Last week, election night was a roaring success for the GOP as the party grabbed the presidency and a majority in the Senate. When the rest of the votes are in, they’ll probably keep control of the House as well. It was harder to tell how the pro-life movement did. Three states that voted for Kamala Harris also voted to amend their constitutions to protect abortion, as you might expect. Two states that voted for Donald Trump rejected measures to expand abortion. One state that voted for Trump—Nebraska—voted to keep the current 12-week ban and not to legalize through viability. And four states that voted for Trump—Arizona, Missouri, Montana, and Nevada—also chose to expand or maintain access to abortion, though Nevada needs another vote in 2026 before it takes effect. Missouri had the smallest passing margin of the night—51.6 percent to 48.4 percent—and was the toughest pro-life loss, erasing all restrictions the state had put in place during the Roe years. Those disappointing losses suggest a further decoupling of pro-life issues from Republican values. This summer, the GOP rewrote its platform. For the first time in 40 years, it didn’t affirm that “the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.” Instead, Republicans wrote that “states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those Rights.” “That’s the platform that just won,” said Care Net CEO Roland Warren. “Here’s the problem: it’s going to be incredibly difficult to get Republicans to go back to the old position.” Other pro-life organizations, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Americans United for Life (AUL), endorsed the platform. In a statement, AUL said it “worked closely with the [Republican National Committee] on developing platform language that preserves reference to the Fourteenth Amendment while updating the language to our post-Roe world.” Overall, pro-life leaders seem cautiously optimistic about the election results. The state victories were the first legislative wins since Dobbs overturned Roe in 2022. Not only that, but Harris’s loss “is a clear rejection of the extreme abortion agenda that she made the centerpiece of her campaign,” stated March for Life president Jeanne Mancini. Running on Abortion Before the Dobbs decision overturned the national right to an abortion, the Democrat and Republican parties each spent between 2 and 3 percent of their ad campaigns on addressing abortion. After Dobbs, the Republican spending allocation didn’t change much. But the Democrat spending on abortion ads skyrocketed—in both 2022 and the first half of 2024, they spent between 28 and 38 percent of their national budget on abortion ads. In some states (Michigan and Arizona) more than half of Democratic ads were about abortion. In Georgia, it was more than 90 percent. “Kamala Harris made abortion her No. 1 issue, the focus of the [Democratic National Committe], to the point where they were doing abortions in buses outside the DNC convention—and she lost,” said 40 Days for Life CEO Shawn Carney. In fact, Harris won a smaller margin of female votes than Joe Biden in 2020 or Hillary Clinton in 2016. “That should give confidence to people worried about abortion—you can be pro-life and win,” Carney said. “Look at [pro-life Florida governor] DeSantis. He won big in 2022, five months after Dobbs. He owned and defended the Heartbeat Bill [which prohibits abortions in Florida after a heartbeat is detected], and he just won big with Amendment 4 [where voters rejected a pro-abortion constitutional amendment].” DeSantis campaigned energetically against Amendment 4 and was firm in his stance even when Trump, a Florida resident, wavered in his support for it and wouldn’t say how he voted on it. With a clear message and strong leadership, DeSantis is proving it’s possible to be a pro-life politician after Dobbs, Carney said. He certainly is—in Florida, pro-life advocates spent $12 million to oppose the amendment. Pro-abortion advocates spent $118 million. But DeSantis is an outlier. This year, most Republicans didn’t work as hard on their abortion messaging as the Democrats did. Money and Messaging In nearly every other state, the side that spent the most money to support or oppose a ballot initiative won. In South Dakota, pro-life supporters outspent pro-abortion supporters, and their side won. In New York, Nevada, Montana, Missouri, Maryland, Colorado, and Arizona, pro-abortion proponents spent, on average, more than 23 times the amount of pro-life advocates. In each case, the pro-abortion vote won. A lot of the ads were untrue, said Erik Baptist, director of the Center for Life with Alliance Defending Freedom. “Every state allows doctors to treat women experiencing life-threatening pregnancy complications, including miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. Any statement to the contrary is flatly false. . . . The pro-life movement must respond to these lies and educate the public on how pro-life laws protect both women’s health and unborn life.” “It’s a messaging problem,” Carney said. It’s a little more than that. After Roe, pro-life Republicans have struggled to find the next clear goal to unite around. The backlash to Dobbs makes things even more slippery. Some, including Missouri senator Josh Hawley and former Nevada senator Sam Brown, affirmed their personal pro-life convictions but said they’d vote against a national abortion ban. The American people also seem to be unclear on their position. Nearly a third of adults say they believe embryos are people with rights and that the decision to abort belongs