Kengor Writes . . .

Paul Kengor

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and the executive director of The Institute for Faith and Freedom at Grove City College, in Grove City, Pennsylvania, and he is the editor of The American Spectator. These essays are republished from The Institute for Faith and Freedom, an online publication of Grove City College, and The American Spectator. Paul Kengor is the author of God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life (2004); The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (2007); The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007); and The Communist — Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor (Threshold Editions / Mercury Ink 2012).

Reagan Conservatism Is Alive and Well

Note: This essay was originally published by The American Spectator.

Donald Trump could check the box on almost all of Reagan’s principles.

Donald Trump oozes personality, but he lacks Reagan’s winsome disposition. That winsomeness is a winner. Likewise, so is conservatism. Successful politics requires matching the right person with the right principles.

Conservatism conserves the timeless truths that need to be conserved. Eternal truths don’t suddenly become untrue, even if a depraved people insist otherwise. The key is finding the right conservative politicians, especially at the presidential level, to attractively communicate that conservatism.

The alleged death of Regan conservatism, proclaimed even by many on the right, is not just greatly exaggerated — it’s outright wrong.

It has to be wrong because Reagan conservatism is true conservatism, and conservatism conserves the time-tested principles, values, and traditions that are, well, true. Ronald Reagan himself put it this way:

“Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind.”

Reagan was speaking almost verbatim from conservatism’s preeminent philosophical spokesman, Russell Kirk (1918–1994), who had quoted G. K. Chesterton on that combined wisdom. Kirk called conservatism not an ideology, but an attitude. Conservatives endeavor to conserve what Kirk and Edmund Burke (1729–1797) described as an “enduring moral order.” Think about that: A moral order that endures. Sure, a country and culture and its corrupt people can leap off a cliff and descend to hell in a handbasket, but an enduring moral order nonetheless remains, rooted in the timeless traditions of biblical and natural law that the conservative conserves.

Reagan conservatism is genuine conservatism. If it isn’t winning today for Republicans, well, that’s not the fault of conservatism; that’s the fault of the conservatives. The problem isn’t the message but the messenger.

Sure, I’m the first to acknowledge that certain such principles, especially those related to eternal teachings on matters like marriage, family, life, and gender, are now rejected by wide swaths of a degenerate culture, but that doesn’t mean the principles are wrong. And sure, a Republican candidate running on conservative positions on marriage, family, life, and gender can today lose on that platform. But still, there is more to conservatism, and Reagan conservatism, than moral — social issues. Ronald Reagan was both a social and economic conservative, and he urged fellow conservatives to embrace both.

In 2014, I published a book titled 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. It has gone through several printings. The Young America’s Foundation has a special edition of the book, which it has given out to students nationwide by the tens of thousands. That book has resonated with conservative youth because it lays out succinctly what Ronald Reagan really believed — a handy thing to know, given that countless conservative candidates since the 1980s have called themselves Reagan conservatives. Here are the eleven principles: Freedom, Faith, Family, Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, American Exceptionalism, the Founders’ Wisdom and Vision, Lower Taxes, Limited Government, Peace Through Strength, Anti-communism, and Belief in the Individual.

I need not delineate each of those principles here. Most are self-evident to readers of this magazine. Our readers, too, will agree that Ronald Reagan articulated those beliefs with splendid appeal to the nation at large in a way that won him two landslide elections. Reagan, an unflinching and unapologetic conservative, twice won states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, and even ultra-liberal Massachusetts.

Reagan’s conservatism never lost at the ballot box, nor in the eyes of the American public. Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, won the presidency in November 1988 because Americans felt he was their best chance at something approximating a third Reagan term.

Reagan conservatism never died, even when Bush lost in November 1992 (especially because Bush abandoned Reagan’s tax cuts). Newt Gingrich viably resurrected it in 1994 with his tremendous capture of Congress by conservative Republicans. Pretty much every major conservative running for national office since Reagan left the White House in January 1989 has extolled his core principles.

So, what accounts for the current claims of the death of Reagan conservatism? I think the claims are more of a complaint, an attitude, not one of conservatism but of defeatism. They come from folks on our side who didn’t like the rise of neoconservatism during the George W. Bush years and, more so, today lament Donald Trump’s inability to exceed 50 percent of the vote against the unlikable Hillary Clinton, the pathetic Joe Biden, and the downright awful Kamala Harris. (Even if Trump wins in November 2024, I don’t think it will be with 50 percent — plus of the vote; he never polls above 50 percent.)

Of course, the Trump years have seen a new kind of conservatism, or Republicanism. It is decidedly more populist, nationalist, and even protectionist. Still, if you look at those eleven principles of a Reagan conservative, most have been taken up by Trump. Trump certainly heralds the ideas of freedom, American exceptionalism (it was Reagan who in 1980 coined the now-Trumpian phrase “Make America Great Again”), lower taxes, limited government, peace through strength (particularly against the likes of the communist Chinese), and belief in the individual. Really, if you take a hard look at the eleven principles, there isn’t one that Trump and his supporters reject.

And even if one doubts that Donald Trump is a believer on matters like faith or the sanctity and dignity of human life, as Ronald Reagan was, he at least appealed to and has been supported by those constituencies. More so, to Trump’s credit, he did way more for the pro-life cause than Reagan was able to achieve. That includes appointing three Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — who reversed Roe v. Wade. Of Reagan’s three picks, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor were profound disappointments on the life issue and much more. Indeed, they affirmed Roe via the hideous 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which contained the stupidest statement in the history of high-court jurisprudence, namely Kennedy’s laughable “mystery clause.”

Ronald Reagan batted only one for three on his Supreme Court picks: Antonin Scalia was a fabulous choice. Kennedy and O’Connor were grave betrayals. Trump’s three high-court picks, by contrast, have all been home runs.

But to return to the point: Today’s leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, could check the Reagan box on pretty much all those Reagan principles. At the least, the policies that President Trump pursued align with those Reagan principles.

That being the case, why hasn’t Trump had greater success with this Reagan conservatism if Reagan conservatism isn’t dead and is, indeed, as my article here proclaims, alive and well?

The answer isn’t the principles but the person. Donald Trump can’t get over 50 percent of the popular vote because over 50 percent of the populace loathes the man. They don’t merely dislike him; they hate his guts. Conversely, Ronald Reagan was the most-liked figure of his generation. Over the last one hundred years, only Eisenhower and FDR compare in terms of likability among presidents.

Remember that Reagan’s conservative predecessor for the GOP presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater, was just as principled as Reagan but, like Trump, was not liked. Goldwater was slaughtered by LBJ in 1964. He won only six states and lost the popular vote 61 percent to 39 percent.

How did Reagan fare with conservative principles similar to Goldwater’s? He did profoundly better. In 1980, he crushed Jimmy Carter, an incumbent president, by 51 percent to 41 percent (there was a third-party candidate, John Anderson). Reagan won 44 of 50 states and took the Electoral College 489 to 49. In 1984, Reagan received nearly 60 percent of the votes, won an incredible 49 of 50 states, and took the Electoral College by an astounding 525 to 13. He did a total reversal of Goldwater; same principles but different personalities.

It was said that whereas Barry Goldwater was conservative with a frown, Ronald Reagan was conservative with a smile. That was spot-on accurate. Reagan not only smiled, but joked, laughed, and communicated so well that he will be forever remembered in American politics as the Great Communicator.

Donald Trump oozes personality, but he lacks Reagan’s winsome disposition. That winsomeness is a winner. Likewise, so is conservatism. Successful politics requires matching the right person with the right principles.

Conservatism conserves the timeless truths that need to be conserved. Eternal truths don’t suddenly become untrue, even if a depraved people insist otherwise. The key is finding the right conservative politicians, especially at the presidential level, to attractively communicate that conservatism.

The Washington Post’s Looney Liberal Readership

Note: This essay was originally published by The American Spectator.

Jeff Bezos’ statement almost makes me want to start reading The Washington Post again.

It has been years since I gave a rip about anything in The Washington Post. Like The New York Times, the Post has become so dreadfully biased that reading it is downright agonizing. There is little point in reading it, other than as an exercise in masochism or for the explicit purpose of finding a cornball leftist perspective. Colleagues here at The American Spectator will attest that if I need a quote from the Times or Post, I’ll ask them (as suffering subscribers not blocked by the paywall) to cut and paste the text for me.

Thus, it was largely by happenstance that I read Post owner Jeff Bezos’ statement to readers explaining why the newspaper didn’t endorse Kamala Harris for president. I saw the Bezos statement posted at RealClearPolitics, a rare and genuinely balanced source that daily does a splendid job of posting both liberal and conservative opinions. RCP displays a remarkable nonpartisanship that the dominant mainstream newspapers are clearly incapable of doing, including The Washington Post.

