out the founder and leader of TPUSA as some AI fever dream from another disconcerted leftist. In reality, the fevered leftist made the nightmare come true.

Sadly, this absence is felt not just in his demise, but in the relative ease with which the world has passed on. How can the world continue as if nothing happened? My hometown of Torrance, CA, to the credit of the city council and staff, flew flags at half-mast in his honor. Yet one of the city council members lamented his “controversial” comments, too.

This year, we have witnessed demented, perverted people celebrating his death, including drag queens dressing up as Charlie with fake wounds gushing out of their necks.

Such is the division our country faces in this momentous time. Angry Democrats, embittered socialists, and violent communists don’t care how many lives are lost, how many cities are destroyed, or whether the United States survives another two hundred and fifty years. Such recrimination was unheard of among members of either party thirty years ago. Today, the majority of Democrats hold a dim view of our country, and no doubt a dimmer view of those who love America and want young people to share in that love once again.

Understandably, they trained their ire on Kirk.

He was more than counter-cultural. He was counter-revolutionary, undermining the Grand March through the institutions which have poisoned two generations of Americans.

Kirk was turning the tide on this mad self-destruction.

The left couldn’t stand by and allow that to happen.

One militant leftist made sure of that, and hence the fatal shot at Utah Valley University.

His assassination was tragic, evil, and preventable.

His political enemies rejoiced over his sudden death, exploiting the use of firearms to mock his support for the Second Amendment and his rigorous defense of the right to keep and bear arms. His passing only exposes all the more why law-abiding citizens need firearms, even in the most innocuous and presumably most secure locations.

Why did Tyler Robinson take him out? He was a sexually confused, deviant man, enamored with another confused man who thought he was a woman, and an animal. Kirk’s opposition to sexual degeneracy and appeal to moral order offended him.

Charlie embodied the antidote. He married young, had two young children, wanted a third. Following his untimely passing, darling videos have resurfaced, embracing the warm, fatherly character of this godly man. Kirk focused on rebuilding the man, the family, and the country. The Left and its putrid acolytes oppose all of it, and militantly so.

Charlie was not afraid to push past LGBT-DEI-CRT as a strict identity. He spoke to individuals as such, even those who vehemently disagreed with him. He debated in good faith, seeking to understand his fellow interlocutors from their perspective, then correct them. He was rarely at a loss for words, and not simply because he wanted to fill the air or hear himself speak. When he spoke, when he asked questions, when he engaged with college students (and their professors) with adept aplomb, he was making a case and making the difference.

One year later, commentators, pundits, and podcasters seem less interested in telling the truth, and more invested in getting a reaction. They are harvesting likes, views, shares, clicks, and outrage to pump up their profile and triumph as king of the (Dung)Hill of social media trash talk. Jerry Springer would have been appalled, but only because he hadn’t taken advantage of the broad, new media of social media in such sick, indefensible fashion.

The cause of truth and effective advocacy were well-wedded in Kirk. How to get the truth out, and get people to understand without triggering their immediate defense mechanisms: that is not an easy task.

For now, Kirk has possible, likely, or erstwhile successors. Ben Shapiro, certainly. Shortly after Kirk’s murder, Shapiro stared into the camera and said, “F--- You!” to all the nefarious elements celebrating Charlie’s demise in the hopes that such an egregious crime would silence his successors.

Not a chance.

Besides Shapiro, Glenn Beck, and Steve Crowder, even Steve Deace could pick up the mantle. Ben is the best bet, in my view, for his long legacy of sticking to his principles, articulating a clear message while arguing cogently with interlocutors, whether they agree or disagree. This is not to say that Crowder, Beck, or Deace don’t have integrity or consistency of message. Ben’s youthful appeal can bridge gaps, I believe.

There’s also the issue of Shapiro’s growing family. What a blessing indeed, one that will inevitably limit the time he can devote to reaching the masses left and right with Restoration of American Greatness through the meeting of the minds. Also, Shapiro is a commentator, not an organizer the way Charlie was.

Kirk’s TPUSA organization assembled an unprecedented ground game, working with party leaders and conservative activists alike, connecting citizens with accessible technology to walk precincts, connect with voters, and make the case for Trump.

And get him re-elected.

