Editor & Publisher of the St. Croix Review.
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 following is a summary of the August issue of The St. Croix Review.
Barry MacDonald in “Weird,” reveals a simple, effective technique Democrats use to deceive Americans.
Mark Hendrickson, in “The Secret Democratic Cabal’s Openly Anti-American Agenda — the Democratic Cabal Is the True Threat to Democracy” reminds us of the purpose of the Constitution — to protect the people from the tyranny of government; in “Joe Biden and the Democratic Party Are Amoral — Don’t Expect Anything Better from His Successor,” he takes an extended look at Biden’s history, and characterizes the Democratic party; in “‘Far-right’ and ‘Right-wing’ in the So-called ‘Mainstream Media,’” he castigates the lazy and pernicious habit of the mainstream media to cast any person right of center as “extremist”; in “Some Good News on the Climate Change Front,” he comments on a Wall Street Journal report that shows that more government and private money is now dedicated to flooding, extreme heat, and infrastructure rather than astronomically expensive schemes that are without tangible benefit; in “The Green Version of Socialism: What Is Familiar and What Is Different,” he shows that the Biden administration’s energy policies are self-righteously arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent, and that they put a far greater burden on the poor than on the wealthy; in “The Halfway Point of Another Eventful Sports Year,” he provides a summary of American and world sporting events, in both team and individual sports.
Paul Kengor, in “The American Righteous Cause — Then and Now,” compares present-day America’s neglect of liberty and faith with the Founding Fathers, who uplifted both God and liberty.
Allan C. Brownfeld in “Identity Politics Threatens the Achievement of a Genuinely Color-Blind Society,” shares the good news that university administrators and state legislatures are ending racial, DEI imperatives in 22 states — and DEI protocols are being challenged nationwide in 59 court cases; in “Preparing for America’s 250th Anniversary as Our Democracy Seems in Trouble,” while pointing out that America is the only country in the world with a continuous democracy of nearly 250 years, he cites significant forces that undermine American liberty.
James Thrasher, in “Gen Z — What’s a Paper Route?” describes the work ethic of today’s youth with that of the past.
Derek Suszko in “Forging a Christian Politics” uses passages from the Gospel to argue for a model Christian ruler or political figure who “stewards” the state by understanding the nature of the people and the substance of his God-given task.
Steven A. Samson, in “The Rise of the Administrative State,” provides an historical look at the corrupting process by which bureaucracy becomes a “Provider State” that crushes individual freedom.
Francis P. DeStefano, in “Burt Lancaster’s Screen Persona,” reviews two of the distinguished actor’s films: “The Killers,” and “Criss Cross”; in “The Way,” he reviews a 2010 film about a pilgrimage starring Martin Sheen and directed and produced by his real-life son, Emilio Estevez, who also appears in the movie.
Jigs Gardner, in “Versed in Country Things — the Test of Winter, Part II,” explores the difficulty of securing an adequate supply of water in frozen surroundings, the dwindling quantity and quality of food over winter months, and the multitude of subtleties involved in the production of maple syrup.
Jigs Gardner, in “Writers for Conservatives: 12 — Frederick Manning,” introduces a novelist who wrote an inspired and profound novel about the infantry in the trenches of World War I.
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:
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:
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. *
The following is a summary of the June 2024 issue of The St. Croix Review.
Barry MacDonald, in “Doublethink” compares the peculiar insanity of American Leftists with the Big Brother tyrants in George Orwell’s 1984.
Paul Kengor, in “You Can Never Have Enough — Kids,” makes the case for having children (our happiness depends on it!); in “Pearl Harbor and the Vanishing WWII Vet,” he laments the passing of more than American soldiers. He mourns the loss of a vanished world in which patriotism was a central feature. In “The Faith of the RFKs” he examines the faith of both Robert F. Kennedy, Junior and Senior, and finds a family steeped in Catholicism.
Mark Hendrickson, in “Climate Change Socialism on the Attack” he exposes the Marxist revolution hidden inside “Green Energy” rhetoric; in “In Memoriam: Willie Mays, 1931-2024,” he pays tribute to an extraordinary baseball player, and a noble human being; in “Memorial Day 2024: Contemplations on the Past and Future,” he considers the sacrifices of American soldiers on the battlefields of Europe, the reasons for their sacrifices, and the price of continued liberty; in “Harvard’s Bigger Problem Is Our Society’s Bigger Problem,” he writes that “cheating, plagiarism (a form of theft), fake science, data fudging, and fabricating are endemic and far-reaching” in American academia, U.S. bureaucracies, medical research, and scientific institutions; in “The Ultimate Absurdity of ‘1.5 Degrees C’ and ‘Net Zero’” he debunks two of the climate alarmists’ most prominent talking points.
Allan C. Brownfeld, in “An All-Powerful Executive: Exactly What the Founding Fathers Feared,” writes that the presidency and executive powers have grown over time because, he notes, Americans have become forgetful of their liberties.
Norman D. Howard, “Stealing American Sovereignty,” traces American liberty back to pivots of English history, and he comments on the Biden Administration’s numerous violations of constitutional liberty.
Steven Alan Samson, in “Prevarication,” draws upon a wide spectrum of historical and philosophical wisdom to make sense of Leftist attacks on American liberty and prosperity.
Derek Suszko, in “The Fall of the Roman Republic: A Narrative and Analytical Comparison with the Contemporary Conditions of the United States of America — (Part 8 of a Series),” examines in detail the dynamics of power that brought the Roman republic to an end.
Francis P. DeStefano, in “Alfred Hitchcock Presents,” reviews six of the famous British director’s films; in “More Film Noir,” he reviews seven classics.
Jigs Gardner, in “Letters from a Conservative Farmer: Versed in Country Things — the Test of Winter,” writes about the subtleties of managing animals, including the slaughter of pigs; and he shares his recognition that he grew to be dramatically different from his former academic colleagues.
Jigs Gardner, in “Writers for Conservatives: 11 — Arnold Bennett,” reviews the work of the English novelist of the early 20th century.
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:
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. *
The following is the April 2024 Summary of “The St. Croix Review”:
Barry MacDonald, in “COVID-19 Deceit,” shares investigations by Senators Rand Paul and Ron Johnson that suggest that U.S. taxpayer money helped to finance the Chinese manufacture of COVID-19.
Allan C. Brownfeld, in “The Decline of Newspapers: A Threat to Democracy,” details a drastic drop in the numbers of American journalists and newspapers within the last twenty years; in “Can We Return to the Goal of a Genuinely ColorBlind Society?” he laments the standard of “disparate impact” on race relations that moves America far from a colorblind society; in “The Decline of Civility Threatens American Democracy,” he recalls a time decades ago when Republicans and Democrats did not view each other as enemies; in “Remembering Those in Colonial America Who Wanted to Eliminate Slavery,” he writes that at the time of the American Revolution, slavery was practiced worldwide. Americans were at the forefront of 18th century statesmen who wanted to end slavery. In “Middle East Should Remember Its History of Muslim-Jewish Understanding,” he looks back on a more harmonious relationship between Jews and Muslims.
Paul G. Kengor, in “The Tumultuous Life and Conversion of Eldridge Cleaver,” tells the saga of a violent, criminal, Marxist leader of the Blank Panther movement who became a supporter of Ronald Reagan and a conservative Republican; in “Two Years In, I’m Not Optimistic About Putin’s War on Ukraine,” he sketches the history and character of the leader of Russia. He is not optimistic about Putin’s contempt for human life, his repeated references to the use of nuclear weapons, and his vitriolic rhetoric toward Poland; in “‘ISIS-K’ Terror in Russia — a Savage ISIS Attack and Putin’s Troubling Response,” he writes that Putin is using one of the worst Islamic terrorist attacks on Russia as a pretext for savagery in Ukraine.
Mark Hendrickson, in “‘Climate: The Movie’ — Review,” writes, 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”; in “The Destructive Corporation-Bashing of the Left,” he writes, “. . . the left’s constant corporation-bashing manifests gross ignorance of a salient economic truth: Corporations are the major economic benefactors of our country”; in “Lessons from History: Some Enlighten, Some Confuse,” he writes, “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”; in “The Might and Majesty of the Risen Savior,” he celebrates Christ and Easter.
Corey Kendig, in “Remembering Jackie Robinson,” reveals that the great ballplayer who broke the color barrier in MLB was a Christian, a patriot, a Republican, and an anti-Communist.
Timothy S. Goeglein, in “Gen Z Is Trapped in a Virtual Cage,” writes about the damage that Big Tech and social media impose upon American children. He favors Congressional regulation.
Robert DeStefano, in “Thinking of Heaven,” asks what awaits children who died early.
Francis DeStefano, in “Enchanted April,” reviews a British film about four forlorn English women who set out to spend the month of April in a small castle on the Ligurian coast in Italy; in “Two Battle Films,” he reviews Peter Watkin’s docudrama “Battle of Culloden,” and John Huston’s “The Red Badge of Courage” — Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of World War II, stars.