solely to the pregnant woman. Carney sees an opportunity here. As the message of the left becomes more extreme, such as opposing all restrictions and including gender transition in its fight for “bodily autonomy,” it creates more room for a reasonable pro-life voice. “Over the last 20 years, the pro-life side has become the pro-science side, the common-sense side, the compassionate side,” Carney said. At least some people are willing to hear it. The pro-life victories in Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska were important. In 2022 and 2023—the two elections after Dobbs—the pro-abortion vote had dominated all seven state ballot initiatives. “This election stopped the bleeding,” Carney said. “We finally had some victories. And the further we get from Dobbs, the easier this will get, because people are realizing the world didn’t end when Roe was overturned. Every day that passes, not having a universal right to abortion becomes more normal.” A Republican president won’t hurt either. Trump Trump isn’t exactly a pro-life president. But he’s not exactly pro-abortion either. On the campaign trail, he and JD Vance have said Trump would veto a national abortion ban, that he wouldn’t, and then that he would. Their stance on defunding Planned Parenthood has been confusing. And Trump has indicated he’s open to curbing access to the abortion pills—or not. But pro-life leaders point out that he was the president who set up the overturn of Roe. And his administration won’t harass the pro-life movement. “We had a big problem with the Department of Justice under Biden,” Carney said. In July, a federal court sentenced a 33-year-old mom to three and a half years in prison for protesting outside a New York abortion clinic. In September 2022, two dozen FBI agents arrested Mark Houck, the president of a Catholic ministry and a 40 Days volunteer, and charged him with two felonies for pushing a foul-mouthed abortion escort away from Houck’s young son. In March 2021, the Justice Department charged six pro-life protesters who were singing and praying in a hallway leading to an abortion clinic; one was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Meanwhile, when more than 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers across the country were vandalized after the Dobbs decision, few arrests were made. The discrepancy was so clear that multiple members of Congress repeatedly asked US attorney general Merrick Garland for an explanation. At the same time, the Biden administration tried to block pregnancy centers from receiving federal funds by deeming them ineligible recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. “Clearly, this administration will be dramatically better from that perspective,” Warren said. Gospel Issue Whether disappointed or optimistic after the election, pro-life leaders aren’t planning to stop or even slow their work. “CareNet and Heartbeat and 40 Days for Life are more needed than ever,” Carney said. “The demand for 40 Days has skyrocketed since the overturning of Roe.” Without a federal law, the movement is “market driven,” he said. “It’s about hearts and minds. We need to have focus and clarity and put our foot on the gas.”

In this lecture, Don Carson examines Ezekiel’s prophetic vision from God as recorded in Ezekiel 4–5. The prophet’s actions symbolize Jerusalem’s impending judgment because of their sin, and Carson highlights the inevitability of God’s wrath and the need for repentance. He points to the seriousness of God’s judgment in the Old Testament and the ultimate display of God’s justice and mercy in the New Testament, particularly through the cross. He teaches the following: Ezekiel’s prophetic actions convey the severity of God’s coming judgment God’s wrath is a necessary consequence of the people’s wickedness Why we must understand repentance How Ezekiel 4–5 fits into the context of the Bible’s metanarrative The problem of humanity’s sin requires a divine solution The cross is the ultimate expression of God’s justice and mercy

It took about a week of self-containment after the election, but the media are back to their old, hectoring ways. The Regime Media have broken out in full contempt over President Elect Donald Trump's selection of combat veteran Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Watch as CNN Senior Political Commentator Scott Jennings absolutely NUKES the panel: CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP 11/12/24 10:06 PM SCOTT JENNINGS: Does anybody have confidence in the current leadership of the Pentagon and the way the defense situation has been operating for the last several years? I mean- from the Afghanistan pullout, which was an extreme debacle for which no one was held accountable. We’ve had spy balloons flying over the United States. We built a $300 million pier as a public relations stunt which wound up killing an American service member. I’d say I’ve had just about enough of the so-called insiders running the Defense Department and I think we ought to give Pete Hegseth a chance. CARL BERNSTEIN: You think that’s about- that’s about insiders? JENNINGS: All the criticism of him is that he’s not the expected Washington pick and I am just saying to you that the American people just voted against the expected Washington pick. So I- he’s got 20 years in service. Afghanistan, Iraq. two Bronze Stars, Princeton, Harvard. Yeah, he’s on TV but so are the rest of us, and I think he ought to be given a chance.  The narrative emerging online and in the media is “Trump nominated the Fox and Friends host to head the DoD.” This is done in order to frame the pick as both a joke and a "Shattering of the Norms”, and to disqualify Hegseth in the court of public opinion.  Never mind that Hegseth has served for over 20 years, has multiple combat tours, and has been a tireless advocate for veterans. The panel tried to come at Jennings with these credentialist arguments and Jennings absolutely unloaded, by reminding them of the recent and very high-profile failures of the credentialed DoD leadership. As Bonchie from RedState noted in a similar argument: The risks of picking Peter Hegseth to head the Pentagon are too great. I mean, we could end up with spy balloons flying over the country, disastrous pull-outs from warzones, Russia invading Europe, Iran expanding, and a recruitment crisis. Best go with another DoD insider. — Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) November 13, 2024 Hegseth himself has expressed thoughtful takes on, for example, our readiness to confront China: ? Meet Pete Hegseth, your new Secretary of Defense: “The Pentagon runs perfect war game simulations, we lose every time to China… They’re building an army…We have our heads up our asses.” Pete is an old school American first warrior. pic.twitter.com/KpWXE6dCjQ — Autism Capital ? (@AutismCapital) November 13, 2024 None of that got discussed because the focus was on the aesthetics of credentials. The rest of the Hegseth discussion centered on his desire to remove “woke” generals from their posts. It is entirely reasonable to want to put warfighters back in the business of warfighting, which might be hampered by pronoun enforcement among other things. Good on Jennings for calling out this nonsense. There will be plenty more ahead.  

"Knowing a little chemistry can go a long way to getting your clothes clean."

Our goal is more vital than ever.

Politics A First Hundred Days Agenda for Trump’s FP Personnel, not just policy or processes, is key to a successful Trump second term. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses,” Henry Kissinger said in 2018, in one of his last major profiles in a major newspaper. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.”  I was thinking of the quote when I toured New York with my visiting parents a few months back and our taxi driver, an elderly Chinese-American gentleman, was arguing how New York would turn red for the first time in a generation and vote for Trump. When asked about whether he worries about a trade war with China, he argued that, one, it is nothing compared to millions of criminals having free run of the cities of the United States, and two, that a real war with Russia is far worse than a trade war with China. Trump ended up earning 44 percent of total New York votes, with unthinkable swings in the working-class areas of Bronx and Brooklyn. Trump even won a precinct in New York’s Chinatown/Two Bridges neighborhood by 51 to 48 percent.  Political analysis is a funny job, as given the nature of our trade (and the personal stakes, in my case), it is usually a combination of clearing out your own biases as much as humanly possible in a field that remains, despite many liberal cries, not a science, but an art. But when a man destroys the most common myths of political analysis, then he has to be considered at least close to Kissinger’s idea of a major figure in history. Trump broke every single nugget of political wisdom one might have held dear, including those of his supporters.  Consider these following statements. Trump won the greatest support among Hispanics in over a quarter century. He had record breaking support among Asians and Indians, running against a candidate who was herself half Indian. He wrested over 10 percent of black votes from a candidate who was herself half black. He turned California the reddest it’s been since the 1980s. New Jersey and Minnesota may now be considered battleground states, more so than North Carolina or Arizona.  None of the myths about Trump’s winning message were true. He didn’t have to be an ethno-nationalist; in fact, he made the Republicans more multiracial than a Romney or a Bush would ever have dreamed of. He turned working-class places even in once-solid blue states completely red. He got the Muslim vote locked up running against Republican orthodoxy on Israel, and got the veteran’s votes locked up running against “forever wars.”  Most importantly, on a macro level, he proved a couple of things. First, people don’t really care about abstractions like “democracy.” In fact, a corollary may be that normal people don’t really care about democracy in particular at all, despite relentless propaganda. They care much more about the tangible goods of foreign policy, immigration, and the economy. To paraphrase Peter Thiel, liberty and democracy need not be parallel or even compatible. The people like technocracy or even aristocracy, but a competent one, one that takes care of their core concerns: a good life, good jobs, secure borders, and no foreign wars. Second, the power of the mainline media and academia is almost totally broken, due to their self-created echo chambers. The academy and the mainstream media need reckonings for what they wrought. Consider the number of “historian here” posts on Twitter (now X) and consider just how disconnected they are from the trend lines; you get a fair idea of why academic and even public history is so irreparably doomed. This is not just a lament, but an opportunity to rebuild as well. Trump’s election will bring about an ignominious end to “resistance” history and media.  What is to be done? As my colleague Jude Russo wrote, the work is only beginning. Winning isn’t everything, although it is a preferable start to losing. For all those who are hyper-optimistic and complacent, I’d like to remind them that Trump also “won” in 2016. Yet not much changed. For an easy way to understand why during the last term my own field of foreign policy was such a disaster, consider this particular report: “I think there’s a new inner circle around Trump that is pushing him toward allowing Putin, Xi Jinping, and Iran to kind of do whatever they want to do, into a new isolationist approach, which we really haven’t seen before,” said a Republican national security strategist who held a senior post in the first Trump administration.  Trump campaigned against embroiling the U.S. in “forever wars” and has voiced skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to push Russian forces off their lands. Carlson and other public personalities who backed Trump, such as the venture capitalist and podcaster David Sacks, have argued that U.S. and NATO military deployments essentially forced Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. Israeli media has reported that Trump wants Israel to wrap up its war in the Gaza Strip by the time of his inauguration.  There’s also a growing concern that Trump may rely mainly on political loyalists rather than seasoned national security staffers. It’s a temptation he largely resisted during his first term, though he moved in that direction toward its end. “Don Jr. and Grenell and Tucker have his ear in a way that’s very dangerous,” the first Republican leader told The Free Press on Sunday, referring to Ric Grenell, a close campaign adviser and former ambassador to Germany.” The transition and staffing are still in their formative stage, but there are a couple of things in the field of foreign policy that the president-elect should keep in mind for his first hundred days. Foreign policy is the key. One of the good first fights for the Republicans to have is not staffing, which will continue, but to stop the Ukraine supplemental bills. Enough money has been siphoned off to Ukraine, and it is an issue that is toxic to the core electorate that voted in the Trump/Vance team. President Joe Biden, along with the lame-duck Congress, will want to forgive Ukrainian debts and pass more aid for Ukraine in the next few months. There is no better way to say this, but that needs to be stopped by any means necessary. The instinct of the current foreign policy blob will be to box the incoming administration in by siphoning off funds and by placing personnel in harm’s way. The idea is to create a contingency where the money keeps flowing and there’s some loss of personnel which then appeals to the baser impulses of a vengeful electorate. Anyone in the congress who sides with Biden to push for further money or manpower in Ukraine should be held complicit in the conspiracy to push the United States further into Europe, against the mandate which is clear about a retrenchment from that continent.  Second, the Office of Management and Budget should be the key to any appropriation fight in future. Omnibus bills should be broken up or vetoed, if necessary. Spending fights will be vital, as the bureaucracy gets what it desires by adding a fair amount of bad to the good.  Third, there’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the paradigm and shape foreign policy in Europe. Of all theaters, that is one ripe for a change. Europe is rich and capable. Russia has been proven not to be a hegemonic threat. And, for the U.S., Asia and Latin America are both more important theaters than Europe. A simple recipe is to force burden sharing on Europe by pulling out and reversing the Biden surge in the first hundred days.  Fourth, there’s a handy list of over a thousand personnel who opposed Trump and endorsed Harris in the current and former nat-sec community, who have security clearances that can be instantly and permanently revoked.  Finally, match skillsets and talents to posts. Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Lee, and Warren Davidson should each be part of any incoming admin.  These are but a start. Of course, the incoming cabinet will never look like an editorial meeting of the International Security journal. But more than policy, or even processes, personnel is key. This time let there be no mistakes. The post A First Hundred Days Agenda for Trump’s FP appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Can Trump Deliver? The once and future president delivered a strong electoral victory, but he needs to fulfill his mandate to cement his legacy. President-elect Donald Trump won an impressive victory, but it is important to put it in the context of the political polarization of the past quarter-century. The entire premise of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, and President Joe Biden’s before that, was that it was impossible for Trump to win a national plurality.  Yet Trump did win a plurality of the national popular vote, without any third-party candidate drawing more than 0.5 percent. Whenever enough millennia have passed for California to be finished counting votes, he will probably be a tick above or below 50 percent. Still, nobody would have confused it for a landslide before 2000, when presidential elections routinely became close-run affairs. Even Barack Obama’s win in 2008 was closer to Jimmy Carter’s in 1976 than LBJ’s in 1964. Obama did just well enough to manage to survive slippage in his support four years later and win a second term. Obama and George W. Bush were both reelected with roughly 51 percent of the popular vote. Biden won in 2020 with a similar vote share. In all three cases, pundits behaved as if the winning candidate had ushered in a permanent national majority for their party. But their wins were far more modest than the Electoral College, God bless it, often made them appear. In each case, they bled support and their party lost the following presidential election. Trump’s party is no less vulnerable to this fate. He begins his second term already underwater in favorability ratings, though in better shape than he was in most of his previous stint in the White House. It isn’t entirely clear how much of Trump’s support is transferable to other Republicans and even this year he had limited success in dragging GOP Senate candidates across the finish line, especially in the battleground states. In January, Republicans will hold 53 Senate seats and have a House majority that is smaller percentage-wise than that. The window of opportunity will be brief. As in 2017, Trump will enter office with many people in both parties somewhat stunned by his electoral success, though this time it is more the breadth of his victory than the fact of it that was the big surprise. But soon it will be the 2026 midterm elections and then shortly after that the 2028 presidential campaign—and the race to succeed Trump—will begin in earnest.  Trump has a mandate for three things: lower prices, securing the border, and avoiding wars. His base and rank-and-file Republicans surely want other things, much of it to the good, but his success or failure will largely depend on these three things, none of them entirely under his control. Most of these things were realities in the first Trump term, especially on the border front. There was still room for improvement on the forever wars and he was not wholly blameless for inflationary pandemic spending, though Biden was the one who disastrously kept pushing stimulus after the lockdowns were mostly over and people were returning to work. The border looks like it will once again be the area where Trump enjoys his greatest opportunity for success. He will at least abandon the Biden-Harris policies that were the real root causes of the crisis and reinstate some of his own that worked four years ago. At first glance, he is mostly putting the right people in place to implement these policies. That’s less clear on foreign policy, where there have already been dust-ups in MAGA world over personnel. Trump wants some telegenic tough guys on his national security team, but will they be able to deliver no wars? The once and future president is not as committed a noninterventionist as some of his strongest supporters, but it remains a key campaign promise. Trump is also going to attempt a more aggressive approach to tariffs than in his first term, this time amid the aftershocks of inflation running at a 41-year high. Even if he is successful at reshoring American jobs, which is the point of the tariff policy, this election does not make it a foregone conclusion that voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere will necessarily prioritize jobs over low prices.  None of this is to say that Trump can’t complete the working-class realignment of the GOP and hand things over to J.D. Vance in excellent shape. But it’s going to take a decent amount of work, and Trump will need to prove once again in big spots that he is more pragmatic than ideological.  The post Can Trump Deliver? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Cornyn Will Undermine the Trump Agenda The Texan is a living fossil of the Bush era. Credit: image via Shutterstock One week ago, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance orchestrated one of the greatest comebacks in American politics, solidifying their Jacksonian moment in national history. But just as Andrew Jackson’s agenda faced relentless establishment resistance, Republicans in Congress who doubted this moment would come to fruition are already working to undermine its implications. The Senate GOP’s mantra seems to be: “The American people have made their decision—now let them enforce it.” The chief Republican reactionary is undoubtedly Texas’s senior senator, John Cornyn. Cornyn, 72, has been a fixture in Texas politics since 1985, when he was appointed district judge in Bexar County (San Antonio). Elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 1990 and then as Texas attorney general in 1998, Cornyn rose to the U.S. Senate in 2002 as a George W. Bush ally. Since then, he has been reelected to the Senate three more times without controversy. Now Cornyn has launched his seventh campaign—this time to replace Mitch McConnell as leader of the Republican Senate Conference and Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader. Big John is a strong contender. An old-school Republican straight from the now largely defunct Bush wing of the Texas GOP, he represents an obvious choice if the Senate Republican Conference seeks a one-for-one replacement for McConnell. In both style and policy, Cornyn and McConnell are nearly indistinguishable; the Texan’s ascent to the leadership position would be likely to undermine the Trump-Vance mandate for populist-nationalist reform. Central to the Trump-Vance agenda is reshaping America’s foreign policy. Exhausted by decades of fruitless wars, the American people have tasked the Trump administration with reducing their overseas commitments, from Ukraine to the Middle East. While much of this can be addressed through the presidency’s bully pulpit, reshaping the Pentagon and national security agencies along realist lines will require congressional cooperation. Here, Cornyn could prove a significant obstacle. A staunch neoconservative, Cornyn has consistently supported American military interventions across the globe, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Ukraine, among others. Cornyn’s Bush-era belligerence has persisted, making him one of the Senate’s most ardent backers of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Cornyn co-authored the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022, enabling nearly $90 billion in military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, despite longstanding concerns about corruption and misuse of funds. He also introduced the Stop Russian GOLD Act, applying secondary sanctions on entities transacting with or transporting Russian central bank gold. Cornyn has dismissed concerns over NATO expansion’s role in escalating tensions, asserting, “The United States has played no part in creating this crisis, but we have a responsibility to support the Ukrainian people as they fight to defend their sovereignty.” Efforts by the Trump administration to negotiate with Russian leadership are almost certain to face resistance—if not outright sabotage—from a Cornyn-led Senate. Reeling from decades of neoliberal economic policies, working-class voters have issued a mandate for reshoring American manufacturing and reshaping trade agreements. Trump’s commitment to protectionism remains steadfast; in Trumpian lingo, “The word tariff… is a beautiful word.” Yet Cornyn has consistently opposed these efforts. A lifelong free-trader, Cornyn supported agreements as far back as the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2005. He criticized Trump’s first-term tariffs on Mexican imports as akin to “holding a gun to our own heads” and has continued to voice opposition to Trump’s trade policies, labeling them “problematic” as recently as this August. Cornyn’s trade rhetoric, of course, provided much-needed ammunition to the Harris-Walz campaign during a hotly contested general election.  While Trump holds considerable unilateral authority over trade policy, major agreements—such as Trump’s USMCA—require Senate approval to become permanent and enduring. Cornyn’s ideological commitments make it clear he would frustrate Trump’s trade agenda at every turn. Paramount in Trump’s domestic agenda is controlling the unprecedented trafficking crisis at the southern border. Trump has pledged to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history and “wage war” on cartels. Cornyn, however, has a mixed record on immigration. While he has introduced border security bills and occasionally opposed amnesty, he has also supported targeted amnesty measures and criticized Trump’s zero-tolerance policies. In 2016, Cornyn trashed Trump’s proposal to build a border wall as “naive.” During the migrant surges of 2021, he supported the DREAM Act, working with a coalition of business interests reliant on trafficked labor.  The conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) awarded Cornyn just a 71 percent legislative rating for the 118th Congress, citing his votes against common-sense border reforms amid Texas’s border crisis. By contrast, his junior senator, Ted Cruz, earned a perfect 100 percent.  Cornyn’s opposition to the Republican Party’s new electoral mandate has prompted major Texas GOP groups to oppose his leadership bid. The Tarrant County Republican Party—representing the largest Republican county in America—joined the Dallas County GOP in passing resolutions rejecting Cornyn’s candidacy. Their statement reads: Whereas, John Cornyn, who repeatedly has stood against Republicans and sided with the Democrats pushing omnibus bills that do not benefit Americans, is being considered as a top contender for this role. BE IT RESOLVED that Tarrant County Republican Party rejects John Cornyn as a possible Majority Leader of the United States Senate and encourages Republican U.S. Senators to elect a majority leader that represents President Trump and the America First Agenda, such as Rick Scott or John Kennedy. Whether the Republican Senate Conference will align with these Texas counties remains to be seen. The Conference is set to convene and vote by secret ballot for the next generation of GOP Senate leadership on Wednesday. Will the Senate heed the American people’s emphatic call for reform, or will it double down on a dying consensus? The fate of Cornyn’s leadership bid will provide the answer. The post Cornyn Will Undermine the Trump Agenda appeared first on The American Conservative.

How Leaders Use MASS PSYCHOSIS to Control You And Millions. Descent Into Madness - Delusions By Design - 214,557 views Oct. 30, 2024 MR. BRAIN - In this video, we dive into the unsettling concept of mass psychosis—a phenomenon where entire societies lose their grip on reality, swept up by collective fear, delusion, and manipulation. From historical witch hunts to the rise of totalitarianism, we examine how mass psychosis has led ordinary people to embrace irrational beliefs, commit unthinkable acts, and submit to powerful forces. - Through insights from psychologists like Carl Jung and experts on the psychology of totalitarianism, discover the mechanisms that trigger this disturbing shift and what it means for our modern world. - Enjoyed the video? Show your support with a Super Thanks, and help us create even more valuable content for you! - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@mrbrain122