This kind of organizational as well as intellectual skill is unparalleled. Can anyone step into the void, fusing all these elements, and advance Kirk’s cause?

John Doyle is another contender, more youthful, but does not have the name recognition or trial-by-fire of interacting with larger audiences. Can he organize voters, activists, and pundits across the country to a greater cause, like electing a sound and effective improvement to President Trump in 2028?

Kirk had an unshakeable knack for drawing together disparate interests, not just among the political left and center, but especially among the right. The right is divided over immigration, Israel, Islam, government intervention in the economy, the limits to force to shape culture, etc. Kirk wrestled with these issues, but he never wavered from the main focus: Making America Great Again, and more importantly, Godly Again.

The spiritual angle cannot be ignored. John Adams warned the early Republic that the Constitution was written for a moral people. That moral center is fracturing. That moral compass is losing its bearing. And the slog of podcast successors is reveling in the confusion rather than eliminating it.

Kirk’s legacy faces destruction from this bevy of so-called successors, who have sought to obscure, even dirty, his legacy by disparaging his work with others, misrepresenting his statements, or attempting to overtake his leadership and legacy in returning President Trump to the White House.

Candace Owens is the most egregious offender, lying about the circumstances surrounding Charlie’s assassination, unfairly implicating Ericka Kirk in his demise, even suggesting that she profits off his violent departure. This is evil, as Jeremy Boreing righteously declared.

Thankfully, TPUSA is stronger than ever, and Ericka has displayed an unmatched grace under fire, leading the organization to greater glory that vile opponents had sought to destroy. A grieving widow, she could have ended the operation and turned inward to care for herself. But she knew that Charlie would not have wanted that. She serves despite her suffering, and for that, she deserves nothing but our thanks and praise.

Rest in Peace, Charlie.

Letter to the Editor: The 80s Were a Charmed Childhood

(Response to  Ryan Reynolds is Wrong: The 80s Were Awesome, Man!)

Just read your article on the 80s at American Greatness, and as someone who grew up in Torrance and once worked at the Del Amo Fashion Square Mall in its heyday, I loved it!

I'm curious where you went to high school, and if your childhood was filled with summers along the strand from Torrance Beach to the Redondo Beach Pier.

After getting married in 1988, life permanently took me away from Torrance, first to Orange County, then San Diego County, and finally two decades in San Jose before being liberated by COVID to work permanently remote - we opted for Provo, Utah, where kids still play in the neighborhood streets like I did in the 70s and 80s.

I can't imagine ever returning to live in California, though pictures of my childhood beach will always evoke that eternal feeling of "home" when I see them. The rest, not so much!

I went to South, preceded by Calle Mayor Middle and Arnold Elementary. It was a charmed childhood.

One thing I really miss about the Del Amo Mall is that my church used to rent out the entire mall on New Year's Eve for a dance and celebration, which went from Sears on one end all the way down to Montgomery Ward on the far side. 

On either end and in the middle, there were live bands which played music from the 40s-50s(?) on one stage, the 50s-60s on another, and then contemporary 70s-80s on yet another. It was absolutely epic.

Unfortunately, the annual event ceased after rival Polynesian groups got into a violent confrontation one year.

Tom W.

MassResistance: Verdict Next Week on the Bill Whatcott Case

 

Verdict coming next week from Canadian judge in Bill Whatcott’s second trial for LGBT “hate speech”

He was acquitted in 2021, but the government forced a second trial this year. (“Double jeopardy” is legal in Canada.)

All this over a flyer Bill passed out ten years ago! Reveals how leftist governments persecute pro-family beliefs.

Could this eventually happen in the US?

September 11, 2026

 Bill Whatcott (center) and friends outside the courthouse during his first trial in 2021. He had to go through an even more aggressive trial again this year!

This is a story of the leftist Canadian government’s extreme hostility towards pro-family beliefs. We must prevent this from happening in the US.

On Wednesday, Sept. 16, a judge in Toronto will announce whether Christian activist Bill Whatcott will stay free, or go to prison and/or pay huge fines. It will be the culmination of an aggressive four-day trial that took place in May.

Bill’s “crime” was passing out a Christian flyer ten years ago at the Toronto Gay Pride parade. The government insists the flyer was “hateful” and is going to extreme lengths to criminally convict and imprison Bill.

Why should Americans and others pay attention to this?

People everywhere should pay attention to this trial and the outcome.

This situation may seem absurd to most American readers, where freedom of speech is taken for granted. No one is forced to endure a trial for “hate speech” or risk going to jail. No one can be tried twice for the same supposed crime if once found innocent.

In Canada, the government has gotten out of control and basically re-defined citizens’ civil rights. But things here could easily go in that direction. We’ve already seen the beginnings of it when our government has worked to punish people for spreading certain “misinformation” or criminally banned therapy for LGBT issues.

Bill’s “infamous crime” – passing out a flyer at the 2016 Toronto Pride Parade

As we reported in 2016, Canadian pro-family activist Bill Whatcott used an assumed name to register to march in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. He and a group of unidentified friends wore green body suits and called themselves “gay zombies.” As they marched in the parade, they handed out approximately 3,000 “zombie safe sex” packets to spectators lining the street.

 The "Gay Zombies" marching in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. Note the contingent of naked men right behind them.

Inside each packet was a folded-up two-sided flyer urging gays to refrain from homosexual acts. They included Christian gospel plus related medical information, including graphic images of possible results of homosexual sex. In addition, it criticized the Prime Minister and other Canadian political figures for their pro-homosexual activism.

 The "safe sex" packet with the flyer inside that Bill's group passed out that day.

Bill was subsequently charged under Canada’s Orwellian “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” criminal statute (Sec 319(2)).

A trial and acquittal. Then another trial for the same “crime”

In 2021 Bill went through a trial and was found “not guilty” by the judge. That should have been the end of it. Millions of dollars had been spent by the government pursuing that case. Bill’s lawyer was John Rosen, considered by many to be the top criminal defense lawyer in Canada. He did a brilliant job.

But the pro-LGBT Ontario Attorney General and his obsessed legal team refused to give up. He appealed the “not guilty” ruling, claiming the judge had improperly excluded a gay activist “professor” as an expert witness (on LGBT oppression), and had made other obscure legal errors. The leftist appellate judges went along with it, and a second trial was ordered. Unlike the US, Canada allows such “double jeopardy.”

Bill’s second trial took place in late May. It was more brutal for Bill personally, as the prosecution was much more aggressive in their attempts to portray him as a “hater.” Although John Rosen had retired, members of his firm continued to represent Bill skillfully and zealously. 

As in the first trial, if the “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” statute is properly interpreted, it would be an uphill legal battle for the prosecution to convict Bill. The prosecution lost in the first trial because the judge was honest about it. This time, the prosecution’s main tactic has been to aggressively push the boundaries of the law (and distort Bill’s role) to make Bill appear to be covered by it.

The government’s frightening obsession with this case is greatly out of proportion to how Canadian justice routinely works. It shows the raw power of the LGBT movement in countries like Canada, as well as the corruption of the Canadian political system. Crimes of much greater magnitude, such as assault, drug crimes, robbery, etc., routinely get brushed aside because of the crowded court calendar or other reasons.

 Marching right in front of Bill and his "gay zombies" in the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride parade was this group of naked men. Public nudity and exposing oneself are federal criminal offenses in Canada. But none of these men were charged with anything or even arrested. Police were everywhere that day.

Coming up: Full report on the May trial

As the judge’s ruling nears, MassResistance is preparing a full report on the day-to-day trial proceedings, along with the basic legal arguments by each side and the details of the law. We will post it next week before the ruling.

Final thoughts: Not being covered by Canadian pro-family or conservative media

A disturbing barometer of the oppression in Canada is that MassResistance (based in the US) is the only pro-family organization that has covered this case in any detail.

Although this case has national implications, the Canadian conservative and pro-family news sites there have been largely silent on it. Even the normally brave Rebel News has backed away.

Part of the reason, we assume  – besides the general fear factor in Canada of tackling this issue – is that Bill Whatcott has a history of bold (and occasionally controversial) pro-family and pro-life activism across Canada. But that is because Canadians, unlike Americans, tend to be passive toward government abuses – so Bill stands out. If he were doing the same things as an American in the US, it would not bring much notice.

Look for our report early next week!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Letter to the Editor: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Ineligble to be President

 

(Response to The Election 2028 Prospects As of Now)

Dear Mr. Schaper:

Your current article on Republican and Democrat prospects for 2028 bring up an important issue for the GOP. Neither Rubio nor Cruz are eligible for the presidency. 

Secretary Rubio was born to Cuban-citizen parents. Senator Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father. The Constitution requires those in the highest office to be "natural-born" citizens as opposed to just "citizens", the requirement for members of Congress.

If either man becomes the Republican nominee, the Democrats would need but a single swing-state supreme court to rule him ineligible for the ballot. In 2024, Democrats used a similar effort to keep President Trump off of state ballots in Colorado. So there's precedent. 

The Constitution was ignored by both political parties in 2008 and 2012 when the son of a British subject ran for high office. In 2020, Kamala Harris was elected vice president even though both parents were citizens of foreign countries.

Scholarship and history show that the Framers understood the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born on U.S. soil to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. Legal challenges in 2008, 2012, and 2020 were turned back by the U.S. Supreme Court on technicalities. Justice Thomas has indicated the court is loathe to take up this hot button issue and definitively rule on the intentions of the Framers.

Perhaps, one day we'll select presidential candidates through a search for the best people for the job. Political parties tend to crown candidates based not on merit but rather on current popularity or, in some cases, a sense of entitlement. Hopefully, in the future, the only angst for a voter will be having to select a candidate from among several eminently qualified people.

Best,

Harold Winard

Wharton, New Jersey

------------------------------------

Harold:

Thanks for writing!

Cruz's mother is an American citizen from Delaware, so that established his citizenship, even if he was born in Canada.

As for Rubio, he was born in Florida, and his parents were legal residents.

Rubio was born on American soil.

The Framers included key requirements for the presidency:

1. 35 years old
2.  Natural-born citizen
3. Resident of the United States for at least 14 years

The third requirement implies that there was the possibility that a natural-born citizen of the United States would not necessarily be born in the United States. Consider also that the first seven presidents were all born technically on British soil, under the Crown of the King of England. Would they have been repudiated in their bid for President?

Regardless of these points, I think that a clear definition of these matters must be established by Congress.

Jus sanguinis, not jus soli, should be the standard for citizenship. I agree with you.

-------

The Framers, many of whom were also Founders, were educated men, accomplished in political philosophy and experienced in government. We would be safe in assuming they took their task, in Philadelphia, very seriously.

Let me start by pointing out that the Framers set eligibility requirements for both the presidency and Congress. For the latter, simple citizenship is required. However, the presidency requires "natural-born" citizenship. A court of law, for example, would look at this as evidence of a special status for natural-born citizenship and would ask why such a distinction was required.

Records of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 show that early drafts of the document required just citizenship for the presidency. But in the final draft, "natural-born" was included. Why the change? The answer lies in a letter from future chief justice John Jay to his friend George Washington. Concerned that a foreign interloper might succeed to high office, and command of the military, Jay wrote:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

After Jay's letter, Article II was changed to include the requirement of "natural-born" citizenship for presidential eligibility.

The Framers left no definition of "natural-born citizen". But it is easy to deduce why. The phrase was commonly understood to mean birth on the soil of a country to parents who were citizens. This was the definition of the influential 18th century Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vatell. In Section 212 of his "Laws of Nations", Vatell wrote:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Conventionist Benjamin Franklin had several copies of Vatell’s work in his library, including the original French. Several years ago we learned that convention president Washington had borrowed a copy from a New York City private library, which he never returned.

Political scientists of the late 18th century knew what "natural-born citizenship" meant. There was no need to define it, other than to show the distinction of the lesser requirement for membership in Congress.

Changes to the Constitution require an amendment, a long process that begins in Congress but requires buy-in from a strong majority of the states. Each state debates the proposed amendment and votes to approve, or not. This is a length process, likely taking years.

The Framers were all citizens of the United States, and had been so since declaring independence from England in 1776. Because of the need to provide for leadership before the first eligible natural-born citizen, the Framers included this phrase in Article II:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This "grandfather clause" covered several of the Framers who, like George Washington, later went on to serve as chief executive.

Consider the child of an illegal alien who was born, on U.S. soil, moments after his mother was carried across the Rio Grande into Texas. The Mexican-citizen mother and new American citizen baby return to Mexico where the child grows up and is educated in Mexican schools. Twenty-one years later, now a young man, the child returns to the United States and lives the next 14 years in, say, Seattle. On his 35th birthday he declares his intention to run for president of the United States. Would the Framers be comfortable with this situation?

Marco Rubio and Rafael "Ted" Cruz are citizens of the United States and both served admirably in Congress. The Constitution bars both from the presidency and vice presidency. I am sure if Republicans do a search they can find eligible candidates who satisfy both the Constitution and the nation's need for leadership.

The Election 2028 Presidential Prospects as of Now

 

The 2026 elections are almost upon us. You all know what that means: before the end of the year, Presidential candidates will be throwing their hat in the ring for 2028. 

The tradition is all but ingrained at this stage. When the Republican Party collapsed across the board in 2006 due to President George W. Bush’s deep unpopularity plus massive scandals in the House and US Senate, Republican contenders began scrambling to get ahead of the mess: define themselves early while distancing themselves from the GOP mess at the time.

US Senator John McCain got sandbagged with the 2008 nomination, in part because he was the next in line, having lost to Bush in 2000. Former US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Florida Governor Jeb Bush were considering a bid, but they wisely avoided an election that would only compound Republican losses.

Presuming Republicans will exceed political projections in 2026, perhaps even hold on to the House and the US Senate, they may face a rougher 2028. After all, Republicans expected to do very well in 2022; they barely won the House, but we want a resounding victory across the board in 2024. They should expect a similar turnaround against them

Republican calculations also depend on what the Democrats plan for their standard-bearer. Will the DNC establishment and the liberal ground-game organizers resolve (i.e., neutralize) their socialism problem? Will they mitigate their anti-Zionist crazies? Or will they have to find a way to create a two-state solution within their party so that pro-Palestinian elements will coexist peacefully with the still-extant pro-Israel Democratic caucus? I doubt they will find peace, since the pro-terrorist elements are gaining, and they show no sign of slacking or moderating their abusive disdain for Israel, Jews, and the Western tradition.

Granted, the Arab-Israel foreign policy divide has emerged within some Republican circles, but it's not a severe divide among the electorate. The nominees will have to make their case, and the more isolationist faction can cause trouble.

The 2028 Republican line-up will face the biggest challenge: Who succeeds Trump? The New York real estate mogul turned Top Five President in US History is a once-in-a-lifetime figure, impossible to imitate. His platform of lower immigration, cultural restoration, and populist confirmation has reshaped the Republican brand. The next GOP presidential candidate must embrace this new MAGA message while connecting with disaffected suburbs and dissident Republicans repelled by Trump’s brashness and bombast.

Vice President JD Vance is the frontrunner. Critics will charge that he has a thin resume, but the vice-presidential office is about as useful as a warm picture of spit, and John Adams found it to be one of the most useless offices devised by man. Not Vance’s fault that he hasn’t done much.

His main strength is communication, which matters most for a national office. He helped message MAGA to the country in 2024, and he articulates working-class angst against a government and corporate complex determined to put power and profit ahead of the people. However, he is advocating more government spending and overreach, including a federal program for stay-at-home parents. Most handouts? He has frequently praised the economic interventionism of US Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Socialism-lite is still socialism, JD. His ongoing friendship with Woke Right anti-Zionist carnival barker Tucker Carlson will trouble his presidential bid.

Republicans should not settle for a JD Coronation, an outcome so unbecoming of a Republican Party that has become more grassroots-oriented. Vance either needs to shift his stance on free enterprise issues and make a clear, clean break from the podcastistan Woke Right, or he's going to face some major headwinds in the 2028 primary, a divide that will hobble the conservative cause going into the general election.

For all the JD Vance liabilities above, Republicans should be looking for someone else to take up Trump’s mantle.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has generated a growing following. established himself as an effective executive, a true on-the-ground administrator who gets things done, advancing a true America First agenda without anti-Zionist rantings. His stance on economic issues might be more tolerable to the free-market elements within the GOP, and his record on stopping illegal immigration is impeccable.

My first pick remains retiring Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He not only messages the MAGA, but he makes it manifest and marketable across the country. He has a keen vision and attention to ideas, programs, policies, and personnel. The only problem is that a lot of MAGA will never forgive him for challenging King Trump, and governors have a hard time breaking out of their statewide followings. Florida is the new standard for conservative political prowess, but it doesn't guarantee DeSantis a chance. Then again, before Trump, two of the last three Republican presidents, who served two terms as president, had been governors. Perhaps DeSantis needs to invest in a PR program and follow the pathways laid out by Reagan and George W. Bush to make himself known in the national discussion. No doubt he will run for President in 2028. Then again, his best bet may be angling for a VP slot with Vance or Rubio.

There is one other presidential wild card: US Senator Ted Cruz. He run his course; he had his chance in 2016, and I think that the MAGA movement swept him aside. Cruz is an excellent essential fighter in the US Senate. If he doesn't want to be a Supreme Court justice, he should settle for a leadership position in the upper chamber or consider statewide office in Texas, perhaps even running for governor once Greg Abbott retires. With ten years gone, Cruz has no viable means to exceed his results after his considerable yet unsuccessful 2016 bid for president. And this is coming from a guy who supported him in that contentious primary! 

Now let’s look at the potential Democratic presidential contenders. They face some soul-searching (if there’s a soul to search for).  Democratic pundits suggest the following are in the running for chief executive: AOC, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has made no pretensions of hiding his ambitions, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg. 

They face a raucous, divided liberal caucus. The Bernie Bros and their progressive peers are out for blood. They've been screwed for the last 10 years, and they demand not just a seat at a table, but the chairman’s corner. If they can't get their progressive pick, they will insist on claiming final dibs on who carries the Democratic Party banner. Clinton-era campaign manager James Carville can complain all he wants, but the DSA is here to stay, having infiltrated the inner workings of his party. The current DNC roster is pulled in so many directions and is desperate to placate the anti-Zionist elements in the National Conference, which proves that the DSA militants are determined to have their say. 

This divide presents a golden opportunity for a 2028 GOP win.

Republicans must resolve foreign policy differences and reassert commitments to free enterprise and cultural restoration. If they channel Trump without the bluster and focus on the DSA cluster of craziness, they can carry the MAGA agenda for years to come.

The Log Cabin “Republicans” are Democrats in “Conservative” Drag

 

In a previous article, I “snatched the wig” (look it up) off the Log Cabin Republicans, exposing that they were not moving away from transgender advocacy out of some sense of righteousness or goodwill for the public – or the country.

They have reworked themselves, like a drag queen putting on a MAGA hat, to seem less crazy, more conservative, more in line with cultural currents that are rejecting the transgenderism cult just to protect their homosexual advocacy (Read, moral disintegration).

Their move against the T is not a principled reform, but CYA (cover your a--) of the highest order.

A drag queen wearing a MAGA hat is still a drag queen.

And drag queens, or any other form of family-destroying anarchy, is not conservative. In fact, there is nothing conservative about a movement claiming to promote homosexuality as a static identity deserving of the same rights and privileges as other identity groups.

The Log Cabin “Republicans” are democrats in “Conservative” drag, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

Despite all the evidence, the Log Cabin “Republicans” protest that they are a conservative movement, but that they want to provide a place for homosexual Republicans (?) to speak out for their brand of identity politics while fighting for other conservative priorities.

Putting aside their ongoing promotion of anti-natural law and natural-rights sexual deviancy, let’s confront and dismantle the lie that the Log Cabin “Republicans” are a conservative group in every other way.

To rebuff any rebuttals, let’s establish that they do claim to be conservative.

Hemminger writes in his “No More T” Op-ed:

Fifty years ago next year, Log Cabin Republicans was founded on a simple conviction: that gay Americans who believe in limited government, individual liberty, and equality deserve equal protection under the law and a voice inside the Republican Party. From the start, Log Cabin Republicans grounded its advocacy in constitutional principles — equal protection, limited government, and individual freedom.

Are the Log Cabin GOP really committed to limited government, individual liberty, and equal protection under the law?

That phrase “under the law” covers a lot of devilish subtleties. For the last ten years, the Democratic Party has attempted to pass the so-called “Equality Act” in Congress, which would further corrupt the Civil Rights Act corpus of legislation to include homosexual conduct and cross-dressing as civil rights. Log Cabin pundits are all in on the “Equality Act.”

Expansion of protected classes in Civil Rights jurisprudence ensures the growth of government overreach. While we should all resist invidious discrimination, the federal government’s crude “Civil Rights Acts” enforcement, including forced quotas and affirmative action, has frustrated liberty without combatting bigotry. Before his assassination, Charlie Kirk argued for repealing the Civil Rights Act. Free enterprise, freedom to choose, and capitalism (true limited government) provide the best protections for consumers. Conservatives have long understood this. However, the Log Cabin “Republicans” are all in favor of big government “non-discrimination” interventions. They have no problem with violating freedom of association as well as freedom of speech and freedom of commerce, i.e., pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness.

Other rights which conservatives care about include the right of children to be raised in natural families, as well as the committed protection of public order for their future. The Log Cabin “Republicans” not only support redefinition of marriage, but support homosexual couples taking children away from their natural parents. How is it “limited government” when homosexual activists (Republican as well as Democrat) use the state to punish churches, charities, and small businesses for not celebrating their homosexual activities as a matter of preference or conscience?

The Log Cabin “Republicans” support a nationwide ban on “conversion” therapy for minors. In other words, they traffic in the lies of the Left, propagandizing that reparative or restorative therapy harms individuals, including children. Father Richard Sullins of the Ruth Institute has expertly debunked these claims. Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that states cannot prevent therapists from providing restorative therapy to children on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Not only do the Log Cabin statist oppose key principles protected by the United States Constitution, but they can’t even get with the times legally!

Here’s another problem: they claim to have ended their transgender advocacy, yet look at their goals within the Decriminalization section under the “Issues” tab of their website:

• International decriminalization of homosexuality.
• International decriminalization of gender identity/expression for trans people.
• Eradication of the death penalty as a means of punishment for LGB people.
• Sanctions against any country which, to any extent, criminalizes LGB people.
• Recognition, in the granting of requests for asylum, of the plight of LGB people who are persecuted and threatened with execution.

They still advocate for defending “Gender identity/expression for trans people.” I thought they were abandoning T advocacy?

On LCR’s arrogant, woke liberal leanings are further proof of their big-government, read Democratic sensibilities. They want to pressure other countries to normalize homosexuality. Who do they think they are? The United Nations (another abortive liberal hegemon). What right do they have to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, whose citizens want to protect the integrity of the family and the well-being of their children? Senegal, Ghana, Kazakhstan, etc. have the sovereign right to oppose homosexuality and cross-dressing in their domains. They have witnessed the moral collapse in the West following the permission and promotion of the LGBT agenda, and they want none of it in their countries.

For the record, how do the Log Cabin globalists intend to enforce LGBT decriminalization? By government force, naturally; hence, big government. So much for Live and Let Live!

In addition to pushing anti-conservative protections for LGBT behaviors in other countries, they expect the United States to take in every person who claims persecution for LGBT status. Should we welcome such “refugees” into our country? This is an open-borders agenda, one which will exacerbate the size and scope of the American bureaucracy while doing nothing to help American citizens.

If these platform planks aren’t enough to prove the true liberal leanings of this fake Republican enterprise, consider their current leadership. They just appointed former Congresswoman and Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer as their national secretary. DeRemer voted like a liberal Republican during her one-term tenure, even though her election ensured, for the first time in decades, that the Oregon Congressional delegation had two Republicans. She supported the PRO Act, which would have made it more difficult to leave a union, effectively negating state right-to-work laws.

As Secretary of Labor, Chavez-DeRemer faced criticism because of her anti-worker freedom record. Towards the end of her tenure, she faced civil rights complaints (how about that?!). Then she was forced out over misconduct with staff.

Another Log Cabin Leader, RINO former state senator Richard Tisei, co-sponsored the Massachusetts “Bathroom Bill” of 2016, which not only allowed confused men into women’s spaces, but also authorized massive legal sanctions against anyone who resisted these obscene, invasive policies. This is Big Government at its worst.

Log Cabin Republicans are a big-government liberal organization, or “trans-Republicans” at best. It’s all the more reason they should be disbanded entirely, or at least stop calling themselves “Republicans.” Better yet, they should just “sashay away.”