The Truth About Ben Shapiro: Wrong on Almost Every Issue

/0 Comments/in , /by

After years of supposedly railing against cancel culture and whining that his site, Daily Wire, was harpooned by the left-wing censorship machine, Shapiro and his clique of Israel First activists have apparently decided that censorship is fine, as long as they’re the ones doing it. The self-proclaimed champions of open debate are now furious that Tucker Carlson interviewed controversial figure Nick Fuentes.

But don’t be fooled. Their outrage isn’t about ideas they don’t like. It’s all about control and who will be driving this political machine after Trump walks off into the sunset. . .

For Ben and his fellow hall monitors, this is a divide and conquer mission. Their strategy is simple: label the truth-tellers as “Nazis” and hope fear and outrage do the rest of the work. It’s the oldest, dirtiest trick in the left’s playbook, and they’ve stolen it word for word. . .

What’s happening here isn’t about protecting conservatism—it’s about gatekeeping it. Shapiro and his neocon buddies don’t want a movement that’s bold, messy, and unpredictable. They want one they can manage. So now, every time someone challenges the official narrative, out comes the “Nazi” label and the moral panic.

Free speech doesn’t come with a permission slip. You don’t have to like Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, or anyone else in that orbit to understand the bigger principle at stake. You either believe in open debate, or you don’t. You can’t champion free speech while running around the playground blowing a whistle every time someone says something uncomfortable. (Read more from “The Truth About Ben Shapiro: Wrong on Almost Every Issue” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Populist Revolt Sweeps the Globe as Voters Reject Globalist Elites

/0 Comments/in , /by

Across the globe, a powerful tide of conservative populism is reshaping politics — and it’s leaving the global elite reeling. From Buenos Aires to Warsaw, Prague, London, and Tokyo, voters are rejecting establishment leaders and rallying behind nationalist outsiders who speak the language of sovereignty, cultural pride, and economic self-determination.

In Argentina, President Javier Milei’s Liberty Advances alliance shocked observers by sweeping congressional midterms, crushing the long-dominant Peronists by nine percentage points. Despite a struggling peso and a $40 billion bailout from President Donald Trump ahead of the vote, Milei’s movement triumphed — not by courting elites, but by winning over blue-collar workers and rural voters once loyal to the left.

The story is much the same elsewhere. In Poland, historian-turned-politician Karol Nawrocki rose from obscurity to win the presidency by championing nationalism and traditional values, echoing Trump’s unapologetic populism. In Czechia, October’s parliamentary elections handed power to a coalition of conservative populist parties that promise to defend the nation’s culture and borders against globalist encroachment.

Meanwhile, Britain’s Nigel Farage and his Reform Party now lead national polls after sweeping May’s local elections. The once-mighty Conservative Party has plummeted to just 20% approval — a stunning collapse that underscores how disillusioned voters have become with traditional center-right politics that seem indistinguishable from the left.

Even in Japan, where political stability has long been the norm, the populist wave is crashing ashore. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party lost its majority this summer, as many of its supporters defected to nationalist newcomers promising to “Make Japan Great Again.” The party responded by installing Sanae Takaichi, a hawkish reformer and the country’s first female prime minister, signaling a sharp turn toward populist themes.

The Netherlands offers another example of the shifting political landscape. While Geert Wilders’ PVV lost seats, most of those went to other nationalist factions — showing that the populist sentiment is far from fading; it’s simply diversifying.

What’s driving this global realignment? Simply put, decades of globalist policies have failed. Promises of peace, prosperity, and progress have yielded endless wars, open borders, and cultural fragmentation. Ordinary citizens are tired of being told that their sovereignty must be surrendered for the “greater good.”

As one political analyst put it, “Outsiders like Trump, Milei, and Farage are succeeding because they aren’t complicit in the failures of the past.”

In contrast, the global left’s response to this populist surge has been to double down. Across Europe and even in the United States, younger progressives are becoming more radical, blaming billionaires and conservative Christians for society’s woes rather than the policies that hollowed out their economies and communities.

Figures like Zohran Mamdani, the socialist frontrunner in New York City’s mayoral race, represent the mirror image of MAGA populism — angry, insurgent, and anti-establishment, but from the left. Yet while progressive populism grows in cities, the heartland remains firmly with the nationalist right.

For Donald Trump, this global trend could be a political windfall. The populist wave that lifted leaders like Milei, Nawrocki, and Farage reflects the same frustrations that have powered Trump’s enduring appeal. Middle America, like voters abroad, increasingly sees through the false promises of globalism and yearns for leadership that puts nation and people first.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

The Parallels of 9/11 & Charlie Kirk False Flag Operations

/0 Comments/in , , /by

For the last week I have been obsessed with learning more about the assassination of the young conservative influencer and head of the organization Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk.

I was in Washington DC last week to emcee the first day of the “Turning The Tide” symposium hosted by The International Center for 9/11 Justice and other 9/11 truth organizations. It was being live-streamed by the popular independent media platform, REDACTED.

There was a lot of excitement around the event. In recent months and years the 24 year old truth movement had finally caught the attention of powerful influencers like Clayton Morris, Candace Owens, Russell Brand and even Tucker Carlson who was planning on appearing on the livestream on day 2.

We also had strong support from former Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Kurt Weldon. And, for the first time, a sitting US Senator, Ron Johnson had met with point persons in the truth movement earlier in the afternoon of September 10. Senator Johnson agreed to appear at our event as well.

Was this going to be the event that would catalyze a massive change in national conversation about the events of 9/11 that we have been envisioning for so long? I certainly thought so.

As I was preparing to take the podium to kick off the three day event we learned that Charlie Kirk had been shot. By the end of my 18 minute long commentary we learned that Kirk was confirmed dead.

Strangely, it wasn’t American news organizations who broke the news. It was the PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu on X:

I certainly didn’t know much about Charlie Kirk and the huge influence he had over millions of conservative youth. Personally, I regard conservatism vs liberalism as a dichotomy that actually serves to avert attention from the real battle: a growing authoritarian state against a population that is willingly surrendering their rights in exchange for a sense of security.

One of the points I made in my commentary centered around the rapidly changing attitude around openly challenging the official 9/11 story:

“I distinctly remember that just five years ago challenging the fantasy we were told about 9/11 relegated you to remote corners of discussion on social media. You couldn’t bring it up in polite conversation.

Now, openly supporting the official narrative invites serious questions about your credibility. Today one’s take on 9/11 is the best litmus test of one’s own sensibility as it applies to nearly every other contentious issue.”

This is the context through which I had formed my opinion about Charlie Kirk. What did Charlie Kirk know about the events of 9/11? Nothing outside of the fantasy our government told us.

In this exchange a veteran probes Kirk’s understanding of 9/11. The veteran and “9/11 Truther” is animated while Kirk remains composed. Kirk is bombarded with a gish-gallop of “alternative” viewpoints about all wars, CIA/Israeli ties and the twin tower destruction. Unfortunately the veteran quickly veers into antisemitic tropes.

Nevertheless

– Kirk wasn’t aware of the passport of the alleged Saudi hijacker “miraculously” found close to ground zero days after three skyscrapers were blown apart.

– Neither was he aware of all the evidence that points to controlled demolition or

– the scarcely believable piloting demonstrated by these supposed hijackers flying multi-engined jet planes for the first time in their lives nor

– the infamous “Operation Northwoods” proposal that bears uncanny resemblance to a more cohesive story around the events of 9/11

That’s okay. Kirk was like most people, intelligent or otherwise who have never heard a cogent counter argument to governmental propaganda about 9/11. In other words, I never paid attention to what this young man was saying before he was unalived.

The murder of this young man, a husband and father, was a tragedy and, particularly untimely. National attention was diverted to this quickly unfolding story and not the one we were attempting to bring to the public.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and how it was being spun bears a striking similarity to the psyop which was unleashed upon a stunned public after September 11, 2001…

Less than an hour after the second tower fell, the world was told exactly what had happened and why. The three dozen news sources which all reported massive explosions during the collapse of our iconic twin towers never mentioned them again.

The new “facts” were offered by former Israeli PM Ehud Barak who coincidentally happened to be nearby to BBC studios when it was all coming down:

There was no question what this attack was about, according to Barak. It was an attack by terrorist organizations and the countries who harbor them upon not just America but on Israel and Democracy itself. The world would be forever different he predicted. He was right.

The misdirection was taking hold before anyone could know what really happened.

In my speech I reminded the audience of how, in our effort to protect Democracy from Al Qaeda, we had to accept that extraordinary rendition was necessary, that confessions obtained through torture at CIA black sites would be admissible in court and that incarceration on mere suspicion alone would be okay.

All these attacks on the Constitution of the United States were neatly spelled out in the Patriot Act, ironically.

Somehow Barak knew exactly what happened and why seven hours before another giant skyscraper dropped to the ground in classic controlled demolition style at the WTC complex. Unfortunately for Barak and the spin doctors, Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

He was also unaware of another inconvenient incident uncovered that morning:

A woman in Jersey City (across the Hudson River from the twin towers) noticed a group of five Arab appearing men filming the destruction of the twin towers. They were dancing in celebration.

They were taken into custody. They weren’t Arab. They were Israeli. They confessed that they were there to “document” the event. After finding several thousands of dollars in cash and passports from a number of different countries on their person, our FBI did what we would expect under the circumstances: quietly release them to Israeli authorities some weeks later.

Were they Mossad agents? Where are they now? Who knows? However all can agree on two important points:

They must have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 tragedy and

They were celebrating.

Most of the public is still unaware of these inconvenient details.

Fast forward 24 years to the heartfelt tweet from another Israeli PM, Netanyahu, for his slain young friend, Charlie Kirk.

“Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom”

What truths was he speaking? Who murdered him, Prime Minister?

Netanyahu answers the latter in his interview on Fox a day after the assassination:

“The radical Islamists and their union with the ultra-progressives—they often speak about ‘human rights,’ they speak about ‘free speech’—but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.”

Radical Islamists are at it again! This time in cahoots with ultra-progressives.

What was Kirk saying that was so provocative to the “ultra-progressives”? Of course he held beliefs that didn’t resonate with ultra-progressives. He was a Christian conservative who was a “lion hearted friend to Israel”. That has always been the case. So why was he murdered now??

If you have not been following this story, Kirk had been changing his tune, not about his Christian faith but about his feelings on Israel.

Max Blumenthal, Editor-in-Chief of The Grayzone lays out the evidence for Kirk’s change of heart here.

– Kirk openly questioned whether the IDF was given a “stand down” order on October 7th.

– Kirk felt that the state of Israel was going too far in Gaza.

– Kirk had turned down the Prime Minister’s invitation to visit Israel two weeks before his murder—a detail Netanyahu declined to mention in his tweet or since.

– Bibi also didn’t mention that Kirk turned down “donations” which, according to some sources, amounted to tens of millions of dollars.

– Kirk had also faced ire from pro-Israeli donors to Turning Point USA for showcasing Dave Smith, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson at recent events. All three can be fairly judged as “America First”, i.e., Israel second.

Granted, though suspicious, all this could be coincidental. If we want hard facts we really ought to drop our speculation and listen to the authorities who, solved the crime “33 hours” later.

It was Tyler Robinson, a 22 yo Utah resident who took matters into his own hands. It was Kirk’s preaching of traditional values that drove Tyler to silence him with a round to the neck (Robinson was in love with his transitioning roommate, a biological male).

The FBI released communications between Robinson and his roommate. The BBC published them here.

In this rambling and sometimes poignant exchange, Robinson confesses to the murder and strangely drops precise details of his motivation and means by which he offed Charlie Kirk on September 10:

Robinson: If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.

Roommate: How long have you been planning this?

Robinson: a bit over a week I believe. I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it

Robinson: I’m wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle…. I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle … idek if it had a serial number, but it wouldn’t trace to me. I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. didn’t have the ability or time to bring it with…. I might have to abandon it and hope they don’t find prints. how the [expletive] will I explain losing it to my old man….

only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel….

remember how I was engraving bullets? The [expletive] messages are mostly a big meme, if I see “notices bulge uwu” on fox new I might have a stroke alright im gonna have to leave it, that really [expletive] sucks…. judging from today I’d say grandpas gun does just fine idk. I think that was a $2k scope;-;

Robinson: delete this exchange

Robinson: my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. Hes calling me rn, not answering.

Robinson: since trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.

Robinson: Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.

Robinson: you are all I worry about love

Roommate: I’m much more worried about you

Robinson: don’t talk to the media please. don’t take any interviews or make any comments. … if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent

And there it is. We have the entire story now. Thank you Tyler for filling in all the details for us! We now know, thanks to the crack detective work by the Feds in pulling this from a chat on Discord that:

– He had planning it for a week.

– He probably would have gotten away with it if he wasn’t forced to drop the (assembled) rifle in the woods.

– He left it in a bush. Wrapped in a towel. Where, incidentally he changed clothes (in case anyone was wondering)

– It’s a very unique weapon.

– He didn’t know if it had a serial number on it. If it did, it couldn’t be traced to him because it was his grandpa’s.

– He’s being pressed by his “old man” who has been pretty diehard MAGA (a fact that his romantic interest probably was unaware of or forgotten)

– He left his fingerprints on the weapon

– The bullet was engraved with a message

– He’s going to turn himself in for murder in the first degree of a major political figure, but he is worried about what his father will say about losing the rifle.

Every loose end has been tied, just like those teen mystery novels I used to read when I was 12.

Except for a few details:

– Since when do 22 year olds text things like “grab it unseen”, “attempt to retrieve it”, “squad car”? And a few other minor things like…

– Where is the ballistics report?

– Where is the bullet?

– What did the autopsy report show?

– Video footage shows a Kirk was bleeding from a large wound from the front of his neck which is more indicative of an exit wound.

– Where is the footage from the camera mounted behind Kirk when he was shot?

– How did Tyler Robinson disassemble the weapon in a matter of seconds and put it in a backpack before leaping from the roof?

– Why did he reassemble the weapon before hiding it in a bush?

– And who was George Zinn, the “crazy old man” who after the shot was fired screamed that he had done it and implored the security to shoot him?

Should these questions be answered before “allowing” Utah Valley University to pave over the courtyard where Kirk was assassinated?

Don’t be silly. After all, there was no reason to examine any physical evidence at ground zero after the twin towers were blown to bits. What’s the point of looking for more clues if we already know happened? Get it out of here and let the healing begin!

Conclusion

Is the public going to trust the authorities on this con job again? I don’t think so. Unlike 24 years ago, we now have a public that is deeply suspicious of legacy media and their handlers, the “special interests” which control Federal government. Independent voices that command audiences which dwarf those of legacy media have already been clamoring for accountability and transparency.

I was anticipating writing a lot about the proceedings of the Turning the Tide event in DC. There were so many important scientific presentations by researchers and analysts. Powerful speeches for unity and transparency from former and sitting legislators. Heartfelt messages from family members of the victims who have been waiting decades for transparency and resolution.

However the story right now is about another psyop to which the public is being subjected. One doesn’t have to agree with the values Charlie Kirk espoused to grieve his death. One doesn’t have to identify with his political leanings to acknowledge that this 31 year old was doing something different. He was taking his position to hostile settings and inviting all comers to prove him wrong.

Dialogue between factions is the most dangerous thing to interests that exert their influence by keeping us from speaking to each other. Is this why he was killed? Or were there other reasons?

24 years ago the public was fooled into surrendering key Constitutional rights before a single war was waged to protect them. And today as Charlie Kirk is widely memorialized as fierce defender of free speech Attorney General Pam Bondi believes she has a mandate to crack down on “hate speech”.

That’s how they do it.

Will this be the real “Turning Point” for the USA?

Democrats Said Thoughts And Prayers Won’t Stop Leftist Violence, So Here Are Some Ideas

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Wednesday, after an assassin fatally shot conservative organizer Charlie Kirk in the throat while he spoke at a campus event in Utah, the reaction on the left was twofold. Online and in the real world, some celebrated Kirk’s death and said, in so many words, that he had it coming. Others issued statements, mostly vanilla, decrying “political violence” and expressing sympathies for Kirk’s family. A few said they were “praying.” Many conspicuously didn’t, instead blandly saying their “thoughts” were with Kirk and his family.

The compulsory statements ring pretty hollow for a few reasons. For starters, “thoughts” is a meaningless replacement for the act of petitioning God Almighty for comfort and healing. They’re coming from people who regularly vilified Kirk and his allies, using the same kind of inflammatory language Kirk’s killer engraved on the casings of his bullets. But it has also become obvious how much disgust many on the left have for prayer — so it’s weird to watch them play-act at an impotent secularized version of it, let alone the real thing.

Recall just two weeks ago, after a transgender shooter opened fire on Catholic schoolchildren in church, heartbroken Christians offered their prayers for the victims and their families. Prominent leftists excoriated them, mocking the prayers of not just horrified onlookers but the very prayers spoken by the victims before they were shot.

To mock our prayers as insufficient was a convenient way to redirect the conversation about the Minneapolis shooting toward the left’s favorite talking point in times of tragedy, gun control (certainly not the rising crisis of transgender violence). They told us prayer was not enough and that something had to be done to stop such tragedies from happening again.

The past week has proved them wrong and (kind of) right. It’s more obvious than ever how much our prayers are needed. Nothing in the world can comfort Mrs. Charlie Kirk better than her Lord and Savior, as I imagine she’s acutely aware. No power less than Christ can win over the souls of those who have gleefully cast their lot with evil and boasted of it on the internet. We should all be in constant and fervent prayer for Kirk’s loved ones to be comforted, for the hearts of those who hate him to be turned from evil, and for justice and virtue to govern the civic life we share with those who hate us. Even now, we’ve seen God in His abundant mercy use Kirk’s death to soften the hearts of strangers toward Christianity. Praise God for that, pray for more to hear and believe, and pray for faithful disciples to share the Gospel as prolifically as Kirk did. (Read more from “Democrats Said Thoughts And Prayers Won’t Stop Leftist Violence, So Here Are Some Ideas” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Want To Honor Charlie Kirk’s Legacy? Emulate His Moral Courage

/0 Comments/in , /by

I talked to a friend recently about courage, and he made what I thought was a really profound point worth thinking about in depth: Not all courage is the same. For example, there is moral courage and physical courage.

Physical courage is the soldier who braves the hail of bullets to complete his mission or to save his brother-in-arms. It is the fireman who risks his life to run into a burning building to save people who might otherwise die without his help. It is the mother who instinctively shields her child from danger using her own body. . .

But there is another type of courage that we don’t often recognize and praise, and that is moral courage. Moral courage is hard to depict in a mural or a statue. A monument to men planting a flag at Iwo Jima just seems more dramatic than someone calmly standing up and speaking the truth at a school board meeting, or telling a friend his behavior is ungodly, or internally vowing to no longer silently abide the lies of a culture that tells you boys can become girls or unborn babies aren’t people. . .

In our lives, however, we have the opportunity to practice and display moral courage every single day and in everything we do. Raising your children to do good and hate evil is morally courageous. Publicly objecting to false doctrines spread by wicked messengers is morally courageous. Stopping what you are doing and praying to Christ when you feel hopeless and helpless is morally courageous.

Standing up before a culture that hates God and hates good and revels in evil is morally courageous. Risking your job and livelihood to speak the truth and reject lies is morally courageous. (Read more from “Want To Honor Charlie Kirk’s Legacy? Emulate His Moral Courage” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Rising Popularity Of Rent-A-Womb Industry Emboldens Pedophiles To Buy Proximity To Kids

/0 Comments/in , /by

Surrogacy is problematic for a whole host of reasons. It makes procreation and pregnancy transactional, creates morally and ethically reprehensible conundrums, hurts women and babies, has strong overlap with human trafficking, and reeks of corruption.

Arguably, the most alarming consequence that comes from the increasingly popular practice of renting wombs, however, is that surrogacy can be easily exploited by pedophiles and abusers to gain proximity to children.

One such example surfaced this week after internet sleuths discovered that one of the two men seen in a viral video celebrating a baby’s monthly milestones by kissing the boy’s face is a convicted pedophile.

Less than 10 years before Brandon Mitchell bought his son via surrogacy, the then-high school chemistry teacher earned himself several criminal charges for attempting to solicit images from a male teenage student. Subsequent investigation by law enforcement yielded more than 12,000 texts between the teacher and child as well as several pieces of sexually explicit media.

Mitchell was quickly convicted and sentenced to nearly two years in prison. After just two months, however, Mitchell was paroled on the condition that he would “have no unsupervised contact with minors.”

Thanks to unregulated fertility and surrogacy industries, however, Mitchell now has custody of a baby boy without so much as a required background check. (Read more from “Rising Popularity Of Rent-A-Womb Industry Emboldens Pedophiles To Buy Proximity To Kids” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Independence Day Sounds So Much Better Than ‘Fourth Of July’

/0 Comments/in , /by

As of Friday this week the United States is 249 years young. Do it the honor of marking our country’s birthday as “Independence Day,” rather than the far more common and clunky “Fourth of July.”

I’m not sure when I started caring to explicitly and exclusively refer to the holiday by it’s official name, but it’s something I’ve grown militant about. Not in a sanctimonious way, like a person who wants to flex his superior patriotism or knowledge on proper titles. But there are two reasons for it.

First, I’m a writer (a real one, not the fake Charles Blow kind). I pay attention to the way phrases sound and flow, always self-editing to make expressions concise and breezy. That’s both in print and speech. “Independence Day” includes one long word, but it sounds nice and is easy to say. “Fourth of July” by contrast is three short ones that when said aloud together are the audible equivalent of watching John Fetterman lurching forward in strap-on heels. It’s a plodding phrase with each syllable landing on the eardrum with a dull thud. I hate it. Further, Independence Day connotes a date of significance, with its own distinguished name. “Fourth of July” is simply the number of a day belonging to a summer month. It’s a phrase that also exhibits a lot of lip action, first biting the lower one to say “fourth” and then pursing them both for “July.” Ugly! The month itself isn’t even a pleasant one to say and I’m shocked it hasn’t yet been deemed as anti-Semitic by Jonah Goldberg. (Read more from “Independence Day Sounds So Much Better Than ‘Fourth Of July’” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

This Independence Day, Ditch the DNA Test and Learn More About Your American Ancestors

/0 Comments/in , /by

In recent years, Americans have become obsessed with learning about their ancient heritage. Only a few years ago, companies such as 23andMe and AncestryDNA celebrated their tens of millions of customers, whom they encouraged, in ridiculous commercials, to travel the world to find and develop deep connections with their far-flung roots. Then 23andMe — possessing all manner of private genetic and medical information — went bankrupt and was sold on July 1 to a nonprofit organization run by the company’s former CEO.

Nothing is inherently wrong with wanting to know about one’s ancestors — everyone should want to know from where and from whom they come. But the excessive interest in “the mother country” (or countries) often comes at the expense of learning about, and taking pride in, one’s American lineage. This Fourth of July, Americans should rekindle a knowledge and appreciation for how their family story plays into the greater American narrative of freedom and opportunity.

Remember, Your Ancestors Came to America

One irony of Americans’ interest in their roots from Europe, Asia, or Africa is that it tends to elide the fact that our ancestors chose to come here. Many immigrants came to America not because they hated their home country, but because they were fleeing something, such as religious persecution, political oppression, or poverty. However, many also believed the United States (or her predecessors — the colonies) offered something uniquely exciting and promising: freedom, opportunity, advancement. (Read more from “This Independence Day, Ditch the DNA Test and Learn More About Your American Ancestors” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Trump Enters His ‘Golden Age’ as Bill Passage Caps Long List of ‘Remarkable’ Accomplishments — Wowing Even Critics

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is at the height of his political power following Thursday’s passage of his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — capping a remarkable two-week streak of domestic and foreign policy feats that even Democrats are calling impressive.

Trump, 79, will sign the bill fulfilling his major campaign pledges — including to cut taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits — at a pre-fireworks Independence Day party on the White House lawn.

B-2 stealth bombers will fly over the celebration in recognition of their role in the Trump-ordered June 21 US airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear program, which was followed two days later by an equally unprecedented Trump-brokered cease-fire between Israel and Iran.

The commander-in-chief, riding high on that diplomatic coup, strong-armed NATO nations at the alliance’s annual conference to boost military spending to 5% of their GDP by 2035, after complaining for years that US allies were freeloading off American taxpayers.

He returned home to good news from the Supreme Court, which handed him wins on deporting illegal immigrants to third countries and restricting nationwide injunctions by district court judges — while CBS’s parent company agreed to fork over $16 million for purportedly deceptively editing an interview last year with Trump’s election rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. (Read more from “Trump Enters His ‘Golden Age’ as Bill Passage Caps Long List of ‘Remarkable’ Accomplishments — Wowing Even Critics” HERE)

What Does The Bible Really Say About Who The True Israel Is?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Some months ago, the Christian doctrine of “ordo amoris” (the order of loves) made its way into mainstream discussion after J. D. Vance invoked it in an interview on the immigration issue. Now, something similar is happening with another Christian doctrine, God’s covenant with Israel, after a Ted Cruz interview with Tucker Carlson.

The issue is this: Is the modern nation state of Israel theologically and prophetically significant? Who are the covenant people of God today? Cruz invoked Genesis 12:3 to claim we are biblically obligated to support Israel if we seek God’s blessing — and we will be cursed if we do not support Israel, militarily and otherwise. But is that really so? Is the modern nation state of Israel the subject of Genesis 12:3? The question is not as straightforward as it might seem. After all, the apostle Paul says in Romans 9:6 that “not all who are Israel are Israel.”

Cruz’s views have been shaped by a school of theological thought called dispensationalism. While dispensationalism does not enjoy nearly the widespread acceptance it once had among American evangelicals, it is still very popular and has certainly made its mark on American foreign policy. Dispensationalism is a relative novelty in terms of church history — it only traces back as far as the 19th century, when it was first systematized and promoted by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. Its popularity is a distinctly American phenomenon, accelerating especially after the modern nation of Israel was established in 1948.

Dispensationalism became hugely influential through study Bibles (Scofield and Ryrie especially), end times charts, and the Left Behind book series. As a theological system, dispensationalism is defined primarily by maintaining a sharp distinction between Israel and the church. God has distinct plans for Jews and Gentiles. He has an earthly people with land promises (Israel) and a heavenly people with spiritual promises (the church). In dispensationalism, the church is a kind of “plan B,” a parenthesis unforeseen from the perspective of Old Testament prophets. Dispensationalism is a form of Zionism, holding that the Jews are the key to God’s purposes, and it is vital for Israel to be in the land promised to Abraham.

Dispensationalism was a significant departure from the more historic view of Israel’s relationship to the church, known as covenant theology. Covenant theology has been most fully developed in the Reformed tradition and teaches that Old Covenant Israel stands in fundamental continuity with the New Covenant church. The Bible tells one story, from beginning to end; God has one people sharing a common salvation; and the unity of God’s saving plan is found in Christ, who unites Jew and Gentile in Himself. Covenant theologians claim the church is the new and true Israel — the “Israel of God,” as Paul puts it in Galatians 6:16. Covenant theologians point to passages like Romans 4 and Galatians 3 to demonstrate that those who trust in Christ are the true children of Abraham. (Read more from “What Does The Bible Really Say About Who The True Israel Is?” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr