Signs to Watch for if US Believes a Russian Nuclear Attack on Ukraine Is Imminent

Reflecting the growing concern that Russian President Vladimir Putin may order a limited nuclear attack on Ukraine, the United States and its allies are escalating an already significant standing effort to monitor Russia’s nuclear forces.

At least three Navy attack submarines are operating in the Atlantic Ocean area, their primary mission being to track and sink Russian ballistic missile submarines. Another U.S. attack submarine is berthed at a British naval base in Scotland. U.S. and British signal intelligence aircraft are expanding their Ukraine collection efforts to include Belarus and Kaliningrad. Other more boutique U.S. military capabilities are monitoring Kaliningrad for the same reason. U.S. satellites are almost certainly expanding their monitoring of Russian nuclear forces and storage sites. But partly due to the ground intelligence efforts of NATO allies in Eastern Europe, the U.S. has good visibility into Russia’s nuclear weapons posture. Britain’s GCHQ signal intelligence service also has exceptional insight into the Russian military command. . .

First off, watch the political space. Putin would want to leverage the threat of any nuclear strike to the maximum before actually using a nuclear weapon. Paying close attention to his increasingly hostile rhetoric would thus be important. But we would also see urgent statements from Biden and other world leaders warning of the grave consequences Russia would face if it used nuclear weapons. They would warn Russian commanders and nuclear forces personnel that following any such orders would mean their own personal liability. This narrative effort would seek to increase Putin’s fear that an order to use nuclear weapons might instead result in a palace coup by his own military.

The West would likely threaten a full embargo of the Russian economy. Biden and a number of other allied leaders, though probably not all, might also warn of a U.S. military response. Then there’s Xi Jinping’s China. China might be Putin’s most valuable partner, but it’s desperate to avoid a Russian nuclear strike. Xi knows it would greatly undermine China’s already fraying credibility with the European Union, in particular. Beijing’s public warnings to Moscow would be a bad sign.

We would also expect to see visible signals from the military’s Strategic Command. The so-called “doomsday” airborne nuclear command and control aircraft would escalate their training and readiness activity (this has not yet happened). Alongside the two U.S. ballistic missile submarines that always operate in the Atlantic/Arctic, we might see additional surge deployments from Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia. Any new deployment of B-2 bombers and the most advanced WC-135R “nuke sniffing” aircraft to Britain would demand attention. Top line: All of these capabilities exist to defeat Russia in a nuclear war. But, considering the Biden administration’s hesitant nuclear posture, related deployments might not occur until a Russian strike appeared imminent. (Read more from “Signs to Watch for if US Believes a Russian Nuclear Attack on Ukraine Is Imminent” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Elon Musk Is Right, the Russia-Ukraine War Needs to End

As if to burnish his reputation as a super-villain in the eyes of the corporate press, Elon Musk this week floated an idea on Twitter for a possible resolution of the Russo-Ukrainian war. For his trouble, he was swiftly accused of being a pro-Putin stooge by guardians of the Official Narrative. His suggested peace plan was dismissed out of hand as “Russia-friendly” and, as The Washington Post’s Olivier Knox put it, “designed to lock in Russian territorial gains.”

But Musk’s idea shouldn’t be so quickly dismissed, not least because it has the virtue of being grounded in reality, but also because broadly speaking the billionaire mogul is right: It’s time for the war in Ukraine to come to an end. One need not be “Russia-friendly” to recognize that this war will most likely end in one of two ways. Either there will be a negotiated political settlement, in which both Russia and Ukraine get some of what they vitally need, or the thing will escalate into a worldwide nuclear war.

Given the options, the responsible thing to do is think through how a settlement might be reached — something our political leaders and media elites, wedded as they are to a maximalist Ukraine policy that seeks the total defeat of Russian forces and regime change in Moscow, have thus far been incapable of doing. . .

The plan isn’t perfect, obviously, but it’s a far cry from Kremlin propaganda. It recognizes something that sharp observers of the conflict could see even before Russia’s invasion in late February: With its current borders, Ukraine can have territorial integrity or political independence, but it can’t have both.

My friend Mario Loyola made precisely that argument in these pages weeks before the war began, noting that Ukraine’s present-day borders date from 1954, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev “gave” Ukraine nominal control over strategic swaths of territory that had not been traditionally considered part of Ukraine, such as the Crimean Peninsula, along with a formidable Soviet nuclear arsenal. The point was to make it seem like the Warsaw Pact was something other than a Soviet concoction designed to give Moscow more seats in the U.N. General Assembly. (Read more from “Elon Musk Is Right, the Russia-Ukraine War Needs to End” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Regime Evangelicals Are Terrified of Christian Nationalism

One of the most influential leaders in American evangelicalism has signaled how terrified he is that Christian Nationalism is gaining ground among the very people he is supposed to represent.

Russell Moore is one of the most influential leaders in institutional evangelical America. He was one of the top professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, influencing countless pastors in the largest denomination in the country, before becoming the head of that denomination’s lobbying group, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, before leaving that post and the denomination altogether to be the Editor-in-Chief of Christianity today.

He became the regime’s pointman to both oppose President Trump and to push the leftist agenda on conservative churches. Before anything else, it must be understood that this man was and is a political operative within conservative evangelical institutions. There are many just like him, but he is at the top of the regimevangelical hierarchy. All the pastors and Christian social media influencers with masks in their profile picture and a Ukraine flag and pronouns in their bio want to be just like him.

We should look in detail here how this operative wheels and deals in his latest piece. First he starts out by claiming the idea of Christian Nationalism is spreading worldwide, but conveniently refuses to define precisely what Christian Nationalism is other than a boogeyman for lib Christians to lump together everything they do not like.

Just as some North Americans are explicitly claiming the label of “Christian nationalism,” the ideology is advancing around the world.

What are some examples of this undefined ideology advancing around the world? Well Putin’s Russia is apparently Christian Nationalist.

The ongoing near merger of the Russian Orthodox Church with Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian government made headlines when the church’s patriarch declared that dying in Ukraine as part of Putin’s invading army “washes away all sins.”

And Moore cannot help himself but conflate new Italian PM Giorgia Meloni with Benito Mussolini!

Analyzing Giorgia Meloni’s win, commentator Damon Linker noted that her Brothers of Italiy party—with roots in the World War II remnants of the fascist strongman Benito Mussolini’s political movement—has significantly moderated its rhetoric in recent years.

And that she has the audacity to point out megacapitalist banks and transatlantic corporations have eroded Italian national sovereignty is forbidden by Moore. It doesn’t matter that what Meloni describes is undeniably true (in Italy and in the United States), no, what really matters is people might think she is talking about Jews. Moore immediately plays the antisemitism card to shut up any criticism of the global financial order that he has devoted his entire career to protecting.

Some might view that with suspicion given Meloni’s post-election speech in which she blamed “financial speculators” for robbing Italians of their roots and identity—language that throughout history has almost always been equated with Jews.

Moore goes on to cite the political theory that in Italy the largest demographic group are the nominally Catholic, those who don’t regularly practice their faith or attend mass, but who see recognize their identity as Italians is inextricably linked to Roman Catholicism. Moore, of course, sees this as a bad thing, but a culture that has at least a modicum of respect for Christian tradition is at the very least fertile ground for evangelization and clearly far better than a culture that has nothing but antipathy for the Christian religion.

“Moore rightly sees Kirill as a religious propagandist for an authoritarian regime… The closest parallel to Kirill in America is Russell Moore himself.”

Halfway through this article, Moore finally gives a definition of Christian Nationalism or at least gives us a muddled word salad in lieu of a definition.

The term Christian nationalism refers to the use of Christian words, symbols, or rituals as a means to shore up an ethnic or national identity. As with every other ideology, it exists along a spectrum.

Clearly, Moore thinks using Christian symbolism to shore up a national identity is very bad. But the entire world just watched as the English national church laid to rest its queen. Is Anglicanism an evil ideology that uses Christian symbolism for cynical political ends?

Moore goes on to explain the spectrum, with Meloni on the more benign side and Patriarch Kirill on the most extreme. Moore is determined to force the association between Kirill’s ridiculous pronouncements with Christian Nationalism in America. He wants to tie Kirill’s blasphemy to any Christian here in the US who loves his country and wants to see it return to Christ.

Moore rightly sees Kirill as a religious propagandist for an authoritarian regime. What Moore does not recognize is the closest analog for Kirill in America is not the Trump-supporting dad who faithfully takes his family to church every Sunday. The closest parallel to Kirill in America is Russell Moore himself.

This is not hyperbole. Every outrageous thing our authoritarian regime does to us Moore has outspokenly supported. Open borders? Endless war? Lock you in your home for months? Shut down your churches? Force you to wear a face diaper? Allow organize communist cells to burn and loot every major city in America? Run an entire season of ballot harvesting for months and decry anyone who calls foul as a lunatic conspiracy theorist? Be forced to submit to a dangerous medical experiment just to be able to feed your family? Moore has not only supported all these monstrosities, he has denounced any Christians who give anything other than full-throated support of them as sub-Christian. And he did this as the most influential evangelical public thinker in America from the lofty heights of CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Russell Moore is the Patriarch Kirill of the American Regime.

After spending half the article denouncing his Russian counterpart, Moore then begins to play even more bait-and-switch with his definitions of Christian Nationalism. Out of nowhere, he insinuates that Christian Nationalists believe that one’s salvation is tied to their ethnic identity.

Additionally, the truth of the gospel according to Jesus means that less bloody forms of Christian nationalism are also one birth short of the kingdom of God.

Indeed, the argument of the entire New Testament is that people cannot stand before God on the basis of ethnic, cultural, or even moral solidarity (Luke 3:8–9; Col. 2:16–22). No one stands justified even by the works of the law given by God, much less by the flesh of one’s temporal ethnic or national identity (Gal. 3:15–16). Each person must be joined to Christ by personal repentance and personal faith—not by living in a culture conformed to some external definition of “Christian values.”

There is not a single person of any note who describes himself as a Christian Nationalist who would say that anything but personal faith in Christ is the basis for his salvation. Yes, we want our nation to repent of its apostasy and return to the faith. We want our cultural habits to be formed by faith in Christ once again. By conflating living in a society discipled by the gospel of Jesus Christ with salvation, Moore demonstrates that either he doesn’t know what we believe (unlikely) or that he is a lying subversive whose job it is to attack any Christian effort that opposes the regime.

Moore goes on to reference Mark 7:14-23 to attack the effort to disciple the nations, as though external cultural habits of a people cannot bring the judgment of God. “Only the heart really matters” says Moore. Any application of the gospel to all of life, including politics, culture, and economics, that’s just externals that don’t matter and “using the gospel for political liberation or for material prosperity.” Would Moore say this to the Hebrew judges and prophets who preached repentance to the nation of Israel, that they must stop serving other gods, and when they do so God would liberate them from foreign oppressors and bless the work of their hands and produce of the land? Jesus Himself, in His earthly ministry, came specifically to a singular nation, Israel, and preached that they must repent or be destroyed. They rejected Him and were indeed destroyed, and His kingdom went on to conquer the very empire that destroyed Israel. Does Moore see the slow, patient evangelization of the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman world, and the political and cultural benefits which resulted from majority Christian culture as a bad thing? Apparently.

Jesus taught us that nothing coming in from the outside can defile a person; rather, it’s what is within a person’s heart defiles him or her (Mark 7:14–23). That’s why he specifically walked away from those who wanted to use his gospel for political liberation (John 6:15) or for material prosperity (vv. 26–27).

Moore then makes an analogy between leftwing social gospel and Christian Nationalism. Instead of manufacturing utopia on earth, according to Moore, Christian Nationalism seeks to “build a social order in step with national or ethnic identity.” Think about the meaning of what Moore says here. When a nation becomes overwhelmingly Christian, how exactly are they supposed to live? Does God’s Word give any instruction on how their social order should operate? And does a nation becoming Christian mean that the grace of God eradicates nature, and they cease to recognize themselves as a distinct people?

If over the next 200 years Iran was rapidly evangelized, in Moore’s world, what are they supposed to do? Just adopt Moore’s preferred homogenized globalist social order where there are no distinctions between nations and peoples and we are all an undifferentiated blob whose only allowable identity is whether we are Marvel or DC comics fans? No, when nations become Christian they retain what makes them a distinct people. At the very end of Revelation, at Christ’s Second Coming, we don’t see an undifferentiated, homogenized blob of nameless, faceless people, we see every tribe, tongue, and nation confessing Christ as Lord. As you read what Moore writes, the unstated alternative that he is implicitly defending is the Global Empire of Babel.

And that is why he offers the most disgusting slander of faithful Christians who desire their nation returns to Christ: “Christian nationalism is a liberation theology for white people.” He compares faithful god-fearing men and women who love their country to marxist revolutionaries who wear a hollowed out Christian faith as a skinsuit. That is what regime theologians think about you.

Moore doesn’t care what actual Christian Nationalists actually believe. He is a political hack. He doesn’t care that we read the Great Commission as a charge from Christ to disciple our nation into obeying all that Christ has commanded. He projects onto faithful Christians his own cynicism and desperation for political power. His ideology seeks to reverse the Great Commission and disciple the nations in globalist liberal democracy, using Jesus’ authority to baptize the nations into a homogenous blob of megacorporate consumers. And he projects this cynicism onto sincere Christians who are watching the people Moore exists to defend destroy the country they love.

And in doing so Moore denies the implications of the gospel

The gospel is a means to no other end than union with the crucified and resurrected Christ who transcends, and stands in judgment over, every group, identity, nationality, and culture.

There are no other ends, for the announcement of Christ’s kingdom arriving in the world (the literal definition of that Greek word translated as “gospel”)? The Gospel is the announcement that Jesus Christ is King of this world, that you are invited into His kingdom, that you are forgiven for your rebellion against Him, and you are made to sit at His table and rule with Him. Moore doesn’t think King Jesus standing in judgment over the nations has any implications on how those nations conduct themselves?

Moore concludes with a statement that is astoundingly absurd:

Christian nationalism cannot turn back secularism, because it is just another form of it. In fact, it is an even more virulent form of secularism because it pronounces as “Christian” what cannot stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Christian nationalism cannot save the world; it cannot even save you.

The idea that the nations must become Christian is “secularism.” This is the leading evangelical public intellectual in America. The regime is not sending their best. Quite obviously, the call for America to return to Christ is the antithesis of secularism. Moore could not be more wrong if he tried.

This is the reality: Christ commanded His people to go to all the nations of the world, to disciple them, to baptize them, and to teach them all that He has commanded. The very mission of the church is to make the nations Christian. And that mission is going to save the world. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

All quotes and reference from the article published on Christianity Today by Moore.

(For more from the author of “Regime Evangelicals Are Terrified of Christian Nationalism” please click HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Fork in the Road

“Greece would not have fallen had it obeyed Polybius in everything, and when Greece did meet disaster, its only help came from him”

— Pausanias, 8.37.2, Inscription on the Temple of Despoina near Arakesion.

In Book VI of his Histories, the ancient Greek historian Polybius described three basic forms of government, each categorized by the number of those in power. He listed monarchy (rule by the one); aristocracy (rule by the few); and democracy (rule by the many).

Polybius described, over time, how each type of government would gradually decline into their various corrupted forms of tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule, respectively.

Polybius believed that Republican Rome had designed a new form of government that could help check this inevitable decline.

Rome combined all three forms of government — monarchy (its elected executives, called consuls); aristocracy (the Senate); and democracy (the popular assemblies).

In this mixed form of government, each branch would check the corrupting ambitions and power of the others.

Polybius, Aristotle and Cicero all praised the construction of a “mixed constitution” and the requirement of a separation of powers within government.

The French nobleman and legal expert Charles-Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu, studied the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. He believed that a properly designed government, in order to prevent tyranny, would require three branches of government. He wrote:

If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since ‘constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it … it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power’ . This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government… [to prevent any one] from acting tyrannically.

The British philosopher John Locke was also keenly interested in a design for government that would prevent it from descending into tyranny. In the late 17th century, Locke argued that monarchs had no “divine right” to rule; instead, he asserted that the source of power lay in the people. Furthermore, he stated that humans were born into this world with certain natural and “inalienable” rights including to “life, liberty and property”.

Locke believed that government could not grant these rights because they were God-given; therefore, no government could take them away or withhold them from the people.

Thomas Jefferson used Locke’s concepts as central tenets when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He proclaimed the government’s duty to protect the sacred attributes of the individual: “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form…”

“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

As well, America’s Founding Fathers repeatedly cited Baron de Montesquieu’s seminal Spirit of the Laws and its emphasis on checks and balances within government.

As James Madison wrote, “the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu.”

We conservatives are originalists: If the Constitution’s meaning is not interpreted as the framers intended, if it can be altered at will, then what protects any law from arbitrary interpretation, from the capricious whims of the ill-intentioned?

If the Constitution is “living and breathing”, an amorphous guidebook of suggestions that may freely be interpreted based upon current events, trends, whims or biases, what then are the limits on government? And if the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says, what protects individuals from the encroachment of government intrusion into every aspect of individuals’ lives?

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution strictly limits the power of the Federal Government. It states, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. In the Founders’ view, state and local governments were free to experiment — to serve as “laboratories” in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis — in areas prohibited to the federal government. In the 1980’s, for example, Oregon’s successful welfare reform efforts became the models for subsequent actions by other states and even the federal government.

When the federal government ignores and breaches the Tenth Amendment, it represents an illegal diminution of representative government at the state and local levels. It represents a subtle and insidious attack on individual liberty.

The once-powerful states, which created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution, have become — in the words of Mark Levin — “administrative appendages of the federal government.” The states are subject to ever-increasing federal regulation, strangled by dictates from agencies old and new, and held hostage through billions in federal tax dollars.

Levin asks, “Does anyone believe that the states would have originally ratified the Constitution had they known this would be their fate?”

The path the modern federal government is on today was presciently described by Stuart Chase in 1942. He wrote that the agenda of the Fabian Socialists — who had launched a counter-revolution against America’s founding — was to create an authoritarian and completely centralized government apparatus. The agenda of the Fabian Socialists include:

• Strong, centralized government
• Government-controlled banking, credit and securities exchange (TARP, etc.)
• Government control over employment (the “Employee Free Choice Act” to speed unionization of the workplace)
• Unemployment insurance, old age pensions (lengthy unemployment benefits, Social Security)
• Universal medical care, food and housing programs (Obamacare, food stamps, HUD)
• Access to unlimited government borrowing (massive deficits)
• A managed monetary system (an opaque Federal Reserve)
• Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production (drilling moratoriums, the EPA’s regime of “Cap-and-Trade”)
• Government regulation of labor (the Wagner Act, monopolistic power of trade unions)
• and Heavy progressive taxation.

This indeed describes “the road we are traveling”: accelerated by branches of government controlled by Democrats who took an oath to uphold that which they ignore.

While it may no longer be called socialism directly, nonetheless socialism it is. The Fabian Socialist counter-revolution began in earnest in the U.S. in 1933 with the imposition of the “Welfare State” and it has been steadily progressing since.

It confiscates ever more taxes, consolidates ever more power, while bankrupting program after program. And always — always — the federal government proclaims its need for more money and more power, promising that if only it can levy one more tax, enforce one more regulation, create one more program it will be able to solve all of man’s woes.

The Greek historian Thucydides observed that “The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.” And in writing about the calamitous Peloponnesian War that engulfed and ultimately destroyed his society, he added that, “Few things are brought to a successful issue by impetuous desire, but most by calm and prudent forethought.”

History teaches us that the decline of a society and the demise of a government comes with the institutionalization of corruption and a wanton disregard for the written law. Such is our situation today, wherein the states have become puppets of an all-powerful federal government that confiscates more and more private property while exerting increasing control over every aspect of our lives.

Today our federal government’s most powerful branch is one never conceived by the Framers: the unelected fourth branch of government — the enormous federal bureaucracy — that acts at the president’s behest. It now decides which laws it will enforce and which it will not, from immigration law to Antifa riots.

If we are to protect our society from despotism and decline, whose counsel should we then cherish? Should we honor thousands of years of human experience and the wisdom of history’s greatest philosophers — Polybius, Cicero, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Locke, Jefferson, Adams and Madison among them? Men who understood the nature of a government’s despotic decline and sought to construct a system to counter it?

Or should we disregard their guidance and instead follow the Fabian Socialists? Are these philosophers and founders to be replaced by the likes of Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi?

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the Constitution, which codifies our exquisite legal system based upon private property, G-d-given individual liberties and free enterprise.

This is our generation’s fork in the road and the stakes of our decision could not be higher. If we are to protect our society from the inevitable decline and despotism that has infected so many societies since the beginning of time, in whom should we trust? If we are to shield our children from the tyranny against which our founders fought and so many Americans shed blood, in whom should we put our faith?

I contend that we must fight the anti-Constitutional counter-revolution using every political tool at our disposal. We must pledge to return our country to the rule of law, as it was originally defined by our founders and codified in the Constitution. For anything less condemns our descendants to the fate that Thucydides described. The choice is clear. The question is simple.

Which road will you choose?

(For more from the author of “Fork in the Road” please click HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

My 7-Step Plan to Destroy America

Based upon a speech by Gov. Richard D. Lamm (D-CO)[:]

Special thanks to Mark Levin.

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

The Case for Impeachment Gets Stronger

Over six months ago, I made the case here at American Greatness for impeaching Joe Biden. The case has only grown stronger in the interim. Not only has more information come to light about Biden’s illegal conduct, but he also has pushed a number of new policies that are constitutionally suspect at best and deserve intensive congressional scrutiny—assuming the Republicans don’t blow the midterms in November.

I argued that the impeachment effort should be about educating moderate voters, independent voters, and even working-class Democrats about the stunning number of unconstitutional actions undertaken by the Biden Administration. It doesn’t matter if the GOP doesn’t have the two-thirds vote necessary in the Senate to convict and remove Biden from office. That’s not the point. After all, a successful impeachment and removal would put Kamala Harris in the Oval Office, and she may be even worse.

Some pundits claim that impeaching Biden would hurt the GOP politically. That’s nuts. The Democrats impeached Trump twice and used those hearings to convince many former Trump voters to abandon him in 2020. Along with all the “2000 Mules”-type cheating, it worked.

Similarly, the GOP should drag out the impeachment hearings for a year while they feature an array of credible witnesses to testify how this man has declared war on the American middle class and brought our country to the brink of economic collapse. Try as they might, such political theater would be difficult for the media to ignore.

Biden’s impeachable actions include his refusal to enforce immigration laws; the debacle in Afghanistan; the nuclear deal with Iran; the Hunter Biden scandal; using the COVID epidemic to illegally accumulate power; weaponizing the FBI and Department of Justice against Americans; violating the rights of January 6 protestors; and working with Big Tech to censor the First Amendment rights of Americans. (Read more from “The Case for Impeachment Gets Stronger” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Actually, America Is Too a Christian Nation

To say the founding of the United States reflects biblical Christianity is to state the obvious.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution incorporated many fundamental precepts of the Reformation, and these precepts long have been recognized by American statesmen and jurists.

From overt assertions that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and are entitled to the liberties of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” to the more subtle acknowledgement of the birth of Jesus Christ in Article VII of the Constitution, biblical Christianity was absolutely central to the American founding. . .

Such observations ought not be controversial, but saying what is true can get you in big trouble these days. In this instance, the media outlet Politico is sounding alarms over some Republicans self-describing as Christian nationalists, while others are talking about formally declaring the United States to be a Christian nation.

Calling America a Christian nation today might be debatable; a 2021 poll by Pew found that the number of Americans who describe themselves as Christian fell to 63%, down from 78% in 2007.

But our national founding and ongoing civic philosophy are unquestionably Christian. President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, said it most succinctly in observing, “America was born a Christian nation.” (Read more from “Actually, America Is Too a Christian Nation” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

We’re Going to Be Investigating Pandemic Fraud for the Next Century

Have you ever looked at the scandals involved in President Ulysses S. Grant’s administration and wondered how such corruption occurred?

Well, it’s time to check your arrogance at the door because future generations are going to view the past two and a half years with the same disbelief.

The United States just experienced billions of dollars in pandemic-related fraud. According to one inspector general, it will take 100 years to fully investigate.

On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger charged 47 individuals in a “massive scheme” to fraudulently take $250 million in U.S. taxpayers’ money that was meant to feed low-income children during the COVID pandemic.

According to prosecutors, employees at the non-profit Feeding our Future established shell companies during the COVID pandemic that claimed to be giving away meals to thousands of kids in Minnesota. Because certain rules were waived as part of the public-private response to the virus, participating parties were then able to receive reimbursement for those “meals” through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food nutrition programs. (Read more from “We’re Going to Be Investigating Pandemic Fraud for the Next Century” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Continuing COVID Craziness Shows It Was Never About the Science

. . .It was only June when unvaccinated Canadians were finally allowed to leave the country, for reasons unclear to anyone. The vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, so how did it make sense to keep the unvaccinated behind the frozen curtain? It didn’t.

But that’s Canada. It’s completely lost the plot with COVID and chucked all its previously freedom-loving ideals out the nearest window, eh? America wouldn’t behave like that, right?

Except we are.

Tennis player Novak Djokovic couldn’t travel to America to compete in the US Open in August because he’s unvaccinated. No foreigner may enter the United States without being fully vaccinated. Unless, of course, they walk across our border. That’s right. If you’re visiting, stay away with your COVID-infested self. If you’re trying to stay here forever, bring that COVID right in.

If you’re looking for consistency in COVID-19 policies, you can stop right now. None of it has ever made sense. The fractured trust between Americans and our institutions will be immeasurable. And the damage continues. (Read more from “Continuing COVID Craziness Shows It Was Never About the Science” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

What’s Extremist Is the Way Biden’s Handlers Are Steering the Democrat Party

I came to America as an immigrant, now a citizen. The stories of the American Revolution absolutely fascinated me, especially as a little girl who came from a culture of corruption and oppression. I saw America’s founding fathers as men and women who risked everything for freedom. . .

That curiosity was missing from Joe Biden’s recent “Soul of a Nation” speech. No cultured curiosity scratched beneath the surface of what’s driving division in our country. There was no vision inspiring people to search deep within their souls for a common human belonging. Instead, President Biden’s words drummed the language of war, language rooted in harsh polarities that leave no oxygen for common ground, a necessary foundation of peace-building.

What deeply disturbed me in hearing President Biden give his “Soul of a Nation” speech wasn’t that he didn’t understand what extremism meant. I’ve been hearing his and his cabinet’s blunders on that all along.

Just ahead of his speech, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre gave a press briefing in which she said, “When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” In other words, it’s “extreme” to think differently. More to the point, it’s now considered “extreme” to have a different opinion than Democrats.

Twenty years after 9/11 and a year after Biden disastrously handed Afghanistan to the Taliban, I know our elected leaders are still uneducated about extremists and ideological warfare. They were too lazy to understand Islamist extremism then — handing an entire nation and the fate of our allies over to the very people we went to war with — and they’re too unwilling to study the broader nature of extremism now. (Read more from “What’s Extremist Is the Way Biden’s Handlers Are Steering the Democrat Party” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.