And so, I clicked the Bezos statement at RealClearPolitics, and I was surprised and impressed. If you haven’t read it, I think you’ll agree, unless you’re one of the ideologically deranged readers of The Washington Post (more on that in a minute) under the headline “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media”:

“In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

“We [newspapers] must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.”

Spot on, Mr. Bezos. And as I’ll note below, The Washington Post readers raging at Bezos do so from a position of refusing reality and fighting it like petulant preschoolers. Bezos continued:

“It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.”

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.

Indeed, when a purportedly unbiased newspaper endorses a political candidate, it reveals its bias in favor of that candidate and against the opponent. In turn, readers naturally suspect biased coverage. How does that help the newspaper portray itself as objective? It would be better for newspapers to stay neutral or at least try to appear so.

Bezos’ statement then dealt defensively with various rumormongering by silly progressives accusing him of a conflict of interest. Those progressives had also focused their ire at a chief executive of one of his companies, who is apparently guilty of the unconscionable sin of meeting with Donald Trump or some such blather. It’s laughable that such a transgression would have liberals foaming at the mouth, given how many executives and staff at the Post and other media organizations have obvious conflicts of interest with Kamala and Biden and Hillary and Pelosi and every big-time lib in Washington. In liberal la-la land, they’re all in bed together.

Bezos then returned with this strong closing statement:

“Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and The New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.”

Yes, they do. Of course. No question.

Bezos stated what ought to be obvious:

“Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice, and where better for that voice to originate than the capital city of the most important country in the world?”

He finished:

“Many of the finest journalists you’ll find anywhere work at The Washington Post, and they work painstakingly every day to get to the truth. They deserve to be believed.”

In all, it’s an excellent statement. Jeff Bezos is exactly right about what newspapers ought to be. His statement almost makes me want to start reading The Washington Post again.

But here’s the most fascinating part of Bezos’ post. At the end of his statement is an astonishing collection of reader comments from the Post faithful. At the time of my writing, there are over 15,000 comments. And really, they are less comments than temper tantrums. Picture a fat, bratty 5-year-old holding her breath and jumping up and down in the kitchen demanding a chocolate donut for breakfast. Actually, I would call the comments childish, but I have eight kids, and none of them talk like these people.

I could fill this [essay] with examples. They’re all against Bezos in the most ridiculous ways. It’s like a parody of liberals. If you received an email from one of these crazies, you’d be even crazier to respond. They’re so poisoned by ideology that they’re beyond the ability to dialogue with anyone who disagrees.

Here are just three examples from the five lead comments in my most recent look:

Mickey Brazil:

“I’m not going to tell you [Bezos] to get out of the road, there’s a truck coming, because you might not believe me. He thinks we’re stupid, just like Trump.”

Southernpoliticalbelle:

“Sounds to me all you have done is listen to OAN and Fox declaring WaPo as untrustworthy. You clearly do not know the American people. Readers are not going to believe you. Sorry but this was a political stunt or you are too uneducated to filter the garbage. Either way you have caused WaPo to be untrustworthy because it is clearly under the whims of your thumb. If your goal was to destroy this paper then you are right on track.”

Susan.micari:

“Mr. Bezos, you are a coward, pandering to those who would destroy our democracy. What do you know about democracy? You are king of your sweat shop empire. Shame on you. Hedging your bets at the expense of the Post’s readers, reporters, and opinion writers. You have decided that these reporters and opinion writers don’t matter, and we will all suffer for it.”

Those are merely three examples. And they’re mild. Grab some popcorn or crack a beer and page through them this evening for kicks. There’s one howler after another.

But more important, they prove precisely Bezos’ point, which I’ll express more candidly than he could: The Washington Post is a left-wing newspaper for left-wingers. The bias is so appalling, so repellent, that non-liberals flee it like the plague. If you’re not a liberal, there’s no reason to read the Post. It cannot be trusted because of its bias.

If Jeff Bezos is truly trying to change that, then good for him. But as he does, the Post’s looney liberals will be kicking and screaming.

Indigenous Peoples’ Day: Cherokee Leader Stand Watie

Note: This essay was originally published in The American Spectator.

Our intrepid progressives have tossed Christopher Columbus and his special day of remembrance to their ash heap of history. They have instead created something they find much more noble. They call it Indigenous Peoples’ Day. This day, they assure us, will allow Americans to honor better men, men who were not white European males who brought to this land disease, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, and whatever other litany they would like to cast at the feet of the villainous Columbus — the dreaded DWEM (Dead White European Male) that he was.

“When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Watie wasted no time in joining the Confederacy.”

Resisting the revolutionaries’ new holiday gets increasingly difficult as they saturate our culture with it, much as they have with an entire Pride Month. Their presidents, including noted historian Joseph Robinette Biden (himself a descendant of DWEMs), has encouraged “the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

Faithful liberals now officially recognize this day each year on their ideological calendar, and damned well try to ensure that the rest of us do as well. I’m sure they have the kids in their government schools dressing up as Seminoles and Eskimos today. They build teepees in kindergarten rooms and provide rubber tomahawks and cute little squaw dolls to the girls (and gender-confused boys).

Rather than resist the zeitgeist, dear readers, I’ve decided that every second Monday of October henceforth, I shall pause to remember this day at The American Spectator. Your editor shall not fail you. (For the record, in October 2022, I personally proclaimed here at The American Spectator that every second Tuesday of October henceforth be recognized as “Western Civ Day.”” I am saddened to report that my idea has not caught on.)

Thus, for Indigenous Peoples’ Day last year, I wrote my inaugural piece, titled, “Indigenous Slavers: American Indians Who Whipped and Owned Blacks.” I gave attention to the enslavement of black people by the five so-called “Civilized Tribes” — i.e., the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians. These tribes owned thousands of black African slaves and were brutal slave masters. They were so dedicated to slave ownership that many sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. To this day, there are African American descendants of these slaves with lawsuits against these indigenous tribes seeking redress. (See my book, The Worst of Indignities: The Catholic Church on Slavery.

These Indian slavers even defied the Emancipation Proclamation, continuing to subjugate black men, women, and children well after the white man had freed slaves. For instance, as noted by one scholar:

“Even Emancipation and the end of the Civil War did not bring immediate relief to the enslaved living in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Although the Choctaw and Chickasaw sided with the Confederacy during the conflict, the United States considered them to be separate political polities; therefore, the abolition of slavery as stated in the Thirteenth Amendment did not apply in Indian Territory.”

In that same spirit, for this year’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day, I’m pausing to recall one Stand Watie (1806-1871). The powerful Cherokee leader likewise not only supported black enslavement but became a fearless Confederate general. He, too, resisted the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, he was the last Confederate general to surrender in the Civil War. He is often referred to as “The Last Confederate General.” Many articles use that exact title.

Watie was born in December 1806 on Cherokee Nation territory (present-day Georgia). He was there raised in a slave-owning family. He quickly rose up the ranks of the Cherokee leadership. He was respected and feared. When fellow Indians looked to preserve the institution of slavery and keep their black folk in shackles, they looked to Watie as a “gifted field commander and a bold guerrilla leader.”

As one historian writes at History.com:

“When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Watie wasted no time in joining the Confederacy, viewing the federal government — not the South — as the Cherokees’ principal enemy. He raised the first Indian regiment of the Confederate Army, the Cherokee Mounted Rifles, and helped secure control of Indian Territory for the rebels early in the conflict.”

Watie was a force to be reckoned with. He and his Indian troops orchestrated savage attacks. They were notorious, prolific scalpers. They struck terror in the enemy.

When Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Confederate troops surrendered, Watie was fit to be tied. He would not surrender his blacks. Again, here’s an account at History.com:

“Watie was so committed to the Southern cause that he refused to acknowledge the Union victory in the waning months of the Civil War, keeping his troops in the field for nearly a month after Lieutenant General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the rest of the Confederacy’s Trans-Mississippi Army on May 26, 1865. A full 75 days after Robert E. Lee met with Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Watie became the last Confederate general to lay down arms, surrendering his battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians to Union Lieutenant Colonel Asa C. Matthews at Doaksville on June 23.”

I’ve here quoted History.com as a reliable popular source on Watie, but it’s just one of numerous sources that could be cited. There are government historical websites, educational sites, archival libraries of various battlefields, Native American historical societies, plus articles at sources like History.net and RealClearHistory.com, with detailed accounts of Watie and his life.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry for Watie is fairly brief, but the Cherokee general was not some minor player. Indeed, as one piece at The History Reader puts it, “The War Had to Wait for Watie.” His obstinacy delayed the Civil War’s formal end.

Stand Watie’s role in the Confederacy, stalwart support of slavery, and rebellion against black emancipation is known to those who bother to carefully, objectively study the history of the era. Of course, properly studying that history means being properly taught the history of early America, from its discovery by the great Columbus to the Mayflower to the American Founders to the Civil War. And that, pilgrim, is precisely the problem.

If you teach little Jimmy and Suzy about old Stand Watie, don’t expect their public school peers to be learning the same. Expect the kids in the government schools and lousy universities to offer nothing but a blank stare if Jimmy or Suzy raise a hand to ask the teacher, “Hey, what about Stand Watie? Didn’t he and a bunch of other Indians own slaves and fight for the Confederacy?”

That would surely earn Jimmy or Suzy a quick denunciation as a “racist” or perhaps a “Christian nationalist.”

But fear not, Jimmy or Suzy, at least you’re getting an actual education. You’re getting a much fuller presentation of history, rather than a selective, politically correct, ideologically sanitized account. Such an education will teach you that the indigenous tribes of this land were not some perfect, pristine people living in peaceful harmony until the wretched Christopher Columbus marched in and ruined utopia.

General Stand Watie is a striking example of just that. We at The American Spectator remember him on this Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

Moment of Unity: Reagan United the Country Like No Other

One of the cool things about being a biographer with special expertise on a specific subject — in my case, Ronald Reagan — is that readers come to you with all sorts of neat revelations. I’ve published eight books on Ronald Reagan, which I believe is more than any other author. People who know Ronald Reagan usually know me, and they come to me with stories that have never been reported.

I could write a separate article on those stories. A few have been quite dramatic, such as my late, wonderful friend Herb Meyer disclosing to me the bombshell revelation that he and his boss, CIA Director Bill Casey, and President Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviets were behind the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981. What Herb told me in confidence went further than what my dear friend Judge Bill Clark (I was Clark’s biographer) had told me about the shooting. I shared that story at The American Spectator at the time of Herb’s death. Until then, I could not reveal Herb as my source.

The revelations Herb and Bill Clark shared with me ultimately led to my book, A Pope and a President.

Speaking of assassinations, there were the revelations shared with me by Ronald Reagan’s pastor at his Presbyterian church in Washington, D.C. The Rev. Louis Evans called me shortly before he died because he wanted me to know some things about the near assassination of Reagan on March 30, 1981. Among the fascinating things that Evans told me was about his meeting with Nancy Reagan after the shooting of her husband. Nancy confided: “I’m really struggling with a feeling of failed responsibility. I usually stand at Ronnie’s left side. And that’s where he took the bullet.”

If only she had been next to her husband as he walked to that limousine outside the Washington Hilton, positioned between him and John Hinckley’s pistol, Nancy could have taken the bullet for her beloved Ronnie. She was willing to lay down her life for her beloved.

The Rev. Evans told me that after reading my 2004 book, God and Ronald Reagan. I incorporated the touching story into my 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, which is the basis for the Reagan movie starring Dennis Quaid that releases this weekend. (I also told the story in an op-ed piece for Fox News when Nancy died in March 2016. Megyn Kelly was so moved by the story that she invited me on her show to tell it.) I’m pleased to note that Nancy’s statement about taking a bullet for her Ronnie made it into our movie. It is a touching scene.

“That Is My Job” — All of this brings me to another nice story that I learned more about only in the last few weeks, after reporting it almost 20 years ago at the close of The Crusader. It’s a wonderful account of a Cold War survivor of Communism in the Ukraine, and the chance meeting that he and his grandson had with Reagan after their liberation and well after his presidency when the president was in the throes of Alzheimer’s disease. Here was what I knew back then in 2006 and recorded in the epilogue:

In the summer of 1997, Ronald Reagan strolled through Armand Hammer Park near his Bel Air home when he was approached by a tourist named Yakob Ravin and his twelve-year-old grandson, both Jewish Ukrainian émigrés living near Toledo, Ohio. They cheered Reagan as he got near and briefly spoke to the former president, who posed for a picture with the boy, which his grandfather proudly snapped. “Mr. President,” said Ravin, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the Communist empire.” The slightly confused 86-year-old Reagan paused and responded: “Yes, that is my job.”

That was his job — one he had assigned to himself long ago.

And then, after it all, after the task was complete, and after he was permitted, mercifully, a short window of time to comprehend and savor the accomplishment, it all quietly disappeared through the last 10 years of his 93 years of life. And then, finally, Ronald Reagan’s time on this earth terminated on June 5, 2004, as he ended that long, quiet drift into oblivion, and perhaps, again, drifted back to the Rock River.

The Rock River is a central theme of The Crusader and thus also the Reagan movie, with Reagan’s lifeguard years played terrifically by actor David Henrie. Unfortunately, that scene with Yakob Ravin did not make our script. There are only so many great stories that one film can include and stay on theme. Still, it’s a touching scene that chokes up many readers when they visualize it. One reader called me to say he was on vacation with his family at the beach and was embarrassingly sobbing when he read it. It chokes me up as well.

So, I nearly fell off my chair a few weeks ago when my email box suddenly received a photo of that very scene in real life, plus added details over two decades later. Indeed, I can now tell the rest of the story of Yakob Ravin and his grandson, thanks to a reader from Toledo, Ohio named Robert Loeb.

Living the American Dream, Thanks to Reagan — Rob, a certified financial planner who works in Sylvania, Ohio, was likewise touched by that scene. (He actually read about it in my 2017 book, A Pope and a President, where I told the story again.) When he got to the page about Ravin and his encounter with President Reagan, Rob was surprised and excited to learn that Yakob likewise lived in Toledo. He decided to try to track him down and found him in an assisted living facility in a suburb of Toledo. Rob informed me that Yakob was alive and well:

“He will turn 92 this week and is in reasonably good health, although he has faced a plethora of challenges in the past few years, including the death of his wife of nearly 60 years.”

. . . reported Rob. Rob was “thrilled to meet him along with his daughter Marina” on June 18.

Rob explained that it was Marina’s son who was with Yakob that day in 1997 and got his picture with President Reagan. The son, whose name is Rostik, is now a doctor in Florida. He was 12 years old at the time.

“Yakob retold me the story of his chance encounter with Reagan,” said Rob, who pleased the author of the book by telling me: “You had every detail exactly right!” Remarkably, Rob said that Yakob had never seen my book. He wasn’t aware that I had shared his story with the wider world. Rob gave Yakob a copy of the book.

Those details were striking enough, but what really got me was that Rob attached a photo of Ronald Reagan’s encounter with the grandson. I never knew that a photo existed. To our knowledge, the photo might well be the final public photo of the private Ronald Reagan before Nancy closed him off from the public due to his slow deterioration from Alzheimer’s.

Yakob has that photo proudly displayed in his tiny apartment. Little does he know that it is probably the last public picture of The Gipper.

That email from Rob was sent on June 20. He closed: “If you’d like any information about Yakob or his grandson, let me know.” To that, I replied, “Yes, thank you, go!” I gave him several follow-up questions, tasking the good man as a research assistant, a job he took up with enthusiasm.

Rob’s sleuthing generated key added details, including the exact date of the encounter. It was Aug. 23, 1997. He shared this in a follow-up email that I shall quote in full:

“Yes, you nailed the quote and the story perfectly! His daughter read out loud that section of your book, and he said ‘that’s exactly right, that’s what President Reagan said.’ Yakob and his 12-year-old grandson Rostik (Marina went instead to South Carolina) were visiting a friend in California and were just walking in the park when they spotted Reagan. Yakob told me that he felt he had to say something to him. Reagan had two Secret Service guys with him, but they let him approach Reagan. After he thanked Reagan, you eloquently stated his [Reagan’s] humble response in your book. Yakob and Rostik then walked away, but after a few minutes he thought he’d ask for a picture. The Secret Service guys told him they didn’t allow pictures, but Reagan overheard him and Said, ‘sure come on over, I’d love to take a picture.’ And this is the picture!

Rob learned that a few weeks later the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, did a story about their meeting, which was picked up by the AP wire and various newspapers. That was where I first learned about it.

Interestingly, the story almost got much larger exposure. Yakob and his grandson received a phone call from “Good Morning America” asking them to come to New York (all expenses paid). They were scheduled to do the show on Monday, Sept. 1, 1997, but they learned early that morning that their segment was canceled because Princess Diana had just died in a fatal car crash and the entire show would be devoted to that tragedy. They were thanked and told to enjoy New York. GMA never rescheduled the segment.

Rob Further Added of Yakob — He also talked about leaving Ukraine in 1992, and the trepidation they felt. He was 60 years old, starting over in a new country. This was not to be taken lightly. He spoke English, but his daughter (Marina), Marina’s husband at the time, and son Rostik did not speak much English. Marina is a successful nurse today, and Rostik is a doctor in Gainesville, Florida. In Ukraine they were not treated well as Jews, but also his wife’s doctor told her that they should leave Ukraine because of their proximity to Chernobyl. They only lived about 85 miles away in Kiev and the doctor felt there that would be long-term health consequences if they stayed. So somewhat reluctantly, they moved to Toledo where they had some friends. They were only allowed to take $200 (equivalent) each and some other stuff that fit in a duffle bag, which he still has. Luckily, he was an engineer and found work right away. Fast forward to today and they all love our country, and of course President Reagan, and are incredibly grateful that he ended the evil empire. They are incredibly grateful to be here. They still have friends in Ukraine that they worry about.

As for Rostik, Rob proceeded to later meet him in Toledo as well. He goes by “Ross.” When Rostik and his family and grandfather came to America in 1992, he spoke almost no English — in fact, the only words he knew were “I can’t speak English.”

Now, Rostik is living the American dream, just as Ronald Reagan would have hoped when he had sought to peacefully liberate the “Captive Peoples,” as Reagan referred to those languishing behind the Iron Curtain in the Evil Empire.

I thank them for their witness and story. And I thank Rob Loeb for wrapping it up for me in a splendid bow.

We Should All Just Appreciate What Is Good — In all, it is a nice, feel-good story, much like the Reagan movie that premieres nationwide in theaters this weekend. That movie is receiving nice reviews from nice people. I’m told that the New York Times and Washington Post both panned it. I’m not surprised. That’s why I don’t read either paper. I prefer to spare myself the agony.

What these modern liberals don’t understand is that there was once a time in America when everyone liked the president of the United States, including even the liberals who didn’t vote for him. To quote no less than CBS News anchor (and liberal) Walter Cronkite:

“Ronald Reagan is even more popular than [Franklin] Roosevelt, and I never thought I’d see anyone that well-liked . . . . Nobody hates Reagan. It’s amazing!”

That was why Reagan was reelected by winning 49 of 50 states, nearly 60 percent of the vote, and crushing the Electoral College by 525 to 13. There were literally millions of Democrats who voted for him. It was a moment of real unity. Our 2024 Reagan movie shows that rare unity in the 1980s and focuses on the epic achievement of Reagan’s life and presidency: His peaceful effort (his crusade) to undermine Soviet Communism, to win the Cold War. That was a truly grand event that no one could or should complain about.

If modern liberal reviewers of Reagan can’t celebrate that triumph, well, that’s sad. I suggest they put aside their partisanship and try to like what is good. What Ronald Reagan did was good. Individuals as different as Mikhail Gorbachev, Democrat House Speaker Tip O’Neill, and Pope John Paul II all agreed on that. And if liberals would like a modern witness or two, maybe they should talk to some folks like Yakob Ravin and his grandson.

They certainly appreciate Ronald Reagan. And one day in August 1997, they let him know.

*

Israel’s Finest Hour

Barry MacDonald — Editorial

Israel’s existence is a fact that only barbarous acts may alter.

Historical perspective is necessary to assess present circumstances, but humane statesmen should form their policies upon the assumption of Israel’s continued existence.

Two million Arabs, 21 percent of Israel’s population, live in Israel. Israeli Arabs have equality under the law and the right to vote. Arabs serve in the Knesset, and an Arab judge sits on Israel’s Supreme Court. The mixture of Arabs and Israelis makes for occasional frictions, with charges of discrimination against the majority. However, the overall peaceful coexistence of Israeli and Arab citizens argues mightily in favor of the decency of Israel. Internal civility endures despite the decades of warfare between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was a shock. The eruption of vile, unashamed, antisemitism in Western cities, starting on October 8, was disheartening.

Unspeakable atrocities committed on 1,200 innocent Israeli children, women, and men were laid before the world on October 8. Immediately afterward hatred for Jews was expressed by mobs in the major cities of America and Europe.

Violent protests bloomed — as if the Devil snapped his fingers, and an army of demons rioted.

Since October 8, Jewish students at elite universities, including Harvard and Columbia, have been hemmed about and threatened by violent mobs — while university administrators have fecklessly stood by. The ambivalence of university officials to the safety of Jewish students amid the hostility of faculty and the rage of mobs was stark. The rot of America’s “higher education” stands exposed.

The ancient hatred of Jews continues. I had believed that widespread antisemitism was impossible in America. Sadly, I was wrong.

If one wants to learn about the history and circumstances of Israel, about its relations with the Arab world, Jordan Peterson, Victor Davis Hanson, and David Murray are magnificent intellectuals to listen to. Peterson, Hanson, and Murray offer podcasts online. Recently, Jordan Peterson interviewed Naftali Bennett, Israel’s 13th prime minister.

Much like Europe and America, Israel in 2023 was paralyzed by polarized partisan politics. Israelis were at each other’s throats over issues of “woke,” identity politics. There were massive protests in the streets of Israel. Prime Minister Bennett described 2023 as a time of “mass distraction,” leading to a complacency for defense — leading to a successful surprise attack by Hamas.

Americans and Europeans should attend: Complacency toward belligerent nations and Islamist terrorists inspires contempt and aggression. If we don’t take the hostility of enemies seriously, we, too, will be surprised one day.

A silver lining came from the atrocities of October 7, said Naftali Bennett: A sudden end to internal discord and the emergence of unity.

Across the political spectrum in Israel, the question of Palestinian statehood is off the table for the foreseeable future. Because Palestinians overwhelmingly support Hamas, and because Hamas wants to exterminate all Israelis, a Palestinian state is impossible. Only a change of heart of the Palestinians will make a difference.

Bennett is immensely proud of Israeli youth. When news of the morning attack spread, young people rushed to the defense of brothers and sisters whom they had not met. They went with pistols, or bare hands, to oppose machine guns. Many died.

Bennett said:

“[American] kids need the right pronoun, otherwise they are triggered. Safe spaces, micro-aggressions — all this nonsense builds feeble people. Newsflash — the world out there is a tough world, and you need strong kids.

. . . .

“American G.I.s came back from Europe and they carried America for its best 50 years from 1945 to 2000 . . . .

“. . . this is the reason I am so optimistic about the next 50 years of Israel. This is our finest generation. . . . [We are] manufacturing super men and women who will carry us forward, who are embedded with values, work ethic, working as a team. . . with innovation, self-reliance, responsibility. They are going to be amazing.”

Election Results

Derek Suszko and I endured a couple of nervous hours on election night. It appeared, briefly, that the 2024 contest would be closer than it was. Our patience was rewarded. Eventually, we celebrated the unstoppable triumph of Donald J. Trump. Trump will be the 47th president of the United States!

Despite the mighty forces arrayed against him, Trump earned an undeniable victory. He gained an unusual cohort of stellar supporters, including Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy and Joe Rogan. He added impressive numbers of the working-class, black men, Latinos, and Jewish people to the ranks of Republicans voters.

Trump and J. D. Vance vanquished a decade of the corporate media’s vile, deranged, and relentless hatred. Trump also defeated the skullduggery of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and Homeland Security. America’s intelligence agencies successfully stymied Trump’s first administration with false charges of “collusion with Russia” in the 2016 election. They succeeded in rigging the 2020 election when 51 intelligence officials wrote a letter denying the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer. These hitherto unaccountable bureaucracies have connived from the shadows to undermine Trump for a decade.

For years Trumps supporters have endured the continuous contempt of “journalists,” Hollywood narcissists, intellectual snobs, and authoritarian prigs.

Law-abiding Americans have been called garbage, Nazis, fascists, misogynists, because we object to rampant inflation; feckless and weak foreign policy; drag queens in kindergartens; open borders; tens of thousands of annual deaths due to fentanyl poisonings; the illegal traffic of human beings into America perpetrated by Mexican drug cartels; gender “corrective” surgeries on adolescents; out-of-control crime on our city streets; the stealthy censorship of free speech by social media monopiles in cahoots with government bureaucracies; and an unprecedented misuse of the law to attack political opponents, etc.

The American people have acquitted president-elect Trump of the travesties of justice directed against him by Democrat judges and prosecutors.

Trump and Musk are bulwarks in the preservation of American free speech. They have exposed the totalitarian tendencies of Leftist Democrats.

A majority of the American people want a return to normalcy. It feels like morning in America again.    *

The mission of The St. Croix Review is to end the destruction of America by reestablishing the family as the center of American life, restoring economic prosperity to an independent middle class, and reviving a culture of tradition.

Weird

Barry MacDonald — Editorial

The Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, Tim Walz, aimed the word “weird” at Republican v. p. candidate J. D. Vance.

The word “weird” leaves a mark. It is a potent smear.

Democrats accuse opponents of being haters, racists, etcetera, etcetera. They exacerbate and demonize in the tradition of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Never apologize, always accuse — these are effective techniques.

Another technique is to lie.

Candidate Tim Walz talked about his family’s struggles with fertility. He said that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) allowed he and his wife to have children. He accused J. D. Vance and the Republican Party of the desire to limit IVF. “If it was up to him, (J. D. Vance) I wouldn’t have a family because of IVF,” Walz said in a campaign speech.

The question of how to treat the creation and disposal of frozen embryos is a thorny ethical question that reflects on the proper respect due to human life. Technology verges into the sacred. The care of embryos is worthy of debate. Different states will come to various conclusions, just as various states will come to different conclusions on the gamut of issues that arise with abortion.

Vance has said that he supports continued access to IVF, so Walz mischaracterizes Vance’s position.

Walz is quite crafty. He appears vulnerable and sincere on stage when he confides that IVF enabled him to be a father. He cries and elicits sympathy from his audience. He also points a dagger at Vance.

But the fact is that Walz repeatedly and deliberately lies. He and his wife didn’t use IVF to conceive children. They used intrauterine insemination (IUI), which is less controversial. Walz lies to gain political leverage. He uses his children as talking points.

What kind of parent reduces his children to talking points? One who is weirdly similar to President Biden.

Biden often claims that his son Beau died in war when he actually died of cancer. At solemn ceremonies that honored the deaths of soldiers who died in battle, President Biden falsely claimed that his son Beau died in battle. Biden horns in on the grief of Gold Star parents.

It is curious that denizens of the sinister Left employ a simple trick to confuse and deflect Americans from the truth: The sinister Left does exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing.

Their accusations are a blame shield that deflects attention away from their own horrible intentions and policies.

Democrats use lawfare against Donald Trump and his supporters, while they accuse Republicans of being threats to Democracy. Democrats categorize and stigmatize people by race and ethnicity, while they accuse Republicans of being racist. Democrats smear conservatives with charges of extremism, while they impose gender ideology on primary school students, while they imprison people for praying outside of abortion clinics, while they sic the FBI on parents who protest at school board meetings against gender ideology and critical race theory in the classroom.

A branch of Planned Parenthood opened in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood to deliver free abortions and vasectomies. These services were timed to coincide with the fanfare of Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

The American Left does all it can to devalue motherhood, fatherhood, and the family. That is just plain weird.     *

The mission of The St. Croix Review is to end the destruction of America by reestablishing the family as the center of American life, restoring economic prosperity to an independent middle class, and reviving a culture of tradition.

Doublethink

Barry MacDonald — Editorial

Hypocrisy is not an adequate description of what Leftists do. Leftists are not embarrassed by hypocrisy. Rather, they exult in double standards. Leftists are wholeheartedly false, as if they are captivated by the lies they tell.

Leftists animate the mobs and individuals who chant slogans, hate the Jews, camp out on campus, vandalize and deface monuments, riot, shoplift, loot, hijack cars, assault, maim, and murder. Protest mixes with criminality to advance an agenda. Hypnotized mobs do the dirty, mindless work of the movement.

Who are the brains of the Left? Who chooses targets, invents terminology, fabricates narratives? Who sets the macabre spectacle in motion? How may we characterize the Leftist mind?

George Orwell’s novel, 1984, is insightful on the propensities and techniques of Leftist thought. Many of Orwell’s observations apply today. In 1984, Orwell wrote that the organizers of the Left are “bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians.” Seventy years later, Orwell remains accurate.

Life in Orwell’s fictional Oceania is dreary and brutal. Everywhere the machinery in buildings is in disrepair. Elevators don’t work. Streets and public squares are drab and barren of artistic flair. Food and drink are bland and vile. Ugliness and poverty are ubiquitous.

In Oceania poverty is not a failure of the Party. Misery is a deliberate policy to enforce hierarchy. The “proles” (proletarians) and the outer party are kept in deplorable conditions, so that the humble should know that they are humble.

In Oceania, a stark polarity between the inner and outer party is drawn. The possible enemies of the state are hunted. The reach of surveillance achieved by the Party is omnipotent. Overt acts of successful rebellion against the Party are impossible.

In Oceania, law does not exist. Beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes are monitored. Subjects submit to demands for absolute obedience. The words and behavior that summon arrest are never explicitly stipulated. People are forced to guess what the Party expects, and to act in conformity without hesitation. Disloyalty is punished with death. People vanish. They are “Vaporized.”

No location is free from observation in Oceania. No casual interchange between people is beyond the grip of the Party. A slight motion of the body, or a brief expression of the face are dangerous. Subjects never know when the eye of the monitor is active. Even words muttered in sleep amid dreams are evaluated. Each hour is taut with anxiety.

No one is safe at home. Children are trained as “Junior Spies,” to assess the loyalty of parents. Spouses are encouraged to denounce their husbands or wives. Fitness instruction is transmitted into living rooms. Participation is mandatory and monitored. Laggards are chastised.

In Oceania, Big Brother is God. He is benevolent, compassionate, wise. He is the source of innovation, prosperity, and well-being. His face is omnipresent on posters and videos. His eyes appear to follow people everywhere to bore into souls.

For the subjects of Oceania, Emmanuel Goldstein is an object of hate. Goldstein is a heretic. In sessions of “Two Minutes Hate” Goldstein is shown on video. Goldstein speaks, and people howl with rage. Subjects hate on a schedule. The frustrations of their meager existence are culled and directed onto Goldstein. Misery is deflected away from the Party.

Big Brother and Goldstein are figureheads. Whether they are fabrications or not is irrelevant. No one knows where they are. They will never die.

In America our big cities declined dramatically in the last four years. People are assaulted on the streets by the criminals whom Leftist prosecutors refuse to jail. Homelessness is a blight in cities governed by Democrats. Millions of illegal immigrants are taking space and services away from Americans in shelters, schools, medical facilities, and hotels.

Leftist prosecutors are not blind to the havoc that results from no-bail policies. They intentionally favor criminals over lawful citizens. Leftist prosecutors, judges, intellectuals, city councilors, CEOs, major bankers, judges and lawyers, tech barons, and university professors are sequestered in comfortable neighborhoods separate from the privations of working-class Americans.

Goods and services are lavished by Leftists onto illegal migrants. Many of the migrants don’t speak English. They will not easily assimilate to American culture. Migrants are ill-suited to prosper in America’s high-tech job market. As long as they receive welfare benefits, illegal migrants lack the incentive to be self-reliant. Leftists pit migrants against the middle and working classes in a struggle for jobs, education, and healthcare. With the non-enforcement of immigration law, the Leftists destroyed the standard of the equal application of American law.

The American media functions as a continuous news loop of spectacle and outrage. The reportage of news, and the panels of pundits, shown by the corporate media, skew data and opinion into vicious race-based narratives.

The coarser aspects of Donald Trump’s personality are utilized. Trump is cast in the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. The news is an endless reel of Two Minutes Hate. Previously, George W. Bush, and even the blandest of Republicans, Mitt Romney, served as Goldstein figures.

In 1984 Goldstein wrote a counter-revolutionary tome. In the tome Goldstein reveals the Party’s technique of mind manipulation.

“Crimestop” is a device of Party self-discipline. Crimestop is a simple method. It is an acquired habit that even children may learn to suppress curiosity. Suspicions and doubts toward Party orthodoxy are stifled before they arise. An instinct is engendered to stop on the verge of dangerous opinions. Subjects are taught not to grasp analogies, not to perceive logical errors, not to understand simple contrary arguments. Loyal subjects learn to fashion a shield of stupidity. They learn “Goodthink.” They are bored or repelled by any idea that hints of heresy. Even intelligent people are capable of Crimestop.

At her confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown said she could not define what a woman is. She “is not a biologist” she said.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claims to be terrified that a newly-elected President Trump would put her in jail. Simpleminded projection is a signal of Crimestop and Blackwhite.

In the 2024 political season, it is the Democratic party that prosecutes its political opponents. Examples are the four separate prosecutions of Donald Trump, and the jailing of Trump aids: Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, and Allen Weisselberg (Trump’s accountant). An egregious case has emerged in Texas. The U.S. Department of Justice recently indicted surgeon Eithan Haim because Haim exposed the Texas Children’s Hospital for the performance of illegal “gender affirming” surgery on minor children. Haim faces ten years in prison if he is found guilty. Haim is a whistle-blower the Left does not love.

Oceania demands more than a cocoon of stupidity from its subjects. Adherence to orthodoxy must be absolute. A key word is “Blackwhite.” A lie is insolently substituted for the truth in contradiction to obvious fact. Toward an opponent impudence and arrogance are effective weapons. Blackwhite propaganda can batter, embitter, dispirit, and demoralize enemies.

Blackwhite is double edged. Flexibility with facts is required of subjects in Oceania. Objective standards cease to exist. Of his own initiative a subject distorts his perception. He is skillful at the art of self-hypnosis. He bends his mind like Houdini contortioned his body. The inner disciple of Blackwhite demands from a subject the conviction that the truth is whatever the Party says.

When circumstances change, subjects are required to change their minds. What was once white suddenly becomes black. Devotees recognize that black has now become white. With a twist they convince themselves that black has always been black, that black could never have been white, and that black will never again be white. “Doublethink” is a consummate skill. Doublethink is an ability to know the truth, but, to sincerely believe the Party lie.

The outer party members and proles of Oceania tolerate their misery because there are no reliable standards for historical comparison. Winston Smith is the sympathetic protagonist in 1984. He works in the Ministry of Truth. Smith modifies the daily news to conform to Party doctrine. Records and documents contrary to doctrine are put in the tube of the “Memory Hole” to be burned. Once the records are vaporized the only relic of the past that survives is in the memory of people. But Crimestop, Goodthink, Blackwhite, and Doublethink extinguish memory.

The revisionist history of Nikole Hanna-Jones, the 1619 Project, is an attempt to erase and replace authentic American history with racialist propaganda.

In 1984, Orwellian slogans reveal peculiar tricks of the mind:

• War Is Peace
• Freedom Is Slavery
• Ignorance Is Strength

In 1984, the Ministry of Truth manufactures lies. The Ministry of Peace propagates war. The Ministry of Love dispenses force without mercy or justice. The Ministry of Plenty imposes poverty. The Thought Police ceaselessly hunt for people whose opinions offend orthodoxy.

These current American slogans, assertions, and terms have an Orwellian twist:

• Trans Women Are Women
• Gender Affirming Care
• Men Get Pregnant
• Black Lives Matter
• Trump Is Hitler
• Republicans Are Fascist
• Israeli Genocide
• No One Is Above the Law
• Toxic Masculinity
• Diversity Equity Inclusion
• Diversity Is Our Strength
• Green Energy
• Pandemic of the Unvaccinated

I would like to believe that the bulk of unelected Democrats are good-hearted and loyal Americans who are befuddled my Leftist drivel. But a cadre of hardcore Leftists controls the Democratic Party. Leftists lust for power. They aim to crush their opposition.

Leftists accused Supreme Court Justice Brent Kavanagh of gang rape with no evidence. Leftists officials allowed the homes of conservative Supreme Court Justices to be harassed by mobs. A Leftist judge sentenced a 75-year-old grandmother, Paulette Harlow, to two years in prison for praying outside of an abortion clinic. The FBI investigated parents who protested against gender ideology at school board meetings. The FBI investigated Catholics for the practice of Catholicism.

American Leftists practice Goodthink, Crimestop, Blackwhite, and Doublethink.

We must be on guard against rapacious, narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic Leftists. Boiled down to its essence, the Leftist agenda amounts to a love of power and destruction. Leftist want to tear America down, and to watch America burn.

George Orwell, in 1984, paints a dark society: “. . . Imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

Thank God that Leftists don’t possess the dominance in America that they do in 1984. God is nowhere in the pages of 1984. As clever and vicious as Leftists are, they cannot extinguish God. Americans cherish and love truth, justice, self-reliance, and prosperity. America will be exceedingly difficult to conquer. Too many Americans genuinely love God.    *

Hendrickson’s View

Mark W. Hendrickson

Mark Hendrickson is an economist who recently retired from the faculty of Grove City College, where he remains a Fellow for Economic & Social Policy for the college’s The Institute for Faith and Freedom. These essays are republished from The Institute for Faith and Freedom, The American Spectator, and The Epoch Times.

“Climate: The Movie” — Review

Earlier this month, English writer, director, and producer Martin Durkin released “Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth).” Mr. Durkin’s 80-minute film presents what is known as the “skeptic” side of the climate change debate, as opposed to the “alarmist” camp. (Full disclosure: I have been firmly on the skeptic side for decades, having written multiple commentaries on the topic for The Epoch Times.)

One commendable feature of “Climate: The Movie” is how well organized it is. Mr. Durkin discusses various aspects of climate change one at a time, starting with the science of climate change, warm and cold periods in Earth’s history, the role of carbon dioxide and other factors (e.g., solar activity and cloud cover) in affecting temperatures, the political corruption of scientific research through the control of vast amounts of federal funding dispensed to various scientists, and the bullying that led to the establishment of a mythical “consensus” on climate change, and closing with sections titled “Climate versus Freedom” and “Climate versus the Poor.”

The value of his organization of the film into a series of related but distinct issues is immense.

Let’s say a viewer disagrees with the descriptions of temperature change as benign and nonthreatening or with the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO₂) is not the “knob” controlling the world’s temperatures. (Here I wish he had included more information about how beneficial the increased concentration of CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere has been — specifically, how much land has been greened and how much agricultural productivity has been enhanced by the CO₂ enrichment of the past century or so.)

Perhaps a viewer is skeptical about the movie’s argument that the temperature records cited by alarmists suffer from significant distortions. (Here I regret that Mr. Durkin failed to show the extent to which government agencies falsify — what they euphemistically call “adjust”—historical data or how a majority of U.S. thermometers may be skewed by being placed near heat sources).

Maybe a viewer isn’t ready to admit that the government has played such a massive role in commandeering scientific research that the so-called settled science is nothing but government propaganda. Even then, a viewer who is genuinely concerned about human well-being should be willing to ponder the movie’s points that the alarmists’ alleged remedy involves a massive loss of individual liberty and that they are advocating anti-human policies that would oppress the world’s poor and retard, if not thwart completely, their attempts to climb out of poverty.

The movie is well-paced. This is no easy accomplishment, since any discussion of the science of climate change inevitably involves the depiction of graphs and a series of talking heads to explain the significance of various data. At times — particularly when going deep into our planet’s history — the director resorts to using cheesy film clips from the 1950s or earlier. This actually helps counter any tendency toward monotony that can come from overexposure to talking heads.

Speaking of talking heads, the ones in this movie are noteworthy. They include a Nobel Prize winner in physics, a founder of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, and scientists and professors at the top of their professions, some of whom have served as science advisers to both Republican and Democratic presidents.

One thing a viewer may notice is that most of the talking heads are senior citizens. The reason for this seeming imbalance is explained in the narrative: Younger scientists seeking funding for their research and job security have to keep quiet about any doubts they have about the alarmist scenario or else they endanger their livelihoods and careers. The movie raises the crucial point: If scientists aren’t free to tell the truth, how can the rest of society remain free?

The concluding segments of “Climate: The Movie” focus on the most important dimension of the climate alarmist issue — that it is a pretext for an aggressive political agenda. As discredited as socialism has been by the wretched experience of countries unfortunate enough to have fallen under its sway, if you pull back the curtain from the alarmist scenario, what you find is a gaggle of elitists who still cling to the socialistic idea that a relatively small number of people can devise a better society and world by centralized, top-down planning. This is the cabal or cult that seeks to tell us what kind of cars to drive; what kind of water heaters, air conditioners, and stoves our rulers will permit us to use; and to force a transition to intermittent sources of power generation that could lead to catastrophic failures of our country’s electricity grid.

Millions of Americans should watch this movie. It sounds a timely warning about the political regimentation into which the climate alarmists in government wish to herd us. “Climate: The Movie” has the potential to cure younger viewers of the needless anxiety that millions of them reportedly feel after being subjected to alarmist propaganda in schools.

Prediction: You will hear alarmists trash this movie ferociously. Who can blame them? After all, we all know that the truth hurts.

The Destructive Corporation-Bashing of the Left

The left’s constant corporation-bashing manifests gross ignorance of a salient economic truth: Corporations are the major economic benefactors of our country.

One of my cousins has been bombarding me in recent months with a steady stream of corporation-bashing emails from various left-wing and Democratic organizations. The animus against corporations is vehement, to say the least. And that animus will be a feature of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, as was made clear in his State of the Union (SOTU) Address on March 7.

By the way, compliments to those who wrote President Biden’s SOTU speech. (Full disclosure: I didn’t watch it, so I am basing my comments on the transcript that I read.) Democratic spin doctors did yeoman work, using the SOTU to sweep President Biden’s policy failures under the rug and paint a beguiling picture of an imaginary Santa Claus government in which Team Biden will take care of our economic needs.

One major problem with President Biden’s saying he wants a future in which the “biggest corporations no longer get all the tax breaks” is that he himself has given corporations massive breaks. President Biden glibly ignored the massive subsidies that his administration has handed out to politically connected (i.e., crony) businesses carrying out the president’s so-called green agenda. As is so often the case with politicians, President Biden’s deeds don’t match his rhetoric.

Later in his address, the president trotted out that tired line about “making big corporations . . . finally [begin] to pay their fair share” of taxes. In progressive lingo, “fair share” is code for “more.” Actually, however, I agree with President Biden and the anti-corporation left that it seems unfair when a corporation (according to one of the emails my cousin sent to me) earns an annual profit of $7 billion and has a tax rate of minus 6 percent, and another corporation pays a 1.5 percent tax rate on earnings of $3 billion, while other businesses pay significantly higher rates. Such disparities are due to various deductions, credits, and so forth (i.e., “loopholes”) that Congress has written into the tax laws.

There is, however, an effective way to eliminate the unequal taxation of corporations. There is only one indisputably “fair” corporate tax rate (“fair” being defined as applying impartially the same to all): zero percent.

Yes, it would be better if we would abolish the corporate profits tax entirely. Not only does the corporate income tax introduce economic inefficiencies, impose enormous compliance costs, and induce an over-reliance on debt, but it also is the least efficient form of taxation. Some years back, a study by the decidedly pro-tax Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concluded that “corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes and then consumption taxes.”

Abolishing the corporate profits tax (along with all their related credits, exemptions, and so forth) would eliminate the present unfairness of corporations’ paying different rates and such absurdities as a negative tax rate for some corporations.

First, for those of you concerned that Uncle Sam will lose revenues to fund ever-bigger government, that loss could be offset in two ways: (1) by eliminating the massive subsidies that government bestows on favored businesses, and (2), by supply-side effects. Domestic businesses would be more able to expand, and more foreign corporations would set up operations here — both resulting in an employment boom that would result in increased government revenues from personal income taxes.

Second, for those of you thinking that the rich would get richer if corporate profits were not taxed, reams of economic research show that the lion’s share of the costs of the corporate profits tax falls on workers. (Read the Tax Foundation’s article “Labor Bears Much of the Cost of the Corporate Tax” if you are interested in investigating.) Two years after the adoption of the Trump tax reform that lowered the corporate profits tax, as even The Washington Post acknowledged, the U.S. workforce was enjoying the lowest overall unemployment in half a century, all-time highs in employment for black and Hispanic workers, and strongly rising wages.

Returning now from the economics to the ethics of tax reform, in addition to the dubious ethics of taxing corporations at different rates, there is a second major ethical problem inherent in taxing corporate profits. Corporations are not technically the owners, so much as the custodians, of the financial assets sitting in their accounts. Moreover, the corporation is a fictitious person, and one of the oldest truisms in public finance is that real human beings actually pay all taxes. Corporate salaries and bonuses, dividend and interest payments, and capital gains realized when stockholders sell shares at a profit represent real income to real people, and it is at that point that they should be taxed.

Just as unrealized capital gains shouldn’t be taxed, neither should unspent corporate profits. Both represent potential wealth to individuals, not actual present income. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to deploy the monies that remain in corporate accounts above their expenses for the benefit of the legal owners of the corporation. As is sadly habitual on the left, they have an insatiable appetite to get their hands on other people’s money, and they don’t want to wait until money becomes realized personal income before making a grab for it.

The left’s constant corporation-bashing manifests gross ignorance of a salient economic truth — namely that corporations, although not without faults (the most egregious of which are those businesses that form crony relationships with government), are the major economic benefactors of our country. They employ millions of Americans while producing goods or providing services that have given us a standard of living that greatly exceeds what our grandparents had.

There is something perverse, if not morally repugnant, about stirring up envy and resentment against the very enterprises that are responsible for American prosperity. But as long as voters remain economically ignorant, they will fall for the anti-business canards of the left. That is the political reality.

Lessons from History: Some Enlighten, Some Confuse

Let’s keep our minds fixed on two of the most important lessons of history: Peace is far better than war, and the present is far better than the past.

Possibly the most famous quote about history is the philosopher George Santayana’s pithy, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” There is much wisdom in that statement. Still, it also seems true, in some cases, that those who do remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Think of hereditary hostilities, the multi-generational conflicts, and centuries-long feuds. One of the most prominent and long-lived examples of this phenomenon is the perennial animosity between Jews and Muslims with its current iteration in Gaza. Here, blind hatred for or mistrust of “the other” — the permanent historical enemy — stretches back over a thousand years.

Millions of children have been raised to hate all those who belong to the other group. They are taught that those others are mortal foes, guilty of the alleged sin of having been born into (and in rarer cases, converted to) the religion of “the other.” They are taught that it is good and right to try to annihilate “the other” — that a noble goal in life is to kill people whom they have never met, people with whom they might share common goals in life, such as living in peace, worshiping God in the manner of their choosing, raising families, and leading a productive life. Why should such strangers be killed? Because history says so. History says that A’s grandfather killed B’s aunt and uncle, and earlier generations perpetrated similar deeds, so that’s the way it is supposed to be. That kind of history amounts to fatalistic resignation. The past is prologue; history is destiny.

Countering the grim mindset that holds violence and conflict to be inevitable, an observer can take heart in the example of Jewish and Muslim individuals in countries around the world who, even while hostilities are ongoing, are striving to break the long chain of hereditary hatred and historical habits. These are often noble individuals who have suffered personal losses from this ancient rivalry — brave people daring to defy groupthink and ask the vital question: Do we really want our children to live in the same toxic atmosphere of hatred and violence that has caused the tragic deaths of so many of our relatives, both recent and ancient?

There is another lesson that history offers to teach us — what I would call a “mega-lesson”: That peace is better than war for human well-being and societal flourishing. Look at it from an economic point of view: If one surveys the entire span of human history, there is one overriding economic mega-trend that stands out above all others: The expansion of the division of labor.

Early human families and clans learned that they could have more wealth (i.e., food, shelter, clothing) if each member of the society specialized in supplying what they were relatively skilled at providing. They then shared or traded their surplus with each other rather than trying to provide for all their needs by themselves. As humans gradually learned that a more extensive social division of labor raised their standard of living, clans formed tribes, tribes formed villages, villages developed into cities, etc. Along the way, enterprising individuals further expanded the division of labor by trading with strangers across town, across valleys and plains, across continents, and eventually across oceans.

The more people who are included in the social division of labor, the greater the resulting productivity and the higher the standard of living. The division of labor performs its wealth-creating wonders to the degree that peace and freedom prevail. War is a great crippler of the division of labor. War destroys wealth (various forms of property) and wealth-producers (i.e., human beings).

Ask the Germans and French today if they prefer living and trading in peace rather than trying to conquer or destroy each other like their predecessors did. Those peoples warred for generations. Eventually, though, they grew to understand that life would be far better for far more Germans and French through peaceful cooperation rather than war and destruction. How long will it take the combatants in the Middle East to arrive at this understanding? Who knows? Hopefully the wisdom of those now working for peaceful coexistence will someday lead to an end of heretofore-endless wars.

Shifting gears, there is another important mega-lesson that history can teach us if we are willing to learn it. This is particularly timely during Black History Month. I am thinking of the “1619 Project” — the effort to slant the history of the United States to see everything in racialist terms by asserting that the driving force for the settlement of North America by Europeans was to establish slavery. Here is a simple fact of history that is beyond dispute: The past was dreadful — and not just for Africans brought to the New World as slaves, as abominable as that was. If Americans of European descent were interested, willing, and able to go back in time and observe their ancestors, I’m sure that almost all of them would find abuses, injustices, and a long list of grievances, too.

The wretchedness of human history is no revelation or radical theory. The plain fact is that for most of human history, up until just a few centuries ago, human life was, in the memorable phraseology of Thomas Hobbes, “nasty, brutish and short.” The vast majority of the human population suffered from chronic poverty, precarious health, and various forms of injustice and oppression. The vile institution of slavery was practiced on every inhabited continent. You don’t have to dig hard at all to find historical examples of how awful human life was and how horribly some people treated their fellow human beings.

So, what is the lesson here? Simply this: Human life is enormously, incalculably better today than it was for most of human history. Let’s acknowledge the gigantic strides of progress that have been made. It is cruelly ironic that the more progress humans have made in rising above the grimness of our shared history, the more people tend to criticize us for not having achieved perfection.

The past was grim and harsh. The good news is, the past is past. Rather than dredge up ugly historical practices to make us miserable today, let’s be glad that we live today. Let’s be grateful that we are free to strive for additional progress. What a great opportunity we have! Let’s not squander that opportunity by dragging the sufferings of bygone generations into the present. That is an egregious abuse of history. Let’s keep our minds fixed on two of the most important lessons of history: peace is far better than war, and the present is far better than the past.

The Might and Majesty of the Risen Savior

At Eastertime, Christians rejoice and give praise for the resurrection of mankind’s Savior.

Words often fall short of communicating the full magnificence of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let me try by offering that he was the most complete package ever to grace this earth. He was the supreme example of both meekness and might — widely different qualities that often are mutually exclusive in a typical human being, but were a divinely natural and necessary combination in the Savior. Indeed, as both Son of God and Son of Man — as both divine and human united in one individuality — Christ Jesus was perfection incarnate, a majestic and unique wonder, the contemplation of which should inspire, awe, and humble us.

The meekness and humility of the Lord are unmistakable in word and deed. He declared, “I can of mine own self do nothing. . . . I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30) and when he was addressed as “Good Master,” he replied, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:17-18). In vivid and sublime demonstration of his meekness, he knelt and washed his disciples’ feet (John 13:1-15).

This humblest and most selfless of men was also a man of great courage, power, and dominion.

Jesus’ courage was manifest by the way he repeatedly defied the Pharisees who were looking for a pretext to destroy him, calling them “hypocrites” and “vipers” (Matt. 23) and boldly healing a withered hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 6:6-11). He showed magnificent courage by steadfastly insisting on going to Jerusalem, even though he knew that he would be betrayed and condemned to death (Matt. 20:18), going so far as to deliver a stinging rebuke to Peter — “Get thee behind me, Satan!” (Matt. 16:23) — when Peter spoke of protecting the Lord from meeting his destiny.

God’s anointed one repeatedly did things believed to be impossible. The spiritual power he demonstrated exceeds even the most marvelous accomplishments of modern technology. He overcame the laws of physiology, as when he restored sight to the man born blind (John 9:1-7, 32) or instantly healed ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). He trumped the laws of biology and medicine, when he raised Lazarus from the tomb four days after his death (John 11:1-44). He nullified the laws of physics and meteorology, walking on the water (Matt.14:22-33) and stilling the tempest (Mark 4:35-41). He overruled the laws of botany and agronomy, feeding multitudes on at least two occasions with a few loaves of bread and a few fish (Mark 6:30-44 and 8:1-9).

The Savior proved with irrevocable finality his everlasting dominion through the sequence of events that we commemorate during Holy Week. Throughout the awful drama of his betrayal, arrest, torture, condemnation and hideous execution, he proved that God always reigns supreme. When the men sent by the high priests and Pharisees came to Gethsemane, an invisible force knocked them backward onto the ground (John 18:6). His disciples should have taken that as a sign: God was in control, no matter how bleak the picture looked. And so it proved. Jesus permitted the crucifixion to take place. Basically, he challenged his enemies to take their best shot at trying to obliterate his life. They failed; it was beyond their power. On the following Sunday morning — that first Easter — the Savior proved his dominion over death and the tomb. He reappeared in resurrection glory, thereby comforting, strengthening, and redeeming humanity with the priceless promise and gift of eternal life.

What was the key to Jesus’ resurrection? Was it not revealed in his prayer in Gethsemane? There he subdued human will and submitted to the Divine Plan: “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). What a great lesson for us all: In meekness there is might.

Let us celebrate the might and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ, not just at Easter, but every day. Praise be to the risen Savior!

Happy Easter, everyone.     *

The mission of The St. Croix Review is to end the destruction of America by reestablishing the family as the center of American life, restoring economic prosperity to an independent middle class, and reviving a culture of tradition.

COVID-19 Deceit

Barry MacDonald — Editorial

Tragically, deceit is a common technique of government. American politics is poisoned by the purposeful saturation of news with blatant falsehoods. Politicians, bureaucrats, and news people deliberately lie to the American public. Politicos disguised as scientists, doctors, bureaucrats, pundits, and statesmen are active in the suppression of the truth.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) are heroes of courage and integrity. If we had an army of investigators of their quality, we could defeat the mendacity of the Left with alacrity.

Senator Paul wrote an essay on Fox News’ website on April 9, entitled “The Great COVID Cover-up: Shocking Truth about Wuhan and 15 Federal Agencies.” Paul shamed the federal agents who were deceitful and complicit in the worldwide calamity of COVID-19. His investigation found that U.S. government officials from 15 federal agencies were aware in 2018 that the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology intended to create a coronavirus similar to COVID-19.

According to Paul, not one person from these agencies made this dangerous Chinese research public before the pandemic. After the emergence of COVID-19, these agencies kept their silence, and they refuse to divulge information on their knowledge, or participation, in the research.

British zoologist Peter Daszak briefed 15 U.S. agencies in 2018. The name of the Wuhan proposed research project was DEFUSE. Daszak briefed the U.S. agencies to obtain U.S. federal funding — taxpayer money — for the Chinese project. Paul writes that the purpose of the Wuhan project was:

“. . . to insert a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus to create a novel chimeric virus that would have been shockingly similar to the COVID-19 virus.”

Daszak is president of the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance is a non-governmental organization with the stated mission of protecting people, animals, and the environment from emerging infectious diseases.

A “chimeric virus” contains genetic material derived from two or more distinct viruses. The proposed DEFUSE project was to activate a genetic modification, or, in scientific terms, “insert a furin cleavage site” to make a new virus. The DEFUSE project, pitched to 15 federal agencies to be done in the Wuhan lab, is termed “gain-of-function” research.

Senator Paul cites a disclosure from U.S. Marine Corps Major Joseph Murphy as a source of his investigation. Murphy’s disclosure was obtained by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas in August 2021.

Senator Johnson also cites Murphy’s disclosure. Johnson is the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in the U.S. Senate.

Johnson writes on his official website that Murphy’s disclosure was sent to the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and that office referred it to DoD’s Office of Research and Engineering for investigation.

In January 2022, Senator Johnson sent a letter to DoD Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu, demanding information on Major Murphy’s disclosure.

Johnson wrote:

“According to the Major’s disclosure, EcoHealth Alliance (EcoHealth), in conjunction with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), submitted a proposal in March 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) regarding SARS-CoVs. The proposal included a program, called DEFUSE, that sought to use a novel chimeric SARS-CoV spike protein to inoculate bats against SARS-CoVs. Although DARPA rejected the proposal, the disclosure alleges that EcoHealth ultimately carried out the DEFUSE proposal until April 2020 through the National Institutes of Health and National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The disclosure highlights several potential treatments, such as ivermectin, and specifically alleges that the EcoHealth DEFUSE proposal identified chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloriquine) and interferon as SARS-CoV inhibitors.”

Apparently, information on the DEFUSE proposal is classified, and cannot be released to the public.

Senator Paul writes that the evidence suggests that COVID-19 was a laboratory-enhanced virus purposefully adapted for human transmission. The virus was created to be transmissible between humans. The virus spread globally from China. It killed more than 3.4 million people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.

On the Fox News website Senator Paul writes:

“I have been fighting to obtain records from dozens of federal agencies relating to the origins of COVID-19 and the DEFUSE project. Under duress, the administration finally released documents that show that the DEFUSE project was pitched to at least 15 agencies in January 2018.”

“. . . Disturbingly, not one of these 15 agencies spoke up to warn us that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been pitching this research. Not one of these agencies warned anyone that this Chinese lab had already put together plans to create such a virus.”

Not only was Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) briefed on the Wuhan project, NIAID was listed as a “participant” in the DEFUSE pitch. According to Paul, “Fauci’s Rocky Mountain Lab was named as a partner alongside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the proposal.”

Ralph Baric was a named collaborator of the DEFUSE project, according to Paul. He did not reveal the proposed research at the Wuhan lab. Baric is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Epidemiology, and professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Baric spent 40 years studying coronaviruses, according to Time Magazine.

Ian Lipkin did not reveal the 2018 DEFUSE proposal. Lipkin was part of the original plan to create a coronavirus, according to Paul. Paul reveals that Lipkin’s lab received millions of dollars from EcoHealth. Lipkin is the John Snow Professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University. He is a professor of Neurology, Pathology, and Cell Biology. He is the Director of the Center for Infection and Immunity. He was one of the authors of “Proximal Origins,” a paper commissioned to discourage the idea that the virus might have come from a lab.

Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Fauci, director of NIAID, commissioned Ian Lipkin to write “Proximal Origins.”

Murphy’s disclosure asserts that both NIH and NIAID did “carry out” the DEFUSE proposal. Murphy’s disclosure implies that these agencies helped to finance the project.

According to Senator Paul, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric, Ian Lipkin, Francis Collins, and scientists at the NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Lab all knew of the Chinese lab’s desire to create a coronavirus that was adapted for human transmission. None of them spoke up. Paul said:

“Likely, hundreds of people in the government knew of this proposal to create a COVID-19-like virus and virtually every one of these people chose to keep quiet, to obscure, and ultimately to conceal information that might have saved lives by letting the world know this was no sleepy animal virus with poor transmission.”

Without the efforts of Senators Paul and Johnson, and without Major Murphy’s disclosure, Daszak’s Wuhan proposal might never have been exposed.

It appears that the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China succeeded. They made the virus.

Questions arise about the conduct of our elite bureaucrats:

• Why is a virus purposefully manufactured to infect humans? If gain-of-function research is designed to create a dangerous virus in order to develop a vaccine — well, this idea backfired.
• Do U.S. government scientists continue to do gain-of-function research on dangerous viruses?
• Why did U.S. government scientists work hand-in-glove with Chinese Communist totalitarians?
• Do U.S. scientists do research on dangerous viruses with the Communist Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, or the North Koreans?
• If U.S. government scientists are in partnership with a hostile nation, would they inform Congress?
• If questioned by Congress about their odd association with hostile nations, would U.S. government scientists tell the truth?
• Do our elite U.S. government scientists serve the American people, or, a secret agenda?

A question about COVID-19 must be asked, because the question is of weighty historical significance: Was the release of the Wuhan virus — by the Chinese — accidental or purposeful?

Rand Paul and Ron Johnson have shown that the prestigious scientists and medical doctors who lead our government response to pandemic viruses cannot be trusted.

Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric, Ian Lipkin, and Francis Collins are Dr. Frankensteins. COVID is their monster.   *