Jigs Gardner in “Letters from a Conservative Farmer: Versed in Country Things, Part 3 — Disturbing Revelations,” discovers that he and his wife are hardly prepared for the hardship and poverty of life in the country during the winter on their own.
Jigs Gardner in “Writers for Conservatives: 10 — On the Frontier,” writes about Francis Parkman’s The Oregon Trail, and Deep-river Jim’s Wilderness Trail Book, published by the Open Road Pioneers’ Club. Jigs read these books when he was 13 years old — they changed his life!
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.
Parents and Children Are Cannon Fodder in America
Barry MacDonald — Editorial
It is a common experience nowadays to talk to an acquaintance for minutes, thus to discover chasms in knowledge and understanding. How people who live in the same country can come to such divergent views is a shock. We are not divided on peripheral issues but over basic values of decency and propriety. Parenthood is devalued in America today in favor of woke policies.
On the way to our cars upon leaving church I talked to a fellow I know and respect. He is genial and accomplished. He is a surgeon. His family has “strong Democratic roots” he told me. He was surprised that I admire Ron Desantis. He thinks Governor Desantis is an “extremist.” He doesn’t understand why Desantis fought against the Disney Corporation. I replied it wasn’t good for kindergartners to be exposed to story hours with drag queens. He agreed with me, but, I recognized a divide between he and I. The use of the word “extremist” is a clue that points toward an adamant attitude. The best I could do was to make my point and move on. His views were set in concrete.
There was the Parental Rights in Education bill successfully passed by the Florida legislature, and signed by Governor Desantis two years ago. The bill prohibits gender ideology in Florida schools from kindergarten to the third grade. To have protected all of the grade school children would have been better, but apparently the pressure from the educational bureaucracy was too formidable to overcome.
The Parent’s Right bill prevents instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity. It requires Florida school districts to notify parents if there is a change in policy. The bill prioritizes the mental, emotional, and physical health, and the well-being of children. The bill establishes a respectful partnership with parents. Parents are honored in Florida.
The 2022 law was dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by activists and media. It was slammed by leaders of global corporations, including Disney. NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” attacked it. ABC’s talk show “The View” smeared it. The editorial boards of major newspapers wrote of its “disturbing” quality. Across America news reporters labeled the bill “controversial.” President Biden rebuked it. The bill was subjected to sustained and pervasive mischaracterization.
Is the sage and worthy Joy Behar of “The View” informed, or even interested, in the facts of the Florida law? The word “gay” appears nowhere in the bill.
It is astounding that so much cultural firepower is directed against the well-being of children and parents. Prepubescent children should not be experiments in woke politics. Yet progressive elites have made gender fluidity a national priority in education, beginning from kindergarten.
The continuous slant of media commentary on the Florida Parental Rights bill was a national brainwashing of public opinion.
I refrained from an argument with my surgeon friend in a parking lot. The polarization and animosity of dividing views is a predicament, a burden, and a danger.
Informed and civilized discussion on politics is an essential but difficult art in America. One wonders how to bridge the gaps between us. What national events will follow if we cannot? *
The following is the February 2024 summary of the St. Croix Review:
Barry MacDonald, in “Parents and Children Are Cannon Fodder in America,” writes of the difficulties of politics in America nowadays.
Allan Brownfeld, in “There Is Growing Danger That, Without Any Action by Congress, the U.S. May Be Drifting into a Major War in the Middle East,” recalls that the last declaration of war by Congress was on Dec. 8th, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor; in “We Are Approaching the 250th Anniversary of the Constitution, Which Is Increasingly Being Bypassed,” he writes that freedom is rare and precious in the history of the world, and that American freedom is breaking down; in “Examining the History of America’s Approach to Race and Diversity,” he details the enormous progress America has made in race equality since its founding.
Paul G. Kengor, in “The MLK They Ignore,” reminds of us of Martin Luther King’s adherence to natural law, freedom of conscience, and just laws; in “Russian Dissident Alexei Navalny Dies in Brutal Arctic Gulag,” he puts Navalny’s death in the context of historical Russian brutality; in “The Last Hero of the Cold War . . . Lech Walesa Survives,” he tells the story of a Soviet-era attempted assassination of the brave leader of the Polish Solidarity movement while he was in Rome.
Gary Scott Smith, in “What Did Cause the Civil War?” considers many factors that divided America more than 160 years ago, and he concludes, despite comprehensively better historical knowledge, there are no simple explanations.
John A. Sparks in “Time to Throw Chevron Overboard: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,” writes about a case before the Supreme Court that could overrule the “Chevron deference” precedent, a precedent that has allowed the federal bureaucracy for four decades to balloon the number of regulations without Congressional restraint. The overthrow of “Chevron deference” would be an historic turn away from out-of-control federal regulation, and a renewal of American freedom.
Timothy S. Goeglein, in “Teaching Identity While Losing Our History,” makes the case that American history is being taught with a view that pits American groups against each other, which destroys rather than uplifts our heritage.
David L. Cawthon, in “Hegel on Leadership: The Unfolding of the Absolute,” examines ideals; freedom; the Geist (spirit of the age); thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and thus the dialectic.
Derek Suszko, in “Christ and Nietzsche: Toward Reconciliation,” examines the weaknesses and strengths of the philosopher and modern American Christianity.
Robert DeStefano, in “Rock Ledge,” offers a meditation on family and nature.
Francis DeStefano, in the “The Many Faces of Edward G. Robinson,” reveals the surprising versatility of an actor who was small and stocky, who was never nominated for an academy award, and yet who nevertheless became a star during Hollywood’s Golden Age; in “Early Musicals,” he reviews movie musicals that feature spectacular dancing.
Jigs Gardner, in “Letters from a Conservative Farmer: The Simple Life, Continued,” reveals the dawning recognition on himself and on his wife, Jo Ann, of the severe challenges that confronted them in being self-reliant in the country. The trials involved cutting and hauling wood, managing animals, and feeding themselves and their children.
Jigs Gardner, in “Writers for Conservatives: 9 — Realism and Reality,” characterizes leftist literary style as sour, nasty, negative — he points the way toward a conservative literary renaissance.
The following is the December 23/January 2024 summary of the St. Croix Review:
Angus MacDonald, in “An Old-fashioned Christmas,” depicts a Christmas celebration as it used to be, in the country with “proximity to the soil.”
Philip Vander Elst, in “The Lie About Israel Threatens the Free World,” writes that the Israeli/Palestinian war should be viewed as “a refusal of most of the Arab/Islamic world to accept the very idea of Jewish Statehood — a refusal rooted in Muslim religious anti-Semitism.” He cites little-known facts, and makes a compelling case.
Allan Brownfeld, in “Why Are We Not Keeping Violent Criminals Off the Street?” cites lenient progressive policies that endanger public safety in major American cities, and he reports on a growing awareness among mayors and prosecuting attorneys that a return to vigorous prosecution and incarceration is needed; in “U.S. Must Avoid Involvement in Middle East War,” he questions why 900 U.S. troops are stationed in Syria, and calls for a public explanation for their presence; in “Not Transmitting Our History Threatens the Future of the World’s Oldest Democracy,” he quotes historians and scholars who point to the importance of our heritage: No people of the world live under the same form of governance as they did 250 years ago — except the United States.
Paul Kengor, in “It’s a Wonderful Film — Yes, the Best Ever,” makes the case that Frank Capra’s movie is the best — in spite of the contempt of the elite American critics of the time; in “Sandra Day O’Connor: The Story Behind Her Appointment and Decisive Abortion Vote,” he provides inside information on both Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy.
Mark Hendrickson, in “The Existential Crisis of the Big Three Automakers,” writes that the federal government is forcing American automakers to manufacture electric vehicles that American consumers do not want, and he predicts socialist misery, unless voters change course; in “The Supreme Court’s Principled Position on Carbon Dioxide Policy,” he writes about the Court’s reluctance to rule on matters that should rightfully be decided by Congress, and he comments on the multiple harmful effects of the government’s classification of CO2 as a pollutant.
Timothy S. Goeglein, in “Better Parents Equals Healthier Teens,” shows that married parents who have a good relationship with their spouses and their children are the best predictors of healthy teenagers.
Derek Suszko, in The Fall of the Roman Republic: A Narrative and Analytical Comparison with the Contemporary Conditions of the United States of America (Part 7 of a Series),” discusses, among other issues, the escalatory effects caused by the exercise of arbitrary power, and the difficulty an insurgent faction has in overcoming the dominate narrative of the elite minority faction.
Tyler Scott, in “Everlasting Music,” describes the magical combination of Christian missionary work with music — which is a practice at her church.
Francis DeStefano, in “Tokyo Stories,” reviews four charming Japanese films from the post-World War II period; in “More Film Noir Favorites,” he reviews 10 films.
Jigs Gardner, in “Country Things — Invitation to the Simple Life,” begins his series on his, and his family’s, venture into farming in Vermont.
Jigs Gardner, in “Writers for Conservatives: 9 — Realism and Reality,” characterizes leftist literary style as sour, nasty, negative — he points the way toward a conservative literary renaissance.