Once upon a time, I was asked precisely where my politics were. My tongue-in-cheek answer as somewhere between Wendell Berry and Theodore Kascynski. The latter because he broadly and correctly identified the problems of the technological age in his manifesto, the former because of his tendencies towards people and the tactile over the false facade of what he termed as surrogate activities.

In fact, though this was written 30 years ago, Kascynski’s line is more prophetic with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI):

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

The core of what Kascynski was trying to address was that technological societies by their very nature erode individual autonomy as we commonly understand it to be. Certainly one can use (or abuse) technology — transhumanism in very broad strokes — but at core the individual is utterly dependent upon technology for that autonomy, which is certainly a type of individualism, but it is by no means by definition a law (nomos) unto one’s self (auto).

For Kaszynski, technology becomes a more powerful force than the aspiration to freedom. On their own, each advance seems like there is more upside than downside, yet when taken in the aggregate, all of these advances — electricity, plumbing, automobiles, smartphones, stormwater management, sanitation, health care, the welfare state — begin to exist for their own sake rather than for us:

It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained . . . all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence.

Kaszynski’s solution for the industrial-technological age is nothing short of a revolution — not a violent one despite his own actions — but one that repudiates the relationship between human economy and technology. Reform is limited and impossible for Kaszynski precisely because the nature of technology conforms us to a dilemma of false choices. You can have the Model-T in any color so long as it is black. AT&T or Verizon. Pepsi or Coke. Either way, the system itself modifies us as consumers to drive cars, use smartphones, and consume soft drinks. Like boiling a frog, it is done by degrees.

In short, what is required is revolution — not unilateral disarmament, but a global resistance to the spirit of the age and the industrial-technological framework that conditions human beings to technology. Or worse, conditions human beings to treat virtue as cheap and the elimination of vice as the highest good.

Nathan Beacom writes in The Dispatch about the very real tension between Aristotelian virtue and Machiavellian virtu in our tensions between self-government and government:

Republican government relies on the self-government of citizens and leaders, because it is a form of rule in which the citizens have a wide latitude of freedom and a voice in the direction of their own community. Montesquieu, one of the key influences on America’s founding, put it this way in his Spirit of the Laws: “There is no great share of virtue necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government: the force of laws, in one, and the prince’s arm, in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole: but, in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue. When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community.”

John Adams, in a letter to his friend Mercy Otis Warren in 1776, put the relationship between public and private virtue in a republic plainly: “Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” Public and private virtue are not severable; they are manifestations of one and the same moral character. One cannot be an Aristotelian at home and a Machiavellian in the office.

We have two concepts in front of us. The first being that technology has a corrupting force that conditions those who use it. The second is that technology that connects ultimately concentrates autonomy and freedom into fewer hands, confusing individual liberty with a certain permissive licentiousness which seems liberating, but in truth is more pacification than empowerment. Montesquieu and Adams were right.

Wendell Berry and the Mad Farmer Liberation Front

So much for the objections. Let’s talk a bit about the frenzy over data centers for just a moment. Personally, I am no troglodyte, but the debate seems to be centered around four very distinct and even separate problems:

1. Virginia has not improved its energy grid in nearly six decades. We have held moratoria on hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, we have torn down coal plants, we have built no new energy resources, the Virginia Clean Energy Act strove to divert resources to non-performing energy plants, our windmills off the Virginia coast are presently producing 0kW per hour of electricity, and finally our governor has re-included us into RGGI — making the problem of affordability worse.

2. Data centers have been around for three decades now. The net benefits to cash-strapped local governments are indeed astounding. Tax burdens are lower, capital projects are being built, and yes — they pay into an energy grid where power must be provided regardless as to whether or not it is actually used (thus lowering energy costs). This is not a new technology, but thanks to online services across the board — Netflix, YouTube, smartphones, GPS — the reindustrialization of America is underway.

3. Artificial intelligence is about to change the nature of work in a very real way and no one seems ready for the change. The Greeks are already piling out of the Trojan Horse. Amazon and Tesla are already working on autonomous robots at the price tag of $15,000 per bot to perform tasks such as warehousing, construction, household chores, manufacturing, even providing basic home care. They require no HR, show up to work on time, and require no minimum wage. Higher end versions will allow specialists such as doctors or mechanics to virtually log in and perform tasks on the other side of the world. Pharmaceutical firms are on the cusp of creating bespoke treatments. Cancer detection is light years ahead of what it was even five years ago. Agriculture can fly a drone over their fields and figure out which areas need more water or fertilizer.

4. The rise of the surveillance state. Flock cameras already aggregate your driving patterns to both law enforcement, private businesses, and marketers. Linked with Wi-Fi sniffers, the technology has been around for over two decades and only now are people figuring it out. Airports already scan your biometric data. Marketing firms develop a psychological profile of you as a person based on your search history, what you read, where you eat, your social media searches, how long you spend on certain articles, your subscriptions, even your credit history — all of this readily at hand.

Sounds ominous? Allow me to put it into verse:

That’s Wendell Berry in the beginning of a poem entitled “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front” written in 1973, when the artificial intelligence craze first arrived and was subsequently buried by Herbert Dreyfus in a masterful book which still befuddles the architects. In short, AI can “know that” but they can never “know how” to do a thing. Caveat lector.

Berry diagnoses the problem out of the gate. We become cogs in the machine where economy exists for its own sake rather than for the definition of the word itself — quite literally the law (nomos) of families (oikos) or households. People over politics, so to speak.

Unlike Kaszynski who argues for mass movement, Berry offers something a bit more grounded and, dare I say, autonomous and non-materialistic. It’s a rejection of productivity, efficiency, and all things measured. In fact, it goes deeper into the things machines can’t do and never will do — love, value, cherish, suffer, and all we attribute to the idea of Aristotelian virtue vs. Machiavellian virtu:

If the economy we are in conditions us to be consumers and even treats us as objects to be consumed by the economy itself, the resistance — or revolution — is a Solzhenitsyn-style refusal of the lie itself.

Reason and science have given us a great deal over the last 500 years. Back then, if we got sick or ill, we prayed to God and treated it as a punishment for sin. Even 200 years ago, the idea of balancing the humors went back to the Greek physicians such as Galen. Today we have antibiotics, antihistamines, surgeons, radiation therapies, and even mRNA therapeutics that can target cancer cells.

There is no real need to do a line-by-line exegesis of Wendell Berry’s poem — though one is invited to read it all — other than to bring things back to his final and closing verse:

One wonders whether we even know what resurrection is in an era where too many strive to live forever. Or in an era where fruits and vegetables are grown out of season and delivered to the modern miracle we call the supermarket.

Solzhenitsyn used to remark that the Western media was worse than the KGB. One could only imagine what the East German Stasi would have done with the internet at its disposal. Is the modern surveillance state worse than the KGB? Perhaps so — and perhaps as we come upon the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we can reassess the freedoms we have exchanged for the safety we have maintained in a far more dangerous world than the one we knew in 2001.

Yet insofar as there can still be an interior life — in our homes, our written journals, in planting a garden, reading or exchanging books, prayer and reflection — so too are the advantages of modern society. Berry himself was no stranger to it. Despite choosing the rural over the urban and the agrarian over the technological, Berry still had a farm, taught English as a professor, and published over 55 books of poetry and prose.

Berry’s 1971 polemic The Unsettling of America was perhaps the last fulmination of the last of the Southern agrarians against our technological age. Yet where Berry diverges from Kaszynski isn’t necessarily in the polemic against technology — both saw the dangers in equal terms — yet where Kaszynski saw the threat against individual autonomy, Berry saw the threat against community and family bonds. Each applied their solutions proportionate to the threat.

Whereas Kaszynski bombed his way to notoriety and lived in a shack, Berry nurtured the soil and raised a family. Berry was no stranger to technology per se, yet there modern conveniences reasonably tolerated as he writes to a friend, “I hope you don’t mind being written to with a pencil. I no longer have the courage to write if I can’t erase,” pace Milton Friedman.

Technology for Virtue or In Virtu

Yet there is an intentionality that we have lost in the exchange of doing things the hard way in exchange for doing things the easy way. Having a small patch of land which struggles to define itself as a farm, there absolute miracle of a tractor plowing up the field in March is infinitely easier than the slow tendition of a tiller. Forget broadforking a row. As my small army of children leave for their respective towers of ivory, the ambitions for the garden grow smaller each year.

At least until the Optimus Robot: Garden Edition arrives.

Even if I choose the deliberate and intentional life, who could follow? After all, aren’t all the trust fund babies who can afford 40 acres and live the Joel Salatin lifestyle to sell to a few restaurants really just reclining into the decadence of others who subsidize this lifestyle as a cheap means of being more moral and ethical than their peers? Would that everyone could write, teach, and farm in such a way that could pay our real estate taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, federal taxes, state taxes, tariffs on everything. Air conditioning doesn’t sound so bad when it is 100 degrees outside.

Thomas Sowell — perhaps the last great economist still alive today — reminds us that most things are a tradeoff, and there’s wisdom to this. Technology offers us a series of advantages to the good life. Life expectancies are up, true poverty is gone in America, food takes up less of a percentage of our income than it did 50 years ago, incomes are up, standards of living are higher. If we have forgotten intentionality or meaning in work, is the fault not our own?

Alexander Karp tries to grapple with the problem in his book The Technological Republic and settles on some admixture of Straussianism — that is to say, obscuring the question for minds suited to tangle with the problem of technology — and patriotism. Yet at the core of what is being raised isn’t so much that Americans aren’t getting what we want out of the rise of artificial intelligence, or that energy costs are too high thanks to good intentions and bad outcomes, or even that the Trojan Horses on the horizon are less a gift and more a threat.

Yet there is one answer to the riddle.

We can solve a lot of problems in the world with economic growth than without it. Whether it is data centers or artificial intelligence, these are still tools in the hands of humans who can choose — and will choose — to use it either for good or ill. Montesquieu and Adams were right to extend the finger in the direction of virtue in the pursuit of prosperity and were equally correct to point out that this pursuit of virtue is discerned by every generation moving forward and rarely achieved.

If we are afraid of technological progress, it isn’t that we are afraid of the neutral tools themselves, but rather those using it. That’s us — that’s citizens. Whether we are good thieves or bad thieves is ultimately our decision, but the technology will only “know that” a thing can be done. It will never understand the “know how” that we give to the tools at hand.

Which brings us full circle. In a New Yorker interview with Wendell Berry in 2022, there is a story about a someone who breaks into Berry’s writing shed — his “long legged cabin” full of pencils and time — attempting to break into a safe. Dorothy Wickenden shares the story about the mishap:

The place was so inviting, I wondered if anyone had ever broken in—seeking, perhaps, a little food and a furtive night’s rest. “Yes, once,” Berry said. He was pretty sure he knew the culprit. “Someone took out a few panes and tried to get into my safe. I wrote him a note—‘Dear Thief, if you’re in trouble, don’t tear this place up. Come to the house, and I’ll give you what you need.’ ”

And so to my fellow thieves: perhaps we are in trouble as technology adheres to Moore’s Law and culture progresses incrementally in the face of such change. Let’s not tear the place up trying to make sense of it all. Come to the house and let’s talk about it — and we can figure out what we need.

One suspects this is a far better solution than Kaszynski’s method. We have punted on energy for six decades, the technology is already here, the key word to artificial intelligence is artifice and not intellect, and the surveillance state — law enforcement, marketing, social media, and our unknowing and unaware participation in it — can be separated out and discussed in turn.

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave and that he would rather attend to the problem of too much liberty rather too small a degree of it. One suspects those sentiments are still alive and well and that we would rather brave the storm rather than sit in the harbor.

Yet there is an intentionality behind Wendell Berry’s work which we have set aside — not traded but set aside — for the ease of advantages technology brings. Will the world change rapidly? As sure as automobiles, electricity, sanitation, antibiotics, and microprocessors changed things.

If we use these advances to improve the human condition, then Aristotelian virtue wins. If we use these advances for personal gain, then Machiavellian self-interest wins. Yet how it changes us — ourselves, our families, our communities — is really a question only we can answer.

Personally, I’ll take the risk as a good Jeffersonian conservative and put a little bit more faith in the future. Technological ends to agrarian means, so to speak — and if that gets me back in my garden and the governance of 10 acres of Virginia, then I suspect that would be the life of intentionality Berry sought to define and live.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor of The Republican Standard. This piece was originally published at the Virginia Free Press.

With the winding down of Bacon’s Rebellion, you may discover that a good deal of conservative opinion writing is heading over to the Virginia Free Press, a new statewide publication headed up by Marty Davis who has worked for the Fordham Institute, U.S. News and World Report, the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, and served as co-founder of the Fredericksburg Advance before moving to this new institution.

Of the many frustrations of Virginia conservatives, one is that we have never truly had a press outlet that would publish conservative content on its own merits. The Virginia Free Press is not a conservative outlet by any means, but it does strive to be a multipartisan one — the driving force being the “why behind the why” and a dispassionate and deep analysis of the question at hand. The reader will not always agree with everything they read and see — but that’s a good thing (and we hope you see it as a good thing too).

Give the Virginia Free Press a quick look and let me know what you think and what topics you would like to see discussed. Thanks for reading. — SVK

Two weeks ago, the United States Department of Justice issued further indictments against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), this time against former top official Heidi Beirich, who is being accused of orchestrating a network of informants through the SPLC’s intelligence project.

Beirich is alleged to have diverted at least $140,000 to a joint bank account used to pay personal living expenses with the informant, according to the indictment. This is not the first in a string of allegations against the once-storied civil rights non-profit, which in April 2026 found itself the subject of an 11-count DOJ indictment that included wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The direct allegation? The SPLC through a network of so-called informants paid the very organizations the SPLC was supposed to be fighting against, then fundraised off of the violence from those organizations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of particular interest to Virginians was $270,000 alleged to have been paid by the SPLC to an organizer of the 2017 Unite The Right riot in Charlottesville who co-ordinated transportation to and from Charlottesville:

Another “informant” was the fundraiser for the National Alliance, which the SPLC is accused of paying $1,000,000 to between 2014 and 2023. The chairman of the National Alliance was paid some $140,000. One, an officer within the National Socialist Movement, was allegedly paid $300,000 over the same time period. The leader of the National Socialist Movement? Paid $70,000 by the SPLC.

All in all, the SPLC is accused of funneling more than $4.1 million to right-wing hate groups according to the August indictment.

The SPLC’s turn from civil rights advocate to more extreme tactics have included including the Family Research Council in their SPLC Hate Group Map, who was in turn the target of a terrorist attack in 2012, pro-life pregnancy resource centers which have been attacked in the wake of the Dobbs decision, and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk who was assassinated in September 2025 after being targeted yet again by the SPLC.

In 2024 alone, SPLC raised $208 million with total assets of $822 million. By contrast before funneling cash to hate groups, the SPLC fundraising haul was a more modest $54.4 million in 2014 with $314 million in total assets.

The surge in SPLC fundraising after the 2017 Charlottesville riots has been illustrated by the Wall Street Journal:

Charity Watch — a nationally non-profit watchdog group — has given the SPLC an “F” because its war chest of three quarters of a billion dollars violates the watchdog’s policy of spending resources on the mission.

Paid Protesters and Political Theater: Exception or Template?

Of note to Virginians is why Charlottesville of all cities in the nation became a magnet for this sort of violence and hatred. Why Charlottesville, which endured not just one near riot where local citizens turned out in the thousands to oppose a few hundred neo-Nazis and Klansmen organized from across the nation? Why were the two groups allowed so close? Governor Terry McAuliffe never quite answered the question as to why Virginia State Police officers were told to stand down.

The 2017 Unite The Right riot soon thereafter somehow was known to local activists as a potential activity when hundreds of Citronella Nazis marched to Mr. Jefferson’s Rotunda and pushed towards the Jefferson Monument at its base. While a handful of activists huddled around the statue of Jefferson, so too did the tiki torch wielding rioters. One might even be forgiven for seeing a bit of the theatrical as the images of that night were recorded, pounced upon (to borrow the terminology of the Washington Post), and finally allegedly capitalized upon by the Southern Poverty Law Center — which allegedly paid people to bring people there.

The aftermath of the 2017 riots and the subsequent “Summer of Love” riots in 2020 continue to have their imitators on college campuses and in public forums. Students rallying for Ukraine one month suddenly flip to desiring to Free Palestine the next, only to carry American flags the next month before reverting back to Palestinian keffiyehs as the new N95 masks. Protests against federal law enforcement adopts the posture of direct action bordering violence. Tent cities become the new Occupy movement. Assassinations become the new form of protest. Soros backed Commonwealth Attorneys refuse to enforce the laws or plead felonies down to misdemeanors.

This practice of leveraging protests to effect change outside of legal normative behavior isn’t a new tactic. What were the Solidarity protests in Poland if not backed by the AFL-CIO among others? Americans have used such tactics with great effect, first with the Berlin Wall and next with the Velvet Revolution as the Iron Curtain collapsed.

The Arab Spring was American soft power at work. Tahrir Square saw American influence first in taking down Mubarak and finally — after realizing the mistake made with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood — the restoration of sanity with Al-Sisi as president of Egypt. Who helped the Maidan Uprising in the Ukraine but a steady stream of visitors such as U.S. Senator John McCain and Vitali Klitschko? When the pro-Russian government sent in the riot police, from out of the blue — 14,000 armed militia stood ready to fight back. Hong Kong democracy protests mimicked the same strategies seen in Seattle, then mimicked the same methods used during the 2020 “Summer of Love” riots. Pro-Palestinian protests? Gee, imagine that. How many times have Iranians protested against their government in the name of democracy?

Should anyone be naive enough to believe these protests come for free? When these strategies are weaponized against Americans, should we be surprised?

As Always, Follow The Dark Money

The long lesson here is that protests are rarely non-coordinated events. No Kings? In the words of Bob Dylan, you gotta serve somebody.

Perhaps the defunding of USAID was an adjacent event to the relative calm we are seeing today? One can merely speculate at such things, yet interesting to most of us is the omnipresent link between emotion and the lucrative.

Should the indictment against the SPLC prove demonstrable — and the DOJ either has the aces or they do not — then we are seeing but a tiny crack in the armor plate of the professional protesting class. If the narrative proves true, the mere fact that the SPLC held both ends of the Charlottesville Unite The Right protests should be one of the loudest wake-up calls in American politics, shattering a narrative long decade that Democrats held dearly to as to morally justify riots, violence, and cancel culture.

Even assassinations are on the table, with people such as Luigi Mangione lauded and Charlie Kirk openly mocked. Even the near assassination of President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania revealed the characters of too many of our friends and neighbors.

Yet Virginians in particular should be offended that the SPLC chose Charlottesville as the centerpiece for their double-dealing and stoking of hatred. Not only did their greed cost the life of Heather Heyer, these protests cost the lives of two Virginia State Police officers who died in the line of duty — Lieutenant H. Jay Cullen III and Trooper-Pilot Berke M.M. Bates — whose names are rarely if ever mentioned by the predictable few more than happy to scrawl ACAB on everything from gas pumps to bathroom stalls. How edgy. How droll.

Of course, these are all allegations in an indictment from a grand jury. Yet let’s hope there are enough people of sound mind and good will where — if the Department of Justice is correct and the SPLC is found guilty — minds on the political left might change just a bit. Maybe — just maybe — the SPLC-fueled riots of 2017 took in a lot of good people. Maybe we should all be a bit angrier about being duped by professional agitators seeking to make a buck? Maybe our politics might change if we quit listening to and rewarding those who manipulate the worst rather than cultivate the best?

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard. This op-ed was originally published in the Virginia Free Press.

The conversation between Margaret Hoover — heiress to William F. Buckley Jr.’s Firing Line — and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is an interesting one, not just for the interview or the interviewer, but for the real thrust of what Gorsuch was saying and how the political left is desperately attempting to contrast it with the views of Vice President J.D. Vance.

Hoover: Look, you make the point also, as you discuss this book, and even in the book, that there is no common religion or cultural heritage of Americans.

. . .

Gorsuch: We were founded in a lot of our colonies for religious pluralism, right, and the opportunity to practice your own faith in your own way, and we were never supposed to be a nation that was about one race or one religion. It was about those ideas.

Hoover: But you refute the idea that we came from the same heritage and the same religion.

Gorsuch: Well, I mean, it’s demonstrably not true that we came from the same religion.

I mean, think about the Amish who came here in the 1600s on a handful of rickety boats, a third of them dying along the way for their freedom and populating much of, you know, into Pennsylvania and down into the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia and now throughout the rest of the country.

What, they weren’t part of the American experiment? Of course they were. The Quakers, same story. Of course they were, and so America was not found-- I mean, we have a First Amendment for crying out loud. No established religion. Everybody has the freedom of religion. Everybody has the freedom of speech. We are all equal under law.

Now, you cannot believe in those ideas. Fair enough. Then we have a problem, but those three ideas are something all of us can unite behind.

Gorsuch goes so far as to argue as evidence that America’s founding was not a Christian founding because it included Catholics — as if Catholics were not Christian (so goes the old saw).

I’ll take a stab at it — the idea of America ultimately rests on Christian principles, filtered through a Protestant lens and rests on ideas rooted in the both the Anglo-Saxon experience and Enlightenment values.

Stephen Saunders Webb has an excellent four-volume series entitled Governors General on how England during the Stuart dynasty rose from backwater to British Empire. During this time, we get the 1689 English Bill of Rights, we get the proper role of Parliament, and more than this we get the Duke of Marlborough — whose lieutenants eventually are sent to govern the colonies in America and whose leadership style is eventually emulated by the American Founding Fathers. The history is excellent. In like turn, John Locke’s Two Treatise of Government is a more powerful influence over the minds of the early Virginians — specifically Jefferson — than most would care to consider. Finally, there is the influence of such men as the Reverend John Witherspoon over the Founding Fathers who much like George Wythe taught many of them on the precepts of a Lockean respublica Christiana.

What Gorsuch misses is that these values which are claimed as American values — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal justice under law — are all ideas predicated upon something and not easily superimposed. Politics is downstream from culture, and if cult is the operative word, then the cultivation of these ideas is rooted in something much deeper than a proscriptive creed defined by Thomas Jefferson and refined in the Federalist Papers.

Politics is Downstream from Culture

In fact, the concept of religious freedom and religious toleration is unique to the Christian West, and more specifically to the Protestant tradition where it was never imaginable under the Sun King of France much less the wider Catholic world. In its own way, America enjoyed such diversity of religious thought ranging from Anglicans both low and high, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Puritans, and even Unitarians — imperfectly at first, but more broadly as Americans reached the latter half of the 18th century.

Freedom of speech is still a tricky thing, yet for the English it was defined first as a prerogative of Parliament, next as a bulwark against royal interference, and finally enshrined in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

The rule of law is a trickier thing to pin down, for while the American Republic would have defined the term in contrast with King George III and Parliament, the antecedents are as old as Montesquieu, Gratian, Bonaventure, Bellarmine, Aquinas, Magna Carta, Cicero, Aristotle, and Plato.

What strikes me as demonstrably true is that all of this is predicated on a certain idea of the human person. No — personalism had not been described in the same manner as we have it today, but the idea of the individual and citizen (in contrast to a subject) had most certainly arrived. What the Protestant reformers were pointing towards were the rights of conscience and the ability to participate in public life despite differences in religious opinion — again, imperfectly, but altogether welded to classical ideas and rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tradition among deeply committed and religious men.

What should be remarkable to skeptics is that the Founding Fathers were indeed deeply religious and Christian men — with pastors and theologians in their midst — and yet they gave us a republic and not a theocracy.

Corruptio Optimi Quae Est Pessima

What particularly galls me about the present-day framing is the gotcha. Gorsuch says we didn’t come from one religion, ergo “white Christian nationalist supremacy” (TM) is not only rejected, but that Christianity had nothing to do with the American founding.

The kicker is that America’s founding could not have happened — and in fact, did not happen — in other political cultures. What was that culture? A deeply Christian, deeply Protestant, deeply Anglo-Saxon tradition with antecedents broadly defined as Western Civilization.

Ivan Illich famously defined atheism as a uniquely Christian heresy and modernism as a uniquely Western concept, mimicking the role of the Church in society and offering a sort of quasi-religious perversion of the real thing. Democracy as sacred? What precisely makes it sacred?

The Declaration of Independence as a creed? What precise authority does it have over the minds of Americans to demand the word credo — I believe — in order to be a real American? When we describe rights what are we really describing? If they are inherent, are they natural? Given to us by whom? Should the w- in Whom be capitalized? If natural, are those rights ordered? Ordered to Whom? Or ordered to a Parliament — or perhaps a Politburo?

If that sounds like an awful lot to unpack to postmodern Americans in the present day, they were not terribly difficult for Americans on the cusp of the modern era in 1776. They knew (and more deeply knew that they knew) the answer to all of these questions and would be shocked and perhaps even horrified or even marvelously pleased to discover the conclusions we have drawn from their first premises as we strive to build that New Jerusalem — a more perfect Union.

A Republic, Not a Theocracy

Now this isn’t to say that there are perfectly capable secular governments out there in the world. Or perfectly tolerant ones. Or that Americans got it right and everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Yet there is a confession to all of this. Catholics had a certain sensibility regarding representative government, but always with the underpinnings of a rejection of liberalism, republics, religious freedom, and the like seeing them all as outcroppings of the French Revolution. Only with the ralliement with the Third Republic and a slow realization that the Protestant Reformation wasn’t exactly a passing fad did it dawn on the Vatican that religious freedom might be a good idea after all.

Only in 1965 did the Vatican concede that the United States of America — and not the Spanish Falange who united Church and State — had the right idea by giving total religious freedom to the Church. This after the 1929 Lateran Treaty with Italy abandoned all temporal and political power to the state.

One would imagine Thomas Jefferson throwing an arm over his chair — touching the grin in the corner of his mouth with an outstretched finger — to hear that the Catholic Church less than 200 years later discover that Jefferson was right all along.

And yet this is the genius of the American Founding. Yes, the Americans were deeply religious and profoundly Christian, and it was precisely because of their religious sentiment that they continued their experiment in self-government. Yes, the Americans enjoyed a renaissance of classical thought, and it was precisely because of this they aspired to a balance of factions rather than the domination of one over the other. Yes, one Catholic was invited to the table. Yes, Quakers were invited to the table.

Even this was a tremendous leap of faith — but one rooted in a deeper faith that defies the caricatures of those who believe any faith in the sacred whatsoever disqualifies a person for consideration by the secular. For this we can also thank the Protestant Reformers as conscience yielded to willpower — but that’s another debate for another day.

What we can appreciate — and where Neil Gorsuch and George Will are mistaken — is that America’s Christian Founding was no small achievement and no small thing to wonder about. Our origins were the product of culture, and it is a culture most certainly under attack and intentionally misunderstood by barbarians who can only mimic but never create and are insistent upon cashing out a public trust without appreciating the advantages carefully and assiduously handed down by generations upon generations of Americans before them.

For this, we do not have to look to men such as Locke or Witherspoon and their influence on the Founders, but rather to their results as noted by men such as Alexis de Tocqueville:

Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion — for who can search the human heart? — but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

Tocqueville seems to be the more reasonable position than either Gorsuch’s assertions or the fantasies of some sort of quasi-Christian theocracy designed to crush one half of society to the benefit of the other.

Yet it is important to understand how the early Americans understood themselves and the American experiment so as to preserve the tradition of self-government and why it flourishes here. As we have seen over the decades, America isn’t a thing easily exported nor are our values universally shared even among other Americans.

Culture commands — or so the saying goes. It’s a tricky thing to cultivate, but an easy thing to lose.

SHAUN KENNEY is senior editor for The Republican Standard.

by Daniel P. Cortez

Once again mainstream media and liberal officials validated a lack of balance for responsible White House actions during the recent announcement of the White House Freedom Haulers program.

Present at the White House event with President Donald J. Trump was the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, national leaders of our veteran community, and Doug Ollivant who is running for the Republican nomination in Virginia’s 7th District who once elected will aspire to support such initiatives.

Ollivant’s presence at the White House remains a telling action of who is most worthy to be the nominee to challenge incumbent 7th Dist. Congressman Eugene Vindman.

The message sent by President Trump was loud and clear:

Today we’re taking action to get illegal alien truck drivers off the American roadways and replace them with proud American veterans.

The need for such a firm statement by our Commander-in-Chief is deeply needed and unfortunately for victims of illegal truck drivers, well documented.

For many in Virginia and the nation who tragically have been the victims of crime by the undocumented, it was indeed about time for such a profound statement and action.

Independent voters along with the growing Hispanic community which includes a considerable number of veterans take strong issue with Governor Abigail Spanberger in her first actions as Virginia’s chief executive when she terminated 287(g) state and local agreements authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to co-operate with state and local law enforcement officers to perform specific functions under ICE’s direction and oversight in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Are Democratic State Governors Choosing to Make America Less Safe?

Let’s cut to the chase.

Both President Trump and then-Governor Glenn Youngkin were responsibly removing the criminal element from Virginia’s streets — and to our shock and disgust, Spanberger came out and countermanded this policy

Since then, Virginia has been subjected to considerable illegal alien offenses in what too many are beginning to call a sanctuary state. Even the US Department of Homeland Security is chronicling over two dozen arrests and the sentencing of illegal alien crime in the last few months including rape, murder, drug trafficking, sexual assault, carjacking and abduction.

In June, ICE investigators also aided in the sentencing of illegal alien Samuel Flores de Dios of Mexico to 30 years in prison on charges of production of child sexual abuse material in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Tragically the undocumented have found their way on the nation’s roadways with over 17,000 CDL licenses issued in California alone thanks to the administration of former President Biden and with assistance from then Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, providing little oversight and even allowing licenses to individuals whose work authorizations in the United States had previously expired.

Correcting The Problem and Enforcing America’s Laws

Fortunately, President Trump and Secretary Duffy have reinstituted integrity into the transportation process in an effort to provide safety on the road.

Veterans can be the key with statistics showing truckers who are veterans account for 42% fewer accidents while covering 98% more miles than their counterparts.

No doubt instilled military discipline and a focus on safety remains the key to $70,000 average pay a year under President Trump’s program which has seen an increase in annual earnings of 7.42%

Ollivant shared with me his total support for this pro-veteran initiative, stating:

The transportation industry can provide financial security for a former military family with up to 100% tuition coverage for approved CDL programs. I stand with the president and when elected will endeavor to support common sense programs that capitalize on the strengths of our military in transition.

Politics being what they are this close to the August 4th primary, one of Ollivant’s opponents have attempted to undermine his campaign with predictable and disgusting character attacks attempting to make Ollivant’s professionalism a liability. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For the record, I did not see them standing a few feet from the President as he was or anywhere in sight.

Voters during the primary and in November should not overlook the risks to public safety by allowing undocumented immigrants to circumvent the system with help from out of touch liberal officials like Buttigieg and liberal members of Congress — or by so-called conservative ‘Never Trump’ candidates who too-clever-by-half refuse to salute the President’s veteran actions.

Washington Buzz: Fauci’s 5th Amendment Backlash

Meanwhile, instead of covering a pro-worker and pro-America initiative from the White House, the liberal media focused on poor Dr. Anthony Fauci in spite of the preponderance of evidence he misused his position to enrich himself and misled Congress and the public during the COVID emergency to include the mask mandate, the lockdown, and other restrictions.

The fact Fauci invoked his 5th Amendment rights over 110 times remains a telling and perhaps provided an excuse for media to focus on Fauci — despite a magnificent program providing opportunity for our veteran community and helping to eliminate the undocumented illegally driving big rigs.

The contrast between apologizing for Fauci’s mishandling and self-enriching antics in the middle of a pandemic against Trump’s pro-worker and pro-trucker initiative to help improve incomes and strengthen the economy is illustrative of the very real problems in Washington today — not to mention the differences between the swampy behavior of grifters in contrast against the principled leadership of leaders.

Leadership, Character, Integrity: What You Do When Others Aren’t Watching Matters

For myself, this is why Ollivant’s attendance at the President’s Freedom Haulers announcement remains significant. There was no fanfare, no self-promotion. Only a shared view and a willingness to help. That’s leadership forged in places others might try to imitate cheaply but can never replicate honestly.

A recent Gallop poll released June 30 indicated 77% of 1001 adults in 50 states trust individuals with military experience to perform well in office. Ollivant a seasoned Army combat veteran certainly fits that mold as he held key leadership positions in Iraq and Afghanistan and is uniquely suited to take on Democrat Eugene Vindman in November and give House Republicans a sorely needed pick-up and win.

That’s one more reason to trust veterans like Ollivant for political office who know that veterans behind the wheel — whether on the open road, providing responsibly for their families, or in Congress — is always the right call.

DANIEL P. CORTEZ is a presidential and gubernatorial appointee, political writer and broadcaster who lives in Stafford County.

Recent numbers from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) offer a fairly gripping overview of the state of public education in America. Fewer children to teach, lower test scores, and a massive infusion of federal cash to hire more teachers and administrators is evaporating post-pandemic — leaving state and local governments in the lurch.

Tosin Akintola over at Reason outlines the results:

Still, more money hasn’t led to better student outcomes. At each grade level and across subject areas, there’s a decline in current achievement when compared to student benchmarks from 2019. In 2024, the most recent data available, only 60 percent of fourth graders and 67 percent of eighth graders were reading at or above a basic level, the lowest performance tier used by the National Center for Education Statistics.

It doesn’t get better as students age, with just 68 percent of high school seniors reading at or above a basic level.

Of course, this is a very high gloss look. Pushing $190 billion in temporary relief during a pandemic perhaps served to highlight problems that have been cropping up in classrooms since the introduction of the smartphone. The ubiquity of artificial intelligence has introduced a degree of pragmatism in students conditioned to produced test results rather than engage in deep learning — again, another factor not easily measured by either the NCES or NAEP. America spends more on consumer marketing than on federal K-12 spending while families have undergone catastrophic changes over the last five decades. 69% of Americans own fewer than 100 books — and don’t bother asking about the quality of those books. 40% of Americans never cracked the spine of a book in 2025 with 19% of all Americans doing 82% of all the reading. Why pursue a graduate level education? For 62% of Americans, the answer isn’t learning or excellence but money or prestige.

If parents themselves do not reinforce learning for its own sake, why should their children and our students ask for better? Which isn’t a critique of parents who have their own daily struggles: mortgage, insurance, food, clothes, etc. Yet it is a reminder that much of what we do is for consumption and precious little is directed towards the cultivation of things good, beautiful, and true. If education is the transmission of culture, then we are most certainly transmitting the results but not the process by which we earn the condition of being educated.

Virginia By The Numbers

Taking a closer look at Virginia, the average salary for schoolteachers is certainly not the issue, especially when one includes the total compensation package offered by most local school boards:

Per pupil spending in Virginia? A generous bump in real dollars from about $15,000 to $17,000 per pupil. Enrollment? Over 40,000 fewer students from 2012 through 2022.

Click here for the full Virginia NCES Dashboard.
Click here for the full Virginia NAEP Dashboard.

Obviously, quality teachers deserve quality pay. What is too often missed in the debate over public education spending is that conservatives writ large would gladly pay more for a public education if it meant a proportionate increase in student achievement.

Yet if the counterpoint is true that public education in America is awash in resources, then why are we not seeing a corresponding increase in anything? The answer is perhaps a bit more complicated than return on investment, but rather what we expect out of our education system. Once upon a time, a parent-teacher conference put Little Johnny in the hotseat. Today, those same conferences put the teacher in the hotseat, because if a teacher holds a student to any standard whatsoever, parents are quick to remind them that they are the primary educators of their children — and certainly, Little Johnny’s achievements being a reflection of one’s parenting, teachers are in no condition to pass judgment much less grade that performance.

Grade inflation is by no means limited to institutions great or small. Neither is the use of artificial intelligence in the pursuit of higher grades at the expense of actually learning. Students are being habituated into producing a result without being able to explain how they arrived at that result. Blaming data centers is no solution. Neither is blaming the misuse and abuse of artificial intelligence. Knowing-how is a very different thing than knowing-that.

Yet the real problem is that over the last 30 years, we have trained both students and teachers — and habituated parents — to the idea that grades, credentials, and salary are the fruits of an education. This makes excellent consumers, but it hardly inspires excellence for its own sake.

“We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us”

When the cartoonist Walt Kelly revised the immortal words of Commodore Oliver Perry from the War of 1812, he did so with regards to an Earth Day poster in 1970 to emphasize that we become the environment we are in.

Sadly, public education in America has been wholly resistant to change resembling the meaningful. Jefferson’s vision of public education has been entirely subsumed by an entirely alien 19th century system equipped with and funded by 20th century tools all trying to produce a 21st century result — and by every objective standard, it is failing our students. Yet $190 billion more in resources later, it is clear that the answer is not to shovel more money into the maw of a bureaucracy. Nor is it to continue to beg those in power to actually involve the communities they claim to represent as they wonder aloud why an institution breathing with one lung is failing to meet their own standard only to scold those skeptical of public education’s results of not being sufficiently enthusiastic about a system striving for mediocrity.

Empowering teachers to actually be teachers without the administrative bloat heaped upon their shoulders over the last 20 years would be a radical step forward.

Yet fiddling within a broken system saddled with administrators, bureaucrats, and bevy of federal and state mandates (funded and unfunded) simultaneously ignores and confesses the problem — it is the system itself which remains the problem and is in desperate need of creative reform and direct competition.

Case in point — Spotsylvania County Public Schools recently took a vote against drug testing for public school teachers and staff. Against.

Spotsylvania Superintendent Clint Mitchell argued that if such draconian standards such as drug testing were implemented, then who would teach the children?

“Implementing such a program would completely negate the work that we have done over the last eighteen months plus in the school division on teacher retention,” Superintendent Mitchell said earlier this year. “I guarantee you that our neighbors, whether it's Stafford, Fredericksburg City, Caroline, Louisa, Orange County, Culpeper, Prince William, they're looking for you to implement such a policy because here's what's gonna happen. You think we have a problem hiring and retaining people and filling positions? You'll have vacancies because no one wanna work here.”

In a 4-3 vote, the local school board concurred with such reasoning.

The reason this issue has come up is because a 2nd grade teacher (allegedly) died of a fentanyl overdose inside a classroom last year. I’m sorry — but we aren’t talking caffeine, energy drinks, or even one of these three-letter gummies that have become so ubiquitous over the last few years, but if you’re coping mechanism is actual fentanyl then we should have more than just a few questions. If fentanyl is what someone needs to get by? How are the students doing?

Just a one off? Don’t worry — the story gets worse:

The plea agreement says that law enforcement reported that the teacher’s husband allegedly brought her drugs at school and was also found suffering from an overdose in the school parking lot and their two-year-old daughter was with him. The teacher was convicted and sentenced to two years behind bars for possessing drugs in school and 17 counts of child endangerment and felony child neglect.

One might imagine that a strict regime of mandatory drug testing would be warranted. Even a more stringent version of randomized screening. But no — not only did the system refuse to act, the oversight of that system collectively shrugged in the face of imperious evidence.

This is not a system that seeks to reform. No small wonder why the parents who can are rescuing their children and looking for alternatives: private schools, parochial schools, and even the old way of homeschooling and the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) rather than the mendacity of a school system more willing to protect its own than protect our children.

Florida seems to have figured it out on school choice with a system championed by former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) which gives $8,000 so that parents can choose which education best suits their children. The results? Predictably, they vary from school to school in the same way not every public high school in Virginia produces similar results, but two data points should strike us. Not only are private schools on the balance producing better test scores, but the litany of horribles regarding the collapse of public education simply hasn’t happened.

In fact, competition has not only made the sum total of Florida’s education system stronger — public, private, parochial, charter, and homeschooled — but parents themselves are taking a more active role in how their children are being educated, which is the signal marker of student achievement.

Incentivizing Reform? Or Simply Forcing the Question?

Obviously, this merely scratches the surface — smartphones have had their impact, artificial intelligence vs. the 3-page-5-paragraph essay, basement level literacy rates, changing economies, and an emphasis on prestige and income potential as opposed to the higher goods of cultivating a taste for excellence (from which prestige and income flow as a byproduct and not an end unto itself) are all contaminants.

Yet much like wars of choice, any moment a government chooses to throw unlimited amounts of money at a problem nearly always attracts the wrong sort as an admixture to those who see education as a vocational pursuit — up to and including those who need actual fentanyl to get by in their daily routine.

The problem isn’t money. The problem is and remains a system with no incentives to reform.

Until those who truly are concerned about ending the monopsony which holds public education in thrall, then any pretense to reform is merely that — a disconsonance without result which only bears fruit by accident and not intent. Until parents and lawmakers press, then there is never going to be either progress or change — and that serves no one, least of all future generations of Virginians.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

The August 4 primary and November election, have sexagenarians, septuagenarians, and octogenarians carefully looking at candidates many times half their age with a keen handle on ethics, economics and business.

With remarkable life experiences and knowledge of international situations, senior’s opinions should be valued more than most.

Sadly, that’s not always the case. Concerns over social security payouts in the not-too-distant future have older voters more involved than ever.

They should be.

Social Insecurity and Affordability

George Will, respected Pulitzer Prize winning writer called “perhaps the most powerful journalist in America” suggests a social security crisis will encompass the nation in six years, correctly suggesting our democracy is resembling a kakistocracy or being governed by the least qualified.

Such are major concerns in Virginia with startling failures by Governor Abigail Spanberger that allow the continuing raising of electricity bills putting her polling in grossly negative territory, with proof thanks to a respected Virginia former Democratic governor whose 2026 Commonwealth Poll released through Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs showed only 44 percent of registered voters approved of her job performance, while 47 percent disapproved. The nine percent who said they were unsure of Spanberger’s leadership cite the economy as the problem.

More validation Spanberger’s public support has eclipsed is that 47 percent also believe Virginia’s headed in the wrong direction with fourteen percent undecided.

Issues troubling Spanberger and her liberal general assembly clearly being led by State Senator Louise Lucas and her acolytes also include data centers, inflation, and the cost of living.

Clearly what Virginia needed was a governor with genuine business bona fides, not a former CIA operative dealing with nuclear proliferation and terrorism having trouble keeping her nose above the political current.

If the respected Will is correct and the nation’s funding stream is exhausted before the 2032 elections, America including her veterans who have fought to preserve and protect our great republic, may see benefits cut by as much as 22 percent.

Anyone gleefully ready to accept a double digit cut to fiscal security?

In examining cause and effect, historic liberal expenditures have cost the nation many billions with the government on track to borrow $2 trillion more by the end of this fiscal year.

Conscience and Warner’s Inability to Admit Mistakes

Spanberger, a devoted liberal attempting to promote a moderate presentation, takes little issue with her party’s historic answer to social programs, by supporting increased funding that may grow a voter base with illegals of questionable character supported by other officials lacking virtue and principle.

The lack of political integrity became flagrant when even ABC News — known to be particularly friendly to liberal officials — had to take issue with Virginia Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) who embarrassed himself and his party by suggesting Virginia has voter ID requirements, for which Jon Karl as a former Chief White House correspondent for ABC firmly corrected Warner clearly misrepresenting voting procedures in an effort to undermine President Trump’s correct desire to implement the SAVE America Act.

This same Mark Warner, who was interviewed by a man who’d written books attacking the integrity of President Trump, should be particularly embarrassed; however so typical for politicians of his caliber, he tried to propagandize his way out of the clearly deceptive statement.

I personally have witnessed Warner refusing to admit an oversight. At a veterans’ forum in Fredericksburg, Virginia this same Mark Warner was taken to task for not having the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem performed at the beginning of our program. Rather than admit fault Warner attempted to spin his way out of the breach of protocol by stating the pledge could be given at the beginning or the end of a program to the chagrin of combat veterans present.

Then like now Warner could have gained respect by simply admitting to his error.

The majority of involved senior and independent voters such as myself clearly understand Senator Warner and liberal compatriots desire NOT to see this become law and ensure cheating at the polls ceases, cheating that in the observation of many has clearly advantaged liberals.

Actions Not Words on Affordability for Seniors

Refocusing on Spanberger, it’s her genuine lack of business credentials and inability to adequately understand energy demands and our military doctrine that remains most troubling to those seeking lower prices and solvency to entitlements like social security, not the feminist pretensions of our governor.

Such a statement clearly galls liberals across Virginia who may easily brand such utterances as sexist.

Yet before the lynch mob gathers at my residence attempting to right double standard statements, acknowledge New Jersey’s Governor Mikie Sherrill elected the same time as Spanberger who has a plus 14 percent positive rating with far less outrage within her own party.

That perhaps may also change with the acknowledgment New Jersey registered about 6,600 illegals to vote when they applied for state I.D. cards and driver’s licenses.

Credit Governor Sherrill for at least seeking to correct the problem; but shame blaming the vendor for the “software” error when the governor has staff to insure responsible application.

Pundits also correctly assess Spanberger has made significant first year errors. Rejoining RGGI was a major mistake in the eye of independent voters watching their wallets and other significant tax increases and expansion of user fees.

Problematic remains Spanberger and company refusing to see the merit in President Trump’s actions using oil as a major part of the solution. Historically unrefined petroleum has been in use for over 5,000 years. The waterproofing of containers and boats was used in Mesopotamia and Elam which today is Iran with natural bitumen deposits. Military historians clearly acknowledge this energy resource was paramount during WWII and after.

While Trump with responsible support from key members of the Virginia Republican delegation such as First District’s Rob Wittman and Fifth District Congressman John McGuire, have seen first-hand how the use of small modular reactors (SMRs) are part of the answer along with responsibly utilizing oil production not just in the military but in the private sector to responsibly advance our nuclear capabilities. Wittman has led the way in the congress to support funding SMRs in the fiscal year 2026 budget.

Spanberger and Warner would be wise to follow Trump and Wittman’s lead.

Republican Energy vs. Democratic Inertia

Again, demonstrative of the responsible evolution of nuclear is the key and at the same time ensure Iran’s nuclear component is never advanced as demonstrated by the thousands of American lives lost over the years by the IRGC and their religious zealotry with nothing but American hate as part of their daily dogma.

Virginia faces her owns form of misguided zealotry from individuals such as State Sen. Saddam Salim supporting SB 624 formally defining Islamophobia and seeking to categorize it as a hate crime. Free speech activists are correct to state concerns how “malicious prejudice or hatred directed toward Islam or Muslims” could apply to non-Muslim victims.

Is this more of the liberal socialist agenda causing the Democratic Party to implode from within? What’s next, the forced application of sharia law in Virginia schools?

Look to individuals such as television host Bill Maher the popular political commentator and stand-up comedian who refers to himself as a progressive, to state his reactions to liberal direction. Maher went on record recently stating the democratic party remains in such disarray due to a socialist takeover he “could” vote for J.D. Vance for President in the 2028 election.

This in spite of the Middle Eastern dilemma should be of major concern to Spanberger and Salim with respect to the Social Security issue.

Pretty clear to see how President Trump has the answer.

Trump and some responsible thinking by Virginia’s would be representatives will save the nation’s seniors, juniors, and the yet to be born by mandating the need to collect the debt from foreign nations due to America’s generosity and protection since our nation was created.

This remains simple business individuals such as former Governor Glenn Youngkin — who is being missed more by the day — understand, and those Virginia Governors who promoted respected Jeffersonian virtue and entrepreneurial advance such as former Governors George Allen, Jim Gilmore and respected veteran Bob McDonnell as Virginians open their wallet more to pay for clear socialist mindsets.

Needed are more such individuals to support the Commander in Chief and those who have served such former Navy helicopter pilot, 2nd District Representative Jen Kiggans, Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, John McGuire, and above all the resilient, deliberate, and sober tide of energy building behind 7th Congressional District candidate Doug Ollivant.

Voters in the upcoming Aug. 4th primary should elect Ollivant and in November allow Wittman to continue to do his remarkable job as probably the next Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Imagine how our defense industry will be cared for with Wittman in charge working with the White House to defend and protect America from terrorists and illegal grifters — all while dealing responsibly with nation’s need to advance artificial intelligence and cyber security in the face of ongoing Chinese and Russian intervention.

Virginia’s security, social or otherwise, will be protected and our 250th Anniversary well celebrated and preserved — if and only if seniors have our criterial say on election day.

DANIEL P. CORTEZ is a presidential and gubernatorial appointee, political writer and broadcaster who lives in Stafford County.

The VCU Wilder Center released their post mortem poll results for Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and the results are not good for Democrats heading into the midterm elections.

Not only do 47% believe the Commonwealth is headed in the wrong direction (as opposed to the 39% who believe everything is on the right track), Spanberger’s approval ratings are 44-46% with a massive 35% of Virginians strongly disapproving of her tenure thus far — that’s 1 in 3. Only one in five Virginians strongly support.

Read the full VCU Wilder School poll here.

Making matters worse, 31% of Virginians are concerned about inflation and the cost of living — the marquee issue Spanberger ran upon before delivering a 300% pay increase to the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. Another 11% are concerned about housing affordability. While campaigning on such things in 2025 sounds politically smart, governing on such issues in 2026 uncovers all sorts of landmines — not just the fact that state governors can only make the problem worse and not better in terms of fees and taxes, but that until Virginia gets serious about the disconnect between local land use, state transportation dollars, regional economic development, and above all else energy infrastructure? Things are only set to become more — and not less — expensive when it comes to the things under Richmond’s control.

Affordability cometh for Virginia’s colleges and universities as well, with 50% of respondents saying the average cost to tuition is “much too high” and a whopping 79% overall indicating that it is too high. Only 17% found that the cost was priced right with only four respondents indicating that the price was low or an outright steal.

PRO-TIP: Defending The Unpopular Makes You Unpopular

Bob Holsworth offers his own take of the VCU numbers vis a vis Spanberger and the manifest of forced errors her team has racked up over the last six months:

[T]he Spanberger team over-read how personal the 2025 election results were. Democrats everywhere were overperforming by large numbers and Virginia was experiencing the brunt of federal employee and contracting cutbacks and Elon Musk’s DOGE chainsaw.

While the Spanberger campaign has focused on her commitment to ”lowering costs, it is very difficult for the Governor of a single state to lower costs when the national economy is inflating. In addition, that affordability agenda that Spanberger touts is relatively thin gruel, more nerdy than populist and doesn’t contain a signature priority that most Virginians could identify today.

The near catastrophe with the state budget in an unprecedented game of political chicken over data centers and social justice programs cannot be understated.

Not only is Wall Street watching from afar, but changing the rules of the game regarding the MOUs on data centers impacts every memoranda of understanding ever signed in Virginia. Energy prices are spiraling north — not due to data centers, but certainly due to an aggregate of failed policies championed by so-called “green” initiatives — and the decision to include Virginia back into RGGI only makes those matters worse.

Then there’s the redistricting fiasco. Apologists for Spanberger will argue that she was forced into supporting the gerrymandering effort, yet not only was Spanberger a full-throated supporter of the $80 million effort, not only did Virginia spend $11 million to have the vote in the first place, not only did it fail in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and not only are voices such as State Senator Dan Helmer (D-Fairfax) threatening to pack SCOVA so as to get correct opinions rather than legal ones, but Virginia Democrats are about to foist three equally repugnant and constitutionally problematic state amendments that are so far beyond the pale even Democrats are privately cringing about their impact on congressional races in November.

Spanberger’s conundrum is that she had the opportunity to be the centrist and the moderate. Not only did she break her word, Spanberger’s early governance has turned her back on the core campaign pledge of affordability in favor of highly divisive social issues — including transgenderism and gender ideology in the state constitution under the guise of an abortion amendment, redefining marriage as opposed to an outright repeal of the marriage amendment, and actually restoring the rights of pedophiles so as to allow felons to serve on local school boards.

Spanberger’s approval ratings are emblematic of the same environment Virginia Republicans walked into back in 2021, where the public was angry and demanding change and Virginia Democrats remained at sixes-and-sevens.

Which brings us to the four races Virginians should keep their eyes upon.

Virginia 2026: Three Defending, One Golden Opportunity

We should start with Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) in VA-01, where he faces a strong challenge from Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor — whose fundraising will be enough to focus attentions. Wittman remains a ranking and well-liked member of both Congress and Virginia Republicans, known for his principled conservativism in the very best of its traditions. Wittman will have to defend his seat, but there are few in Virginia who campaign as hard or as well.

The real contest is in VA-02, where Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) will square off against former Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA). Both candidates are known, both candidates are well liked by their own base. Yet Luria — like most Democratic candidates — will have to contend with a base whose fascination with the Democratic Socialists of America will ultimately require their pound of flesh. What will Luria promise? Whatever it is, don’t expect it to be popular with mainstream Virginians.

The more interesting contest will be VA-05 where Rep. John McGuire (R-VA) will most likely square off against former Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) in a district that has only grown since Perriello’s tenure in office and that growth being decidedly more in line with the values of Northern Virginia and the University of Virginia rather than Southside Virginia and the values of Liberty University. Yet much like VA-01 and VA-02, the “Fighting Fifth” is also looking to send a message to both Richmond and Washington.

Which brings us to my old stomping grounds in the Fredericksburg area — and most notably, Spanberger’s former district — in VA-07, where retired Lieutenant Colonel Doug Ollivant will most likely square off against retired Lieutenant Colonel Yevengy “Eugene” Vindman (D-VA).

Here is a race where Vindman narrowly defeated his erstwhile Republican opposition by less than 10,000 votes two years ago despite a massive $10 million cash advantage and outspending the GOP candidate nearly 6 to 1. This is a district with a heavy military and veteran presence on top of a solid rural core towards Culpeper, one that is well educated and intolerant of political chicanery. With an electorate looking to send a message to Spanberger in her own district and Vindman’s national profile, combined with a candidate that is clearly putting in the work, one expects the White House to make this a highly competitive race after the primary with an ideal candidate at the helm in Ollivant who can challenge Vindman line by line on national security.

The golden opportunity is definitely with Ollivant in VA-07. Not only that, but a DSA-backed independent is challenging Vindman on his left for not being socialist enough. Given the generic ballot about six points lower for the Democrats nationally than what it was in 2018 and that Vindman barely scraped by in a 51-48 contest, not only should Republicans hold across the board — Vindman is in deep trouble indeed. Should the present dynamic remain the case, the other three races will have all the energy they need to keep Republicans in place in