theamericanconservative--2020-12-03--There Will Always Be an Andrew Cuomo

There Will Always Be an Andrew Cuomo

An elite flouting the very rules he lays down is a familiar part to play .
It 's just that usually you do n't get an Emmy for it .
New York state Gov .
Andrew Cuomo speaks at a news conference on September 08 , 2020 in New York City .
( Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images ) How was your Thanksgiving ?
Guaranteed it was nowhere near as festive as if our nation ’ s Democratic governors had gotten together .
You can almost picture it : Gavin Newsom ’ s enormous maskless entourage crowding the foyer ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oven , minus the stuffing which she forgot she ’ d banned ; Tom Wolf pointlessly insisting no one drink anything until dinner ; Andrew Cuomo shifting uncomfortably in his chair when someone asks where Grandma is .
An illustrious guest list , to be sure , though it ’ s Cuomo who will be making the first lunge for the Merlot .
The New York governor has had himself quite a month .
First , he was slammed for his hypocrisy over his own Thanksgiving coronavirus restrictions .
Then he watched as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his state ’ s senate—a good thing , you might think , except Cuomo is considered moderate for a New York Democrat , as is , for example , your average Death Eater .
And finally , the Supreme Court tossed out his pandemic executive order closing churches , with Justice Neil Gorsuch skewering the governor personally in his concurring opinion .
The first of those , the hypocrisy , seems like the least consequential of the bunch , yet I would submit it ’ s worth a closer look .
Before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have over the entire family for Thanksgiving , lest Uncle Vernon turn into a COVID super-spreader .
Yet he then ignored his own health guidelines , inviting his 89-year-old mother Matilda to dinner .
Being from New York , he then promptly went on the radio and started bragging about it , generally not an effective means of concealing one ’ s hypocrisy .
Conservatives pounced , as they tend to do , and Cuomo found himself in a pandemic pickle .
And so there he was the next day , canceling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work through the holidays like some Gotham Bob Cratchit .
You had to have a heart of stone not to sympathize a little , and not only because Cuomo made the announcement while wearing a mask with a turkey on it .
The man ’ s mother is almost 90 for goodness sake .
There have been many casualties amid this CIA black site of a year , and what a shame that the latest had to be this poor woman ’ s ( or any poor woman ’ s ) Thanksgiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matilda , and I hope she makes it to her centenary and well beyond .
As for son Andrew , you can say this much : his planned family dinner was nowhere near as hypocritical as certain other Democratic profiles in courage of late .
There was Governor Gavin Newsom , who apparently thinks it ’ s epidemiologically sound to take his entire intramural squash club out to dinner sans masks at a place called the French Laundry .
There was Denver Mayor Michael Hancock , who sent a tweet encouraging people not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outbound plane .
There was Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl , who dined outside at a restaurant mere hours after voting to ban dining outside at restaurants .
And there were the countless other Democrats who showed up last summer at Black Lives Matter protests to march socially undistanced with activists .
And then , just when you thought the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do cases might finally be in remission , it came out that London Breed , the mayor of San Francisco , had thrown her own party at the same restaurant as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
( It may be that we need a separate CARES Act just for the French Laundry .
Right now , a raw bar at a Wuhan marketplace sounds safer . )
This is paint-peeling hypocrisy , and it risks discrediting the needful health guidelines that are in place .
Why should a bar teetering on a financial knife ’ s edge cordon off its tables when those who passed the ban are out gaily sipping mimosas ?
Why spend Thanksgiving with just the Detroit Lions when the mayor is wheels up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communal sacrifice to one of hypocrisy , repression , control—and perhaps that ’ s inevitable .
The elite who flouts the very rules he imposes on others is one of the most reliable types in politics .
He ’ s the reason big government will always yield worse inequality than small .
Each and every time , you end up with two classes , those who capture and profit off of the state and those who get told to eat their legumes .
It ’ s why there will always be an Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a billionaire mayor smirking as he lands his personal helicopter in violation of his own noise regulations , a Caribbean strongman who extols the poor from a balcony before retreating to his own personal dolphinarium , an apparatchik motoring around in a luxury car .
Such is the crooked timber of humanity , or crooked sandalwood in Gavin Newsom ’ s case .
Given a strong state , liberty and luxury will trickle up .
And the temptation to break annoying laws will always prove strongest among those who think they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
It ’ s why , while at least some of our present pandemic rules are necessary , they ’ re also patently un-American .
The sooner we get past all this , the better , say I. Godspeed Pfizer and Moderna , even if saying that makes me want to hose myself down in isopropyl .
As for Governor Cuomo , let ’ s not let him off the hook so easily .
It isn ’ t his comparatively minor Turkey Day hypocrisy that ought to make him the least popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s all the other inequities his downstate-myopic governance has produced .
This is the man who banned fracking throughout New York , leaving some upstate border towns so economically desperate that they considered seceding to Pennsylvania .
It ’ s the man who during a pandemic thought it would be a sharp idea to sequester elderly COVID-19 patients into nursing homes , where at least 7,000 of them have died so far .
It ’ s the man who asked for and promptly received a Navy hospital ship called the USNS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vessel with the red cross pulling into a Manhattan harbor felt like the triumphant end to some video game level .
Congratulations !
You escorted the doctors past the Sino-Russian terrorists and saved the city !
Except government is never just point-and-click and Cuomo forgot the cut-red-tape combo .
The Comfort sat in the harbor for weeks , mostly unused , ensnared in bureaucracy , before finally turning around and leaving New York .
It had treated fewer than 200 patients .
It was a damning image , though—and it ’ s here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem—it ’ s nothing against a mouthy Democrat who rails against the president .
Cuomo might have failed , 34,000 New Yorkers might have died , but the media that covers him is terminally addicted to catnip .
And Cuomo provides what they want most : a foil to Donald Trump , a garrulous tough with similarly hard vowels who believes in Science™ ( science is something you believe in now ) .
Hence the slapdash book deal , the ludicrous Emmy award , the Democratic convention speaking slot .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t in a U-haul flooring the pedal to Connecticut .
Hypocrisy and error can always be airbrushed away if only you ’ re willing to be a little superficial .
As for the rest of us , we ’ re just hoping the Matildas of the world don ’ t have to cancel Christmas .

How was your Thanksgiving? Guaranteed it was nowhere near as festive as if our nation’s Democratic governors had gotten together. You can almost picture it: Gavin Newsom’s enormous maskless entourage crowding the foyer; Gretchen Whitmer’s turkey in the oven, minus the stuffing which she forgot she’d banned; Tom Wolf pointlessly insisting no one drink anything until dinner; Andrew Cuomo shifting uncomfortably in his chair when someone asks where Grandma is.
An illustrious guest list, to be sure, though it’s Cuomo who will be making the first lunge for the Merlot. The New York governor has had himself quite a month. First, he was slammed for his hypocrisy over his own Thanksgiving coronavirus restrictions. Then he watched as his own party claimed a supermajority in his state’s senate—a good thing, you might think, except Cuomo is considered moderate for a New York Democrat, as is, for example, your average Death Eater. And finally, the Supreme Court tossed out his pandemic executive order closing churches, with Justice Neil Gorsuch skewering the governor personally in his concurring opinion.
The first of those, the hypocrisy, seems like the least consequential of the bunch, yet I would submit it’s worth a closer look. Before the holiday, Cuomo warned New Yorkers not to have over the entire family for Thanksgiving, lest Uncle Vernon turn into a COVID super-spreader. Yet he then ignored his own health guidelines, inviting his 89-year-old mother Matilda to dinner. Being from New York, he then promptly went on the radio and started bragging about it, generally not an effective means of concealing one’s hypocrisy. Conservatives pounced, as they tend to do, and Cuomo found himself in a pandemic pickle.
And so there he was the next day, canceling dinner with his mother and announcing plans to work through the holidays like some Gotham Bob Cratchit. You had to have a heart of stone not to sympathize a little, and not only because Cuomo made the announcement while wearing a mask with a turkey on it. The man’s mother is almost 90 for goodness sake. There have been many casualties amid this CIA black site of a year, and what a shame that the latest had to be this poor woman’s (or any poor woman’s) Thanksgiving. In 2020, we are all Matilda, and I hope she makes it to her centenary and well beyond.
As for son Andrew, you can say this much: his planned family dinner was nowhere near as hypocritical as certain other Democratic profiles in courage of late. There was Governor Gavin Newsom, who apparently thinks it’s epidemiologically sound to take his entire intramural squash club out to dinner sans masks at a place called the French Laundry. There was Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, who sent a tweet encouraging people not to travel for Thanksgiving right before boarding an outbound plane. There was Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who dined outside at a restaurant mere hours after voting to ban dining outside at restaurants. And there were the countless other Democrats who showed up last summer at Black Lives Matter protests to march socially undistanced with activists.
And then, just when you thought the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do cases might finally be in remission, it came out that London Breed, the mayor of San Francisco, had thrown her own party at the same restaurant as Gavin Newsom one day after his dinner there. (It may be that we need a separate CARES Act just for the French Laundry. Right now, a raw bar at a Wuhan marketplace sounds safer.)
This is paint-peeling hypocrisy, and it risks discrediting the needful health guidelines that are in place. Why should a bar teetering on a financial knife’s edge cordon off its tables when those who passed the ban are out gaily sipping mimosas? Why spend Thanksgiving with just the Detroit Lions when the mayor is wheels up? The narrative shifts from one of communal sacrifice to one of hypocrisy, repression, control—and perhaps that’s inevitable. The elite who flouts the very rules he imposes on others is one of the most reliable types in politics. He’s the reason big government will always yield worse inequality than small. Each and every time, you end up with two classes, those who capture and profit off of the state and those who get told to eat their legumes.
It’s why there will always be an Andrew Cuomo, just as there will always be a billionaire mayor smirking as he lands his personal helicopter in violation of his own noise regulations, a Caribbean strongman who extols the poor from a balcony before retreating to his own personal dolphinarium, an apparatchik motoring around in a luxury car. Such is the crooked timber of humanity, or crooked sandalwood in Gavin Newsom’s case. Given a strong state, liberty and luxury will trickle up. And the temptation to break annoying laws will always prove strongest among those who think they’re powerful enough to get away with it.
It’s why, while at least some of our present pandemic rules are necessary, they’re also patently un-American. The sooner we get past all this, the better, say I. Godspeed Pfizer and Moderna, even if saying that makes me want to hose myself down in isopropyl. As for Governor Cuomo, let’s not let him off the hook so easily. It isn’t his comparatively minor Turkey Day hypocrisy that ought to make him the least popular New York hire since Adam Gase; it’s all the other inequities his downstate-myopic governance has produced. This is the man who banned fracking throughout New York, leaving some upstate border towns so economically desperate that they considered seceding to Pennsylvania. It’s the man who during a pandemic thought it would be a sharp idea to sequester elderly COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, where at least 7,000 of them have died so far.
It’s the man who asked for and promptly received a Navy hospital ship called the USNS Comfort. The sight of the white vessel with the red cross pulling into a Manhattan harbor felt like the triumphant end to some video game level. Congratulations! You escorted the doctors past the Sino-Russian terrorists and saved the city! Except government is never just point-and-click and Cuomo forgot the cut-red-tape combo. The Comfort sat in the harbor for weeks, mostly unused, ensnared in bureaucracy, before finally turning around and leaving New York. It had treated fewer than 200 patients.
It was a damning image, though—and it’s here we arrive at the nut of the problem—it’s nothing against a mouthy Democrat who rails against the president. Cuomo might have failed, 34,000 New Yorkers might have died, but the media that covers him is terminally addicted to catnip. And Cuomo provides what they want most: a foil to Donald Trump, a garrulous tough with similarly hard vowels who believes in Science™ (science is something you believe in now). Hence the slapdash book deal, the ludicrous Emmy award, the Democratic convention speaking slot. It’s all very lucrative, if you aren’t in a U-haul flooring the pedal to Connecticut.
Hypocrisy and error can always be airbrushed away if only you’re willing to be a little superficial. As for the rest of us, we’re just hoping the Matildas of the world don’t have to cancel Christmas.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-04--The American Companies Enabling China’s Uyghur Genocide

Nike , Coca-Cola , and others all strongly condemned George Floyd 's death .
But a regime slaughtering its own people ?
That 's tricky .
A person carries a Nike bag at the Woodbury Common Premium Outlets shopping mall on November 24 , 2020 in Central Valley , New York .
( Photo by Gary Hershorn/Getty Images ) China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people—and woke pro-Black Lives Matter American corporations like Apple and Nike want to ensure that any backlash against Beijing doesn ’ t get in the way of their profits .
The point of contention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which passed the House this September and is waiting to go before the Senate .
“ Companies like Apple , Nike , Coca-Cola , they are unhappy about this bill and they ’ re trying to get it weakened to their liking , ” explained Salih Hudayar , prime minister-in-exile of East Turkistan and founder of the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement ( ETNAM ) , in an interview with TAC .
ETNAM , along with other Uyghur rights organizations , has worked to move forward the Act , which bans importing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is provided that no Uyghur slave labor contributed to their source materials or manufacture .
East Turkistan is the historical Uyghur homeland and comprises China ’ s Xinjiang province .
The resource-rich territory contains massive quantities of minerals , coal , sugar , cotton , and agricultural crops as well as a giant labor pool that is exploited to work in Chinese clothing and footwear factories .
An estimated 1.8 million members of Xinjiang ’ s historical Uyghur population—a Muslim and Turkic people—have vanished into concentration camps and thousands of work camps run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporation—officially the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps ( XPCC ) —which is “ powered by forced labor , serving a function similar to the Soviet Union ’ s gulags.
” The majority of forced laborers inside Xinjiang are used in construction and farming , but as Hudayar explained , “ the other Uyghurs , they ’ re being shipped off , loaded onto buses , trains , and brought into China.
” Based on satellite analysis , Hudayar and ETNAM estimate there are at least 1.4 million Uyghurs in concentration camps ( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in prison , as well as 600,000 in forced labor camps .
As for population statistics , China lists Xinjiang ’ s population at 24.5 million , including 12 million Uyghurs and 11 million Chinese as well as one million Kazakhs , Kyrgyz , Huai , and other ethnic minorities .
However Hudayar says the actual Uyghur population may be closer to 35 million .
Beijing has a vested interest in lying about how many Uyghurs there actually are so that if—and when—it erases them , there will be no record they ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s doing in East Turkistan is a systemic campaign of colonization , genocide , and occupation which really you could say dates back to the 1880s , ” Hudayar said , adding that “ if I even said ‘ East Turkistan ’ in China , that would be a death sentence right there.
” The Canadian parliament in October officially stated that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs .
A resolution was introduced at the end of October in the U.S. Senate stating the same .
President Donald Trump also signed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this past June , aiming to hold top Communist Party of China ( CCP ) and Chinese government bodies responsible for the imprisonment , enslavement , sterilization , and murder of Uyghurs .
Trump has been one of the first world leaders to stand up to modern China , Hudayar said , adding that he also appreciates the congressional support he has received , particularly from Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Congressman James McGovern .
It ’ s been a long road to get the world to care , and Hudayar says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States with his family as a refugee in 2000 and currently lives in the D.C. metropolitan area .
He has over 100 extended relatives who have been sent to prison and concentration camps in Xinjiang .
Four have died since 2018 , one in prison and three in the camps .
In addition to being worried about President-elect Joe Biden ’ s often cozy relationship with China and his son Hunter Biden ’ s ties—including his investment in a major Chinese surveillance company that has helped create the police state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s powerful opponents will weaken it beyond recognition , considering that the Act has been stalled in the Senate for some time now .
Apple ’ s supply chains extend into western Xinjiang , and Nike and many other corporations maintain massive factories in China where Uyghur slave labor has been discovered .
Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs have been shipped to work outside of Xinjiang and often bought and sold on online forums .
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute ( ASPI ) estimates that 80,000 Uyghurs were shipped out of Xinjiang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ directly from detention camps.
” As the ASPI noted in its March 2020 report titled “ Uyghurs for Sale ” : “ Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 82 well-known global brands in the technology , clothing and automotive sectors , including Apple , BMW , Gap , Huawei , Nike , Samsung , Sony and Volkswagen.
” With news reports and human rights groups presenting evidence tying Coca-Cola to Xinjiang sugar and Uyghur workers at Nike factories , it is no wonder that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act .
Although Apple and Nike have already issued official denials promising that none of their products , materials , or labor comes from Xinjiang , there is such prevalent use of Uyghur slave labor in China—including outside of Xinjiang—that it ’ s beyond the realm of credibility to believe any large U.S. corporation can be certain that their operations and supply chains are not directly or indirectly profiting from it .
Apple ’ s proposed changes to the Act have leaked and include protecting the privacy of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of designation of specific Chinese companies as having used Uyghur slave labor , and having more time for compliance .
These are hardly the demands of a company that is truly confident it is not profiting from any slave labor or slave labor-derived materials .
While Apple , Nike , and others couldn ’ t contain their enthusiasm over Black Lives Matter earlier this year—while American cities burned—they apparently have no issue lobbying behind the scenes to ensure that a potential crackdown on actual slavery from a racist police state doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tears over “ the pain deeply etched in the soul of our nation ” after the death of George Floyd , but now when faced with actual slavery ?
Not so much .
Like the NBA , whose players and managers passionately showed their support for BLM but shied away from supporting Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters , Nike , Coca-Cola , and others only care about human rights when they can grandstand or use them to open up a new corner of the market in the woke capitalism game .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uyghur Muslims is far from a game .
According to prominent anthropologist Adrian Zens , who is an expert on the Uyghur people and China ’ s persecution of the Uyghurs , the ongoing actions against them meets the UN definition of genocide .
It includes the mass sterilization of Uyghur women , millions of forced abortions and mandated birth control , slave labor , mass imprisonment , communist brainwashing , the destruction of mosques , graveyards , and Uyghur historical sites , forced marriage to non-Uyghurs , torture , rapidly increasing facilitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Uyghurs and ethnic minorities who die in the camps , starvation , and the intentional destruction of Uyghur families in order to imprison parents and indoctrinate children .
According to Zenz , the Chinese government ’ s campaign against the Uyghurs is “ the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust.
” The last few centuries have seen East Turkistan repeatedly betrayed by the Soviets and China as both countries aggressively sought its resources .
China , in particular , sees the region as a crucial geostrategic location for military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Road Initiative .
Beijing fears the prospect of East Turkistan independence and the possibility that Uyghurs might be armed or supported by an outside power who could then break through China ’ s western flank .
After centuries of wanting control of the region , Hudayar says that China saw an opportunity post-9/11 to label all East Turkistan independence activists as “ terrorists.
” He believes Beijing also helped facilitate several Islamic terror attacks on innocent Chinese civilians in order to bolster support for ethnic cleansing and mass incarcerations in Xinjiang .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest cancer rates in the country , which some analysts believe could also be tied to radioactive fallout from Chinese nuclear weapon tests in the region .
China ’ s history of testing nuclear weapons in Xinjiang stretches back decades , starting in 1964 , and includes at least 40 tests .
In addition Xinjiang ’ s Uyghur population has alarmingly high rates of HIV/AIDS spread primarily by prostitutes .
There is evidence that these AIDS-infected sex workers are sent intentionally by China as part of the government ’ s overall campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defector Feruk Pidakar told Radio Free Asia in 2015 , “ although the government has set strict rules banning Muslim praying , fasting and other religious activities to maintain ‘ social stability ’ and national security , it has failed to ban the illegal activities of Han sex workers and continued to allow red-light districts.
” Uyghur Muslims are also murdered and have their organs harvested—an estimated 25,000 young Uyghur men each year—with these valuable body parts then sold as “ halal ” organs to wealthy Muslims in countries such as Saudi Arabia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbying to continue profiting from the use of Uyghur Muslim slave labor are hypocritical and nefarious actors of the worst kind .
Their cynical virtue signaling and manipulation of popular solidarity and human empathy is revolting .
They deserve to be called out for their hypocrisy and potentially treasonous behavior .
China , meanwhile , angrily denies that a genocide of Uyghurs is taking place .
Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the “ so-called genocide ” is nothing but “ a rumor and a farce fabricated by some anti-Chinese forces to slander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada after its parliament called the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide in October , saying their accusation was a “ blatant interference in China ’ s internal affairs.
” With China ’ s surveillance system using chips from Nvidia and Intel and American companies like Calvin Klein and Apple promoting riots across the country in order to sell shoes , drinks and phones , it ’ s not only important to doubt the sincerity of these woke corporations but also to take note of the very real potential harm and ongoing human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As for the Muslim world , much of which has failed to speak up in defense of the Uyghurs , Hudayar says many of his people have lost interest in rhetoric about the ummah , or worldwide Muslim community .
“ What this has taught us is that we need to care about our own nation ’ s survival before anything else , ” Hudayar says , noting that he generally feels safe in the U.S. but is careful where he eats .
He faced attempted infiltration of ETNAM in 2018 by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Chinese intelligence .
Many Uyghurs are compelled to work as assets for China and either betray their own people or have their families tortured and killed .
“ I don ’ t think China will try to assassinate me any ways other than poison .
They don ’ t want a public incident .
And even if they did assassinate me , they would turn me into a hero , ” Hudayar said .
He adds that he ’ s frequently attacked by Chinese bots on Twitter .
“ What they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill your image.
” Apple , Coca-Cola , Nike , and LL Bean did not respond to TAC by press deadline .
A spokesperson for Calvin Klein linked to parent company PVH Corp. ’ s page on corporate responsibility .
Colin Kaepernick famously became the face of Nike in September of last year , with the company releasing an ad featuring a close-up of his face and the words “ Believe in something .
Even if it means sacrificing everything.
” Perhaps that slogan should be updated to : “ Believe in profits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murderous totalitarian communists who use slave labor.
” Paul Brian is a freelance journalist .
He has reported for the BBC , Reuters , and Foreign Policy , and contributed to The Week , The Federalist , and others .
You can follow him on Twitter @ paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .

China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people—and woke pro-Black Lives Matter American corporations like Apple and Nike want to ensure that any backlash against Beijing doesn’t get in the way of their profits.
The point of contention: the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which passed the House this September and is waiting to go before the Senate.
“Companies like Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola, they are unhappy about this bill and they’re trying to get it weakened to their liking,” explained Salih Hudayar, prime minister-in-exile of East Turkistan and founder of the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM), in an interview with TAC.
ETNAM, along with other Uyghur rights organizations, has worked to move forward the Act, which bans importing any goods made in Xinjiang unless proof is provided that no Uyghur slave labor contributed to their source materials or manufacture.
East Turkistan is the historical Uyghur homeland and comprises China’s Xinjiang province. The resource-rich territory contains massive quantities of minerals, coal, sugar, cotton, and agricultural crops as well as a giant labor pool that is exploited to work in Chinese clothing and footwear factories.
An estimated 1.8 million members of Xinjiang’s historical Uyghur population—a Muslim and Turkic people—have vanished into concentration camps and thousands of work camps run by China’s massive Bingtuan military corporation—officially the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC)—which is “powered by forced labor, serving a function similar to the Soviet Union’s gulags.”
The majority of forced laborers inside Xinjiang are used in construction and farming, but as Hudayar explained, “the other Uyghurs, they’re being shipped off, loaded onto buses, trains, and brought into China.”
Based on satellite analysis, Hudayar and ETNAM estimate there are at least 1.4 million Uyghurs in concentration camps (“re-education centers”), 1.2 million in prison, as well as 600,000 in forced labor camps.
As for population statistics, China lists Xinjiang’s population at 24.5 million, including 12 million Uyghurs and 11 million Chinese as well as one million Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Huai, and other ethnic minorities. However Hudayar says the actual Uyghur population may be closer to 35 million. Beijing has a vested interest in lying about how many Uyghurs there actually are so that if—and when—it erases them, there will be no record they ever numerically existed.
“What China’s doing in East Turkistan is a systemic campaign of colonization, genocide, and occupation which really you could say dates back to the 1880s,” Hudayar said, adding that “if I even said ‘East Turkistan’ in China, that would be a death sentence right there.”
The Canadian parliament in October officially stated that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. A resolution was introduced at the end of October in the U.S. Senate stating the same.
President Donald Trump also signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act into law this past June, aiming to hold top Communist Party of China (CCP) and Chinese government bodies responsible for the imprisonment, enslavement, sterilization, and murder of Uyghurs. Trump has been one of the first world leaders to stand up to modern China, Hudayar said, adding that he also appreciates the congressional support he has received, particularly from Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Congressman James McGovern.
It’s been a long road to get the world to care, and Hudayar says time is running out. He fled to the United States with his family as a refugee in 2000 and currently lives in the D.C. metropolitan area. He has over 100 extended relatives who have been sent to prison and concentration camps in Xinjiang. Four have died since 2018, one in prison and three in the camps.
In addition to being worried about President-elect Joe Biden’s often cozy relationship with China and his son Hunter Biden’s ties—including his investment in a major Chinese surveillance company that has helped create the police state apparatus in Xinjiang—Hudayar is concerned the bill’s powerful opponents will weaken it beyond recognition, considering that the Act has been stalled in the Senate for some time now.
Apple’s supply chains extend into western Xinjiang, and Nike and many other corporations maintain massive factories in China where Uyghur slave labor has been discovered. Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs have been shipped to work outside of Xinjiang and often bought and sold on online forums. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) estimates that 80,000 Uyghurs were shipped out of Xinjiang between 2017 to 2019 alone, often “directly from detention camps.”
As the ASPI noted in its March 2020 report titled “Uyghurs for Sale”: “Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 82 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, including Apple, BMW, Gap, Huawei, Nike, Samsung, Sony and Volkswagen.”
With news reports and human rights groups presenting evidence tying Coca-Cola to Xinjiang sugar and Uyghur workers at Nike factories, it is no wonder that lobbyists are working to water down the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
Although Apple and Nike have already issued official denials promising that none of their products, materials, or labor comes from Xinjiang, there is such prevalent use of Uyghur slave labor in China—including outside of Xinjiang—that it’s beyond the realm of credibility to believe any large U.S. corporation can be certain that their operations and supply chains are not directly or indirectly profiting from it.
Apple’s proposed changes to the Act have leaked and include protecting the privacy of their supply chain information, requiring more specificity of designation of specific Chinese companies as having used Uyghur slave labor, and having more time for compliance. These are hardly the demands of a company that is truly confident it is not profiting from any slave labor or slave labor-derived materials.
While Apple, Nike, and others couldn’t contain their enthusiasm over Black Lives Matter earlier this year—while American cities burned—they apparently have no issue lobbying behind the scenes to ensure that a potential crackdown on actual slavery from a racist police state doesn’t hurt their bottom line. Apple was in tears over “the pain deeply etched in the soul of our nation” after the death of George Floyd, but now when faced with actual slavery? Not so much.
Like the NBA, whose players and managers passionately showed their support for BLM but shied away from supporting Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters, Nike, Coca-Cola, and others only care about human rights when they can grandstand or use them to open up a new corner of the market in the woke capitalism game.
But the persecution and forced incarceration of millions of Uyghur Muslims is far from a game.
According to prominent anthropologist Adrian Zens, who is an expert on the Uyghur people and China’s persecution of the Uyghurs, the ongoing actions against them meets the UN definition of genocide. It includes the mass sterilization of Uyghur women, millions of forced abortions and mandated birth control, slave labor, mass imprisonment, communist brainwashing, the destruction of mosques, graveyards, and Uyghur historical sites, forced marriage to non-Uyghurs, torture, rapidly increasing facilitation of on-site cremation of the uncounted thousands of Uyghurs and ethnic minorities who die in the camps, starvation, and the intentional destruction of Uyghur families in order to imprison parents and indoctrinate children. According to Zenz, the Chinese government’s campaign against the Uyghurs is “the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust.”
The last few centuries have seen East Turkistan repeatedly betrayed by the Soviets and China as both countries aggressively sought its resources. China, in particular, sees the region as a crucial geostrategic location for military defensibleness and the success of its Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing fears the prospect of East Turkistan independence and the possibility that Uyghurs might be armed or supported by an outside power who could then break through China’s western flank.
After centuries of wanting control of the region, Hudayar says that China saw an opportunity post-9/11 to label all East Turkistan independence activists as “terrorists.” He believes Beijing also helped facilitate several Islamic terror attacks on innocent Chinese civilians in order to bolster support for ethnic cleansing and mass incarcerations in Xinjiang.
Southwest China and Xinjiang Province have among the highest cancer rates in the country, which some analysts believe could also be tied to radioactive fallout from Chinese nuclear weapon tests in the region. China’s history of testing nuclear weapons in Xinjiang stretches back decades, starting in 1964, and includes at least 40 tests.
In addition Xinjiang’s Uyghur population has alarmingly high rates of HIV/AIDS spread primarily by prostitutes. There is evidence that these AIDS-infected sex workers are sent intentionally by China as part of the government’s overall campaign to kill the Uyghur population. As defector Feruk Pidakar told Radio Free Asia in 2015, “although the government has set strict rules banning Muslim praying, fasting and other religious activities to maintain ‘social stability’ and national security, it has failed to ban the illegal activities of Han sex workers and continued to allow red-light districts.”
Uyghur Muslims are also murdered and have their organs harvested—an estimated 25,000 young Uyghur men each year—with these valuable body parts then sold as “halal” organs to wealthy Muslims in countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations.
The companies lobbying to continue profiting from the use of Uyghur Muslim slave labor are hypocritical and nefarious actors of the worst kind. Their cynical virtue signaling and manipulation of popular solidarity and human empathy is revolting. They deserve to be called out for their hypocrisy and potentially treasonous behavior.
China, meanwhile, angrily denies that a genocide of Uyghurs is taking place. Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the “so-called genocide” is nothing but “a rumor and a farce fabricated by some anti-Chinese forces to slander China.” Lijian furiously condemned and threatened Canada after its parliament called the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide in October, saying their accusation was a “blatant interference in China’s internal affairs.”
With China’s surveillance system using chips from Nvidia and Intel and American companies like Calvin Klein and Apple promoting riots across the country in order to sell shoes, drinks and phones, it’s not only important to doubt the sincerity of these woke corporations but also to take note of the very real potential harm and ongoing human rights abuses being enabled and worsened by them.
As for the Muslim world, much of which has failed to speak up in defense of the Uyghurs, Hudayar says many of his people have lost interest in rhetoric about the ummah, or worldwide Muslim community.
“What this has taught us is that we need to care about our own nation’s survival before anything else,” Hudayar says, noting that he generally feels safe in the U.S. but is careful where he eats. He faced attempted infiltration of ETNAM in 2018 by an Uyghur woman he believes was working for Chinese intelligence.
Many Uyghurs are compelled to work as assets for China and either betray their own people or have their families tortured and killed.
“I don’t think China will try to assassinate me any ways other than poison. They don’t want a public incident. And even if they did assassinate me, they would turn me into a hero,” Hudayar said. He adds that he’s frequently attacked by Chinese bots on Twitter. “What they’d prefer is to marginalize you and kill your image.”
Apple, Coca-Cola, Nike, and LL Bean did not respond to TAC by press deadline. A spokesperson for Calvin Klein linked to parent company PVH Corp.’s page on corporate responsibility.
Colin Kaepernick famously became the face of Nike in September of last year, with the company releasing an ad featuring a close-up of his face and the words “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Perhaps that slogan should be updated to: “Believe in profits. Even if it means working with murderous totalitarian communists who use slave labor.”
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for the BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to The Week, The Federalist, and others. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-04--Trump and Netanyahu Team Up to Hammer Iran on the Way Out

President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly in October .
( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead ) Donald Trump ’ s foreign policy has had some high points , such as formalizing relations between Israel and some of the Gulf Arab states , prodding U.S. allies to spend more on their security , and , most of all and contrary to elite opinion , reducing forces in Afghanistan and Iraq .
At other times , though , Trump ’ s erratic belligerency has been downright scary .
Remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Korea policy into one of easing tensions by photo-op summitry , he threatened to bring “ fire and fury ” to the hermit kingdom , alluding to the use of nuclear weapons .
And although the Trump administration denied involvement in a ham-handed coup attempt against the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro that just so happened to include two ex-U.S. Special Forces members , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo certainly seemed eager to get the captured former soldiers back .
More clearly , Trump launched a cruise missile attack on Syria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Barack Obama , who had threatened one and then negotiated the removal of a significant portion of Syria ’ s chemical weapons .
Trump also launched a trade war against China , has criticized that nation for giving the world the “ China virus , ” and changed America ’ s policy of neutrality in territorial disputes among nations in the South China Sea to support of China ’ s adversaries .
Any one of these threats or hostile interactions could have led to a military dust-up , or even war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of most of the Trump administration ’ s aggressive impulses has been Iran .
Trump , during the 2016 campaign , relentlessly lambasted Obama ’ s nuclear agreement with Tehran , clinging to a promise to tear it up and substitute a better deal .
Under the original deal , Iran had agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some international economic sanctions .
As promised , Trump eventually tore up the agreement and reimposed grinding sanctions but was never able to intimidate the Iranians to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revised deal .
Instead , bilateral relations deteriorated even further when Trump assassinated Qasem Soleimani , effectively Iran ’ s second most powerful leader .
Now the leading scientist in Iran ’ s nuclear program has also been whacked .
Iran has blamed Israel for the assassination , but Israel has refused to comment .
The attack on the scientist does bear the markings of one of the many Israeli targeted killings in the Middle East .
If Israel did indeed kill the scientist , then the question becomes : did the famously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Even if he did not , was Israel trying to get it done before a very friendly Trump administration transitions to a perceived less friendly Biden administration ?
After all , Biden has said that he would like to rejoin the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement .
Trump and Israel may be trying to so pollute U.S.-Iran relations that such a move is more difficult or even impossible .
Yet Biden should soldier through this tumult and rejoin the deal .
Having Iran ’ s nuclear program suspended was better than having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has slowly , one might even say reluctantly , amassed since Trump reneged on the pact .
Iran only slowly ramped up its program , as it gave the Europeans time to help it get around renewed U.S. sanctions .
But because the Europeans do so much business in America and would be penalized by the United States for helping ease the effects of its renewed sanctions on Iran , Europe was not successful in its efforts .
The rationality of the hardline Netanyahu government ’ s virulent opposition to the Iranian nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought the Trump administration would attack Iran ’ s nuclear facilities so that it wouldn ’ t need to or would at least greenlight such an Israeli strike .
After all , the agreement did freeze its main rival ’ s nuclear program—as opposed to the current situation in which Iran is amassing more nuclear material .
Before Trump leaves the stage in about two months , just to soil the nest for the incoming Biden administration , he might be willing to continue the initial salvo against the nuclear program by launching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving Israel the wink and the nudge to do so .
These policy options are a really bad idea .
After Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement , Iran showed signs of wanting to salvage the deal with the other signatories .
Furthermore , when Trump assassinated its second most powerful leader , Iran was very measured in its retaliation against U.S. forces .
Primarily , Iran wants to repair its economy to avoid social unrest , which is a threat to its government .
To achieve this goal , it first needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work to rejoin the nuclear agreement and repair relations with that nation , no matter what Israel or Trump may do between now and Inauguration Day .
Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the Independent Institute ’ s Center on Peace & Liberty .
His new book , War and the Rogue Presidency : Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure , was released in May 2019 .

Donald Trump’s foreign policy has had some high points, such as formalizing relations between Israel and some of the Gulf Arab states, prodding U.S. allies to spend more on their security, and, most of all and contrary to elite opinion, reducing forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. At other times, though, Trump’s erratic belligerency has been downright scary.
Remember, before Trump converted America’s North Korea policy into one of easing tensions by photo-op summitry, he threatened to bring “fire and fury” to the hermit kingdom, alluding to the use of nuclear weapons. And although the Trump administration denied involvement in a ham-handed coup attempt against the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro that just so happened to include two ex-U.S. Special Forces members, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo certainly seemed eager to get the captured former soldiers back.
More clearly, Trump launched a cruise missile attack on Syria, mainly to show that he was tougher than Barack Obama, who had threatened one and then negotiated the removal of a significant portion of Syria’s chemical weapons. Trump also launched a trade war against China, has criticized that nation for giving the world the “China virus,” and changed America’s policy of neutrality in territorial disputes among nations in the South China Sea to support of China’s adversaries. Any one of these threats or hostile interactions could have led to a military dust-up, or even war.
However, the nation at the receiving end of most of the Trump administration’s aggressive impulses has been Iran.
Trump, during the 2016 campaign, relentlessly lambasted Obama’s nuclear agreement with Tehran, clinging to a promise to tear it up and substitute a better deal. Under the original deal, Iran had agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some international economic sanctions. As promised, Trump eventually tore up the agreement and reimposed grinding sanctions but was never able to intimidate the Iranians to make more concessions in order to sign a revised deal. Instead, bilateral relations deteriorated even further when Trump assassinated Qasem Soleimani, effectively Iran’s second most powerful leader. Now the leading scientist in Iran’s nuclear program has also been whacked.
Iran has blamed Israel for the assassination, but Israel has refused to comment. The attack on the scientist does bear the markings of one of the many Israeli targeted killings in the Middle East. If Israel did indeed kill the scientist, then the question becomes: did the famously pro-Israel Trump “greenlight” the hit? Even if he did not, was Israel trying to get it done before a very friendly Trump administration transitions to a perceived less friendly Biden administration? After all, Biden has said that he would like to rejoin the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement. Trump and Israel may be trying to so pollute U.S.-Iran relations that such a move is more difficult or even impossible.
Yet Biden should soldier through this tumult and rejoin the deal. Having Iran’s nuclear program suspended was better than having a growing stockpile of Iranian nuclear material—as Iran has slowly, one might even say reluctantly, amassed since Trump reneged on the pact. Iran only slowly ramped up its program, as it gave the Europeans time to help it get around renewed U.S. sanctions. But because the Europeans do so much business in America and would be penalized by the United States for helping ease the effects of its renewed sanctions on Iran, Europe was not successful in its efforts.
The rationality of the hardline Netanyahu government’s virulent opposition to the Iranian nuclear agreement was never clear, unless Israel thought the Trump administration would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities so that it wouldn’t need to or would at least greenlight such an Israeli strike. After all, the agreement did freeze its main rival’s nuclear program—as opposed to the current situation in which Iran is amassing more nuclear material.
Before Trump leaves the stage in about two months, just to soil the nest for the incoming Biden administration, he might be willing to continue the initial salvo against the nuclear program by launching major airstrikes against it, or by giving Israel the wink and the nudge to do so. These policy options are a really bad idea.
After Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement, Iran showed signs of wanting to salvage the deal with the other signatories. Furthermore, when Trump assassinated its second most powerful leader, Iran was very measured in its retaliation against U.S. forces. Primarily, Iran wants to repair its economy to avoid social unrest, which is a threat to its government. To achieve this goal, it first needs sanctions relief. Thus, Biden should work to rejoin the nuclear agreement and repair relations with that nation, no matter what Israel or Trump may do between now and Inauguration Day.
Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty. His new book, War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure, was released in May 2019.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-05--The Problem with ‘European Values’

The Problem with ‘European Values’

A timeless axiom of statesmanship is catching up with the European Union ( EU ) , one the bloc hoped it would never have to confront .
If advancing lofty ideals requires foul plots against your supposed allies , then the real aim may be different—ulterior , baser , more unsavory—than initially advertised .
Early this month , a conclave of EU leaders—led by Germany and the Netherlands and egged on by the liberal-federalist consensus across the European Commission ( EC ) and the Parliament ( EP ) —drew a line in the sand against alleged “ democratic backsliding ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rule of law conditionality mechanism ” which they pork-barreled into the EU ’ s breakthrough deal from July over Covid-19 relief and the next seven-year budget would withhold funds intended for those two countries in the case of future violations , even as the criteria for ascertaining past ones and the impartiality of such assessments remain hotly contested .
The package in question—worth €1.8 trillion and months of rocky negotiations now on the verge of evanescing as a result—is the EU ’ s largest ever , one that the WSJdescribed as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for it also allows the bloc to borrow in capital markets and levy its own taxes to repay states ’ contributions to the Covid-19 fund .
The plot ’ s schemers will never confess to it , but the inclusion of the conditionality rider represents a turning point in the 60-odd-year history of European integration , one that culminates the EU ’ s mutation into a Macchiavelian , coercive mechanism to underhandedly bend member state policies that the bloc deems unsavory .
To be pegged onto the budget deal , the rider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole deal needs to be unanimous .
By upholding their veto threats , Poland and Hungary have chosen to throw the ball back on the EU ’ s court rather than accepting a legally flimsy mechanism that violates their sovereignty in a way not allowed by EU treaties .
Yet , their castigators have likewise not backed down , and what ’ s at stake isn ’ t just vital Covid-19 relief for all Europeans , but the entire future of the EU as a plural , voluntary association of sovereign states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the succession of integration agreements that is the European project .
By voluntarily ceding autonomy , the political creature that European states have created and nourished dating back to the 1950s has proved , alternatively , an instrument for economic integration or a reflection of shared values .
Merging France and Germany ’ s coal and steel producing capacities—the earliest iteration of “ ever-closer union ” in 1951—or the treaty establishing the so-called “ single market ” in the mid-80s are clear examples of the former , while later accords to , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights abuses collectively , speak rather to the former .
But the fact that these two objectives—the economics and the ethics—have tended to go hand in hand is no coincidence , for the ability to find reasoned solutions on the basis of mutual interest—a political contractualism modeled on the free market—is precisely at the core of that normative canon .
The extent to which these “ European values ” overlap with generic Western ones of inborn human dignity and natural equality remains contested , but when asked to list precisely what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tongue of EU citizens and leaders almost unthinkingly—peace , freedom , equality , the social market .
That these values were never codified beyond the forewords to EU constitutional texts and edgy social media campaigns is not a bug , but a feature of this unique process of integration through tacit consensus .
Ever so torn apart by conflicting interests and imperial ambitions , the nations of Europe were finally able , in the aftermath of World War II , to sublimate history by joining forces in a shared quest for prosperity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This—more than any contingent aim theretofore devised—was itself the ultimate reflection , if ever there has been one , of “ European values ” .
The economic facet of integration—present at the creation but ascendant since the aforementioned Single European Act of 1986—naturally warrants a heightened degree of trust through reciprocity and impartial oversight , as it would in any other federal or multilateral context .
Yet for member states to turn these values , by etching them in stone , into binding requirements susceptible to being used as cudgels to penalize deviance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this soft process of coalescence—hence the deliberate vagueness around “ European values ” .
You don ’ t get to build a post-Historical liberal future of uncoerced integration with coercive threats .
In some ways , the critical leap of burden-sharing that was the July deal was bound to inch us closer to an impasse over conditionality in one form or another , and in this respect Poland and Hungary may simply be the casual victims of a natural trend that could have claimed a different scapegoat a few years earlier—Italy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you name it .
The architects of the conditionality mechanism—amongst whom , not coincidentally , the so-called financial “ frugals ” feature prominently—are claiming to seize on a watershed moment of solidarity to close ranks around foundational basics .
But for all its sermonizing about values , the EU functions in the standard ways of most other multilateral fora , for whom conditionality is a routine mechanism whether or not financial transfers are said to reflect shared values .
In this way , last week ’ s crisis was the latest stage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vertical delegation of autonomy that began with the sovereign debt crisis of 2012 .
Absent concerns over “ democratic backsliding ” , the target of conditionality could well have turned out to be , a few years earlier , some structural economic reform of one kind or another , and may become something different a few years from now .
Culture wars over abortion or euthanasia would come back to haunt the usual Central European suspects , but what about France ’ s hard-edged approach to so-called “ Islamist separatism ” of late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one day unite to water down French laïcité sounds no more unlikely than our current impasse did as much time ago .
But this time is different for other reasons .
However hard some have tried to hatch a legal case connecting the two , the conditions imposed on Poland and Hungary are immaterial to Covid-19 relief , the 2021-2027 budget , or how either will be spent .
This alone makes the entire maneuver seem petty from the get-go , at a time when Europeans expect the EU to leave politics aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A virus that these two countries—to add insult to injury—have been ahead of the curve in keeping at bay , notably by closing borders sooner than most others .
Despite a recent uptick in Poland , case counts remain below the EU ’ s average in both countries as of this writing .
The sheer underhandedness of the tactic is also unprecedented .
The European Commission ’ s ( EC ) ongoing infringement procedures against Hungary and Poland failed to ascertain breaches grave enough to warrant penalties .
In pretending that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the EU Council ’ s word from July , when it agreed to table away the mechanism precisely in the interest of keeping the arduously negotiated deal alive at the last minute .
This time , in throwing down the gauntlet for “ rule of law ” , the EU is flouting its own mechanisms and legal precedents , codified in Article 7 of the Maastricht Treaty ( 1993 ) , which exist precisely to dissuade recalcitrant states without taking every other member hostage .
The so-called “ nuclear option ” enshrined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 2018 by the Parliament against Poland , and later in September that year against Hungary .
But in order for it to be picked up by the EU Council , where the ultimate call to trigger Article 7 is made , a four-fifths majority of countries is needed , and the attempt to gather it was never made .
The reason for this short-circuiting is precisely because Germany and the Netherlands know they can ’ t reach that threshold , and this even before Hungary and Poland were cornered into signing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widens the number of allies they can together marshal .
Though still shy of the unanimity needed for other similarly high-stakes decisions , the four-fifths requirement exists in part because the EU keeps a claim to majoritarianism despite some lowering of the voting thresholds since Maastricht .
Additionally , countries are likely to refrain from triggering mechanisms that could be turned against them in the future , a reluctance the experts call “ the glasshouse syndrome ” or “ reverse deterrence ” .
This is not to mention that the stick wielded for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 takes away a member state ’ s voting rights at the EU Council , in this case it is vital Covid-19 aid that the EU ’ s current stratagem puts on the line .
Its plotters may not have realized it yet , but putting a price tag on an intangible , supposedly sacred value such as “ rule of law ” cheapens it instead of bolstering its significance .
The entire process leading up to this Rubicon , in fact , is concerning for the EU ’ s endurance as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whomever ends up claiming the day .
Poland ’ s left-liberal opposition has circumvented national democratic accountability by enlisting a coalition of NGOs , MEPs and Commission bureaucrats to beat a steady drum about “ authoritarianism ” .
When one country ’ s factional minority is able to come this close to effecting what it couldn ’ t secure a mandate for at the polls , it isn ’ t just the democratic nature of the EU that ’ s at stake .
It is democracy within member states themselves that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ membership—unbelievable but true .
Most worrying of all is the sheer Jacobinism of the EU ’ s crusade against alleged “ democratic backsliding ” —all performative , without any self-limiting principle .
Going all-in to advance a politically colored interpretation of “ rule of law ” contravenes the tacit norms of pluralism and consensus building that should characterize the EU .
Perhaps this has all been hedged for , and the direction the EU will unavoidably take as a result is deliberate .
Some dead angles in the German-Dutch strategy remain , nonetheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerge stronger and more cohesive , and that the groundwork would be laid for more trust and integration , they are in for some sour disillusion .
Machinating underhandedly to impose unpopular policies on countries so fresh off the shadow of communism that hoped , by joining the bloc , to leave top-down diktats behind won ’ t bolster the EU as a champion of post-Soviet democracy and a bridger of East-West divides—quite the contrary .
Is it any wonder that the crisis is being met in Warsaw and Budapest with a flurry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The impression of double standards also stokes further cynicism .
Just this weekend , as Paris went up in flames over a bill to ban the recording of on-duty police activity , Poles on Twitter couldn ’ t be blamed for questioning “ rule of law ” in France .
Whether those claimed to be outside the law were the policemen who beat a black man unconscious for not wearing a mask last week , or the violent radicals setting cars aflame in riposte wasn ’ t entirely clear , but as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps even that much is assumed , and those responsible still think risking the EU ’ s largest burden-sharing agreement ever is worth it in the interest of advancing “ European values ” , but let ’ s disabuse them of that last delusion .
Just when you think a strategy so costly would focus the minds of its architects , a resolution in the Parliament has emerged condemning a ruling by Poland ’ s Constitutional Court from last month tightening abortion access , with language about “ European values ” almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even if the plot fails and Poland and Hungary are allowed their rights as member states , this entire maneuver will have succeeded in turning Groucho Marx ’ s famous quip about club memberships from the realm of irony into that of sad cynicism .
When a club is bent on not having you as a member , it may not be worth joining after all .
Jorge González-Gallarza ( @ JorgeGGallarza ) is the co-host of the Uncommon Decency podcast on European issues ( @ UnDecencyPod ) and an associate researcher @ @ @ @

A timeless axiom of statesmanship is catching up with the European Union (EU), one the bloc hoped it would never have to confront. If advancing lofty ideals requires foul plots against your supposed allies, then the real aim may be different—ulterior, baser, more unsavory—than initially advertised.
Early this month, a conclave of EU leaders—led by Germany and the Netherlands and egged on by the liberal-federalist consensus across the European Commission (EC) and the Parliament (EP)—drew a line in the sand against alleged “democratic backsliding” in Hungary and Poland. The so-called “rule of law conditionality mechanism” which they pork-barreled into the EU’s breakthrough deal from July over Covid-19 relief and the next seven-year budget would withhold funds intended for those two countries in the case of future violations, even as the criteria for ascertaining past ones and the impartiality of such assessments remain hotly contested.
The package in question—worth €1.8 trillion and months of rocky negotiations now on the verge of evanescing as a result—is the EU’s largest ever, one that the WSJ described as the bloc’s “Hamiltonian moment”, for it also allows the bloc to borrow in capital markets and levy its own taxes to repay states’ contributions to the Covid-19 fund. The plot’s schemers will never confess to it, but the inclusion of the conditionality rider represents a turning point in the 60-odd-year history of European integration, one that culminates the EU’s mutation into a Macchiavelian, coercive mechanism to underhandedly bend member state policies that the bloc deems unsavory. To be pegged onto the budget deal, the rider obtained the required qualified majority, but the whole deal needs to be unanimous. By upholding their veto threats, Poland and Hungary have chosen to throw the ball back on the EU’s court rather than accepting a legally flimsy mechanism that violates their sovereignty in a way not allowed by EU treaties. Yet, their castigators have likewise not backed down, and what’s at stake isn’t just vital Covid-19 relief for all Europeans, but the entire future of the EU as a plural, voluntary association of sovereign states.
A detour, first, into the succession of integration agreements that is the European project. By voluntarily ceding autonomy, the political creature that European states have created and nourished dating back to the 1950s has proved, alternatively, an instrument for economic integration or a reflection of shared values. Merging France and Germany’s coal and steel producing capacities—the earliest iteration of “ever-closer union” in 1951—or the treaty establishing the so-called “single market” in the mid-80s are clear examples of the former, while later accords to, for instance, delegate judicial review or prosecute human rights abuses collectively, speak rather to the former. But the fact that these two objectives—the economics and the ethics—have tended to go hand in hand is no coincidence, for the ability to find reasoned solutions on the basis of mutual interest—a political contractualism modeled on the free market—is precisely at the core of that normative canon. The extent to which these “European values” overlap with generic Western ones of inborn human dignity and natural equality remains contested, but when asked to list precisely what they are, the answer rolls off the tongue of EU citizens and leaders almost unthinkingly—peace, freedom, equality, the social market.
That these values were never codified beyond the forewords to EU constitutional texts and edgy social media campaigns is not a bug, but a feature of this unique process of integration through tacit consensus. Ever so torn apart by conflicting interests and imperial ambitions, the nations of Europe were finally able, in the aftermath of World War II, to sublimate history by joining forces in a shared quest for prosperity and liberal politics, absent any coercion. This—more than any contingent aim theretofore devised—was itself the ultimate reflection, if ever there has been one, of “European values”. The economic facet of integration—present at the creation but ascendant since the aforementioned Single European Act of 1986—naturally warrants a heightened degree of trust through reciprocity and impartial oversight, as it would in any other federal or multilateral context. Yet for member states to turn these values, by etching them in stone, into binding requirements susceptible to being used as cudgels to penalize deviance would itself have gone against the grain of this soft process of coalescence—hence the deliberate vagueness around “European values”. You don’t get to build a post-Historical liberal future of uncoerced integration with coercive threats.
In some ways, the critical leap of burden-sharing that was the July deal was bound to inch us closer to an impasse over conditionality in one form or another, and in this respect Poland and Hungary may simply be the casual victims of a natural trend that could have claimed a different scapegoat a few years earlier—Italy for corruption, Cyprus for Russia links, you name it. The architects of the conditionality mechanism—amongst whom, not coincidentally, the so-called financial “frugals” feature prominently—are claiming to seize on a watershed moment of solidarity to close ranks around foundational basics. But for all its sermonizing about values, the EU functions in the standard ways of most other multilateral fora, for whom conditionality is a routine mechanism whether or not financial transfers are said to reflect shared values. In this way, last week’s crisis was the latest stage in a process of horizontal burden-sharing followed by vertical delegation of autonomy that began with the sovereign debt crisis of 2012. Absent concerns over “democratic backsliding”, the target of conditionality could well have turned out to be, a few years earlier, some structural economic reform of one kind or another, and may become something different a few years from now. Culture wars over abortion or euthanasia would come back to haunt the usual Central European suspects, but what about France’s hard-edged approach to so-called “Islamist separatism” of late? That Germany and the Netherlands could one day unite to water down French laïcité sounds no more unlikely than our current impasse did as much time ago.
But this time is different for other reasons. However hard some have tried to hatch a legal case connecting the two, the conditions imposed on Poland and Hungary are immaterial to Covid-19 relief, the 2021-2027 budget, or how either will be spent. This alone makes the entire maneuver seem petty from the get-go, at a time when Europeans expect the EU to leave politics aside in the common interest of Covid-19 relief. A virus that these two countries—to add insult to injury—have been ahead of the curve in keeping at bay, notably by closing borders sooner than most others. Despite a recent uptick in Poland, case counts remain below the EU’s average in both countries as of this writing.
The sheer underhandedness of the tactic is also unprecedented. The European Commission’s (EC) ongoing infringement procedures against Hungary and Poland failed to ascertain breaches grave enough to warrant penalties. In pretending that they have, the schemers have also reneged on the EU Council’s word from July, when it agreed to table away the mechanism precisely in the interest of keeping the arduously negotiated deal alive at the last minute. This time, in throwing down the gauntlet for “rule of law”, the EU is flouting its own mechanisms and legal precedents, codified in Article 7 of the Maastricht Treaty (1993), which exist precisely to dissuade recalcitrant states without taking every other member hostage. The so-called “nuclear option” enshrined therein was already voted on back in early 2018 by the Parliament against Poland, and later in September that year against Hungary. But in order for it to be picked up by the EU Council, where the ultimate call to trigger Article 7 is made, a four-fifths majority of countries is needed, and the attempt to gather it was never made.
The reason for this short-circuiting is precisely because Germany and the Netherlands know they can’t reach that threshold, and this even before Hungary and Poland were cornered into signing a mutual defense agreement last week, which widens the number of allies they can together marshal. Though still shy of the unanimity needed for other similarly high-stakes decisions, the four-fifths requirement exists in part because the EU keeps a claim to majoritarianism despite some lowering of the voting thresholds since Maastricht. Additionally, countries are likely to refrain from triggering mechanisms that could be turned against them in the future, a reluctance the experts call “the glasshouse syndrome” or “reverse deterrence”. This is not to mention that the stick wielded for deterrence in each case has changed—while Article 7 takes away a member state’s voting rights at the EU Council, in this case it is vital Covid-19 aid that the EU’s current stratagem puts on the line. Its plotters may not have realized it yet, but putting a price tag on an intangible, supposedly sacred value such as “rule of law” cheapens it instead of bolstering its significance.
The entire process leading up to this Rubicon, in fact, is concerning for the EU’s endurance as an attractive forum for mutually beneficial cooperation, whomever ends up claiming the day. Poland’s left-liberal opposition has circumvented national democratic accountability by enlisting a coalition of NGOs, MEPs and Commission bureaucrats to beat a steady drum about “authoritarianism”. When one country’s factional minority is able to come this close to effecting what it couldn’t secure a mandate for at the polls, it isn’t just the democratic nature of the EU that’s at stake. It is democracy within member states themselves that’s being put at risk, by EU membership—unbelievable but true. Most worrying of all is the sheer Jacobinism of the EU’s crusade against alleged “democratic backsliding”—all performative, without any self-limiting principle. Going all-in to advance a politically colored interpretation of “rule of law” contravenes the tacit norms of pluralism and consensus building that should characterize the EU.
Perhaps this has all been hedged for, and the direction the EU will unavoidably take as a result is deliberate. Some dead angles in the German-Dutch strategy remain, nonetheless. If they thought the bloc would emerge stronger and more cohesive, and that the groundwork would be laid for more trust and integration, they are in for some sour disillusion. Machinating underhandedly to impose unpopular policies on countries so fresh off the shadow of communism that hoped, by joining the bloc, to leave top-down diktats behind won’t bolster the EU as a champion of post-Soviet democracy and a bridger of East-West divides—quite the contrary. Is it any wonder that the crisis is being met in Warsaw and Budapest with a flurry of meme-like commentary about the EUSSR? The impression of double standards also stokes further cynicism. Just this weekend, as Paris went up in flames over a bill to ban the recording of on-duty police activity, Poles on Twitter couldn’t be blamed for questioning “rule of law” in France. Whether those claimed to be outside the law were the policemen who beat a black man unconscious for not wearing a mask last week, or the violent radicals setting cars aflame in riposte wasn’t entirely clear, but as the EU should learn, cynicism breeds cynicism.
Perhaps even that much is assumed, and those responsible still think risking the EU’s largest burden-sharing agreement ever is worth it in the interest of advancing “European values”, but let’s disabuse them of that last delusion. Just when you think a strategy so costly would focus the minds of its architects, a resolution in the Parliament has emerged condemning a ruling by Poland’s Constitutional Court from last month tightening abortion access, with language about “European values” almost identically phrased as in the conditionality mechanism. Even if the plot fails and Poland and Hungary are allowed their rights as member states, this entire maneuver will have succeeded in turning Groucho Marx’s famous quip about club memberships from the realm of irony into that of sad cynicism. When a club is bent on not having you as a member, it may not be worth joining after all.
Jorge González-Gallarza (@JorgeGGallarza) is the co-host of the Uncommon Decency podcast on European issues (@UnDecencyPod) and an associate researcher at Fundación Civismo.


Mitch McConnell Fights

As the chaos and conspiracy theories swirling around the train-wreck presidential election continue apace , many MAGA diehards seem positive that without Donald Trump , the GOP is useless .
It is hard to tell who speaks for the president and who doesn ’ t these days , but Trump attorney Lin Wood is willing to play brinkmanship with the Senate , urging people not to vote in the two Georgia runoff races .
If the GOP holds the Senate , Biden will be prevented from court-packing , the Equality Act , and other transformative elements of his agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ car get their way , the Democrat could end up controlling both houses of Congress as well as the presidency .
Despite what many Trump supporters are saying , the election outcome was not a disaster by any stretch .
As I noted in a previous TAC column , the rise in support from racial minorities indicates the potential for a new fusionism of social conservatism and economic populism .
As it turns out , demography is not destiny .
American voters also delivered a firm rebuke to the progressive fringe increasingly dominating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them the expected blue wave but handing the GOP enough congressional seats to make a Republican takeover of the House in 2022 likely .
The Democrats and their progressive allies spent the year trumpeting critical race theory , grievance politics , and gender ideology .
Voters told them to shove off .
But over the past month , I ’ ve seen many conservatives increasingly insist that the GOP needs Trump because “ he fights.
” Without Trump , the narrative goes , we wouldn ’ t have a conservative-leaning Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laundry list of other policies favored especially by social conservatives .
Many are ignoring the fact that Trump has no idea how to actually govern .
Trump didn ’ t write the executive orders .
He didn ’ t create the policies .
He merely enabled them , while long-time ( and much-maligned ) GOP stalwarts did all of the heavy lifting .
Trump certainly deserves credit for that , but the idea that he was the strategic brains behind the policy successes of the last four years is delusional .
A perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump stood by Brett Kavanaugh throughout the excruciating Democratic witch hunt , many Trump fans insisted that no other GOP president would have done such a thing .
That is obvious nonsense .
George H.W .
Bush stood by Clarence Thomas when he was accused of sexual misconduct by Anita Hill , and that ’ s why Thomas is on the Court today .
Trump ’ s judicial picks were selected by others , and the credit for the new makeup of the Supreme Court and the hundreds of other judges goes not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—a creature of the D.C. swamp if there ever was one .
McConnell was there when Trump arrived , and he ’ ll be there long after Trump goes—and America ’ s judicial makeover is due to his years of careful planning .
Trump is vaunted as a fighter because he doesn ’ t back down , but the gutsiest political move in recent memory was McConnell ’ s decision to hold Antonin Scalia ’ s seat open for over a year until Trump could confirm Neil Gorsuch .
Nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus together for that long while staring down the president of the United States , but he did it .
McConnell made no bones about why he was willing to do so , either : “ We ’ re not giving a lifetime appointment to this president to change , on his way out the door , the Supreme Court for the next 25 or 30 years.
” McConnell had been radicalized by the savage treatment of Robert Bork in 1987 , after which he stated that if a Democratic president “ sends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” when the GOP controlled the Senate , Republicans could return the favor .
He got his chance .
Mitch McConnell sees the courts as his legacy , and he has been both methodical and relentless in his efforts to transform the judiciary .
He filibustered Obama ’ s nominees , finally triggering a frustrated Harry Reid into abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominations , allowing Obama to keep judges sailing through ( although McConnell still slowed the process enough to hand 105 vacancies to Trump . )
Prophetically , McConnell warned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.
” It was due almost entirely to his efforts that Trump got to make three Supreme Court picks , with 87-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg being replaced by staunch conservative Amy Coney Barrett , a favorite of social conservatives .
Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List told me that when Trump called her shortly after RBG ’ s passing , she urged him to select Barrett as her replacement .
But as it turns out , Trump had already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her death , a statement RBG had dictated to her granddaughter was circulated by the press : “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” Unfortunately for progressives , it was Mitch McConnell ’ s most fervent wish that she be replaced by a conservative .
He took control of the situation immediately , calling Trump on Air Force One that very evening .
“ McConnell told him two things , ” McConnell ’ s former chief of staff Josh Holmes revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ First , I ’ m going to put out a statement that says we are going to fill the vacancy .
Second , he said you ’ ve got to nominate Amy Coney Barrett.
” Barrett is young—only 48-years-old—and know as a rock-ribbed conservative .
Thirty-eight days after Ginsburg ’ s death , Barrett was confirmed to her seat on the court .
It is certainly true that Donald Trump ’ s presidency has been a catalyst in many ways .
His victory and impressive showing in 2020 highlight new potential paths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emboldened conservatives by illustrating the simple fact that things are only unsayable until someone says them .
He has consistently exposed both the press and progressives .
But for all that , he has been a volatile and narcissistic leader with an absolute inability to exercise impulse control ( if he had , he ’ d have easily won a second term . )
And the idea that it is primarily Trump who is responsible for the policy achievements , the Supreme Court justices , and the hundreds of judicial appointments over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
The very rank-and-file Republicans who get trashed by Trump supporters as useless cucks are the ones who strategized and delivered all that .
If the GOP can learn the right lessons from Trump ’ s presidency , they—and us—will be better off without him at the helm .
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker , writer , and pro-life activist .
His commentary has appeared in National Review , The European Conservative , the National Post , and elsewhere .
Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Face the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide .

As the chaos and conspiracy theories swirling around the train-wreck presidential election continue apace, many MAGA diehards seem positive that without Donald Trump, the GOP is useless. It is hard to tell who speaks for the president and who doesn’t these days, but Trump attorney Lin Wood is willing to play brinkmanship with the Senate, urging people not to vote in the two Georgia runoff races. If the GOP holds the Senate, Biden will be prevented from court-packing, the Equality Act, and other transformative elements of his agenda. If the crackpots driving the Trump clown car get their way, the Democrat could end up controlling both houses of Congress as well as the presidency.
Despite what many Trump supporters are saying, the election outcome was not a disaster by any stretch. As I noted in a previous TAC column, the rise in support from racial minorities indicates the potential for a new fusionism of social conservatism and economic populism. As it turns out, demography is not destiny. American voters also delivered a firm rebuke to the progressive fringe increasingly dominating the Democratic Party, not only denying them the expected blue wave but handing the GOP enough congressional seats to make a Republican takeover of the House in 2022 likely. The Democrats and their progressive allies spent the year trumpeting critical race theory, grievance politics, and gender ideology. Voters told them to shove off.
But over the past month, I’ve seen many conservatives increasingly insist that the GOP needs Trump because “he fights.” Without Trump, the narrative goes, we wouldn’t have a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, an increasingly conservative judiciary, and a laundry list of other policies favored especially by social conservatives. Many are ignoring the fact that Trump has no idea how to actually govern. Trump didn’t write the executive orders. He didn’t create the policies. He merely enabled them, while long-time (and much-maligned) GOP stalwarts did all of the heavy lifting. Trump certainly deserves credit for that, but the idea that he was the strategic brains behind the policy successes of the last four years is delusional.
A perfect example is the Supreme Court. After Trump stood by Brett Kavanaugh throughout the excruciating Democratic witch hunt, many Trump fans insisted that no other GOP president would have done such a thing. That is obvious nonsense. George H.W. Bush stood by Clarence Thomas when he was accused of sexual misconduct by Anita Hill, and that’s why Thomas is on the Court today. Trump’s judicial picks were selected by others, and the credit for the new makeup of the Supreme Court and the hundreds of other judges goes not primarily to Trump, but to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—a creature of the D.C. swamp if there ever was one. McConnell was there when Trump arrived, and he’ll be there long after Trump goes—and America’s judicial makeover is due to his years of careful planning.
Trump is vaunted as a fighter because he doesn’t back down, but the gutsiest political move in recent memory was McConnell’s decision to hold Antonin Scalia’s seat open for over a year until Trump could confirm Neil Gorsuch. Nobody thought McConnell could hold the entire Republican caucus together for that long while staring down the president of the United States, but he did it. McConnell made no bones about why he was willing to do so, either: “We’re not giving a lifetime appointment to this president to change, on his way out the door, the Supreme Court for the next 25 or 30 years.” McConnell had been radicalized by the savage treatment of Robert Bork in 1987, after which he stated that if a Democratic president “sends up somebody we don’t like” when the GOP controlled the Senate, Republicans could return the favor. He got his chance.
Mitch McConnell sees the courts as his legacy, and he has been both methodical and relentless in his efforts to transform the judiciary. He filibustered Obama’s nominees, finally triggering a frustrated Harry Reid into abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominations, allowing Obama to keep judges sailing through (although McConnell still slowed the process enough to hand 105 vacancies to Trump.) Prophetically, McConnell warned the Democrats: “You’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.” It was due almost entirely to his efforts that Trump got to make three Supreme Court picks, with 87-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg being replaced by staunch conservative Amy Coney Barrett, a favorite of social conservatives. Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List told me that when Trump called her shortly after RBG’s passing, she urged him to select Barrett as her replacement.
But as it turns out, Trump had already received this advice. Almost immediately after her death, a statement RBG had dictated to her granddaughter was circulated by the press: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Unfortunately for progressives, it was Mitch McConnell’s most fervent wish that she be replaced by a conservative. He took control of the situation immediately, calling Trump on Air Force One that very evening. “McConnell told him two things,” McConnell’s former chief of staff Josh Holmes revealed in a recent interview with PBS. “First, I’m going to put out a statement that says we are going to fill the vacancy. Second, he said you’ve got to nominate Amy Coney Barrett.” Barrett is young—only 48-years-old—and know as a rock-ribbed conservative. Thirty-eight days after Ginsburg’s death, Barrett was confirmed to her seat on the court.
It is certainly true that Donald Trump’s presidency has been a catalyst in many ways. His victory and impressive showing in 2020 highlight new potential paths forward for the GOP. He has emboldened conservatives by illustrating the simple fact that things are only unsayable until someone says them. He has consistently exposed both the press and progressives. But for all that, he has been a volatile and narcissistic leader with an absolute inability to exercise impulse control (if he had, he’d have easily won a second term.) And the idea that it is primarily Trump who is responsible for the policy achievements, the Supreme Court justices, and the hundreds of judicial appointments over the last four years simply isn’t true. The very rank-and-file Republicans who get trashed by Trump supporters as useless cucks are the ones who strategized and delivered all that.
If the GOP can learn the right lessons from Trump’s presidency, they—and us—will be better off without him at the helm.
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has appeared in National Review, The European Conservative, the National Post, and elsewhere. Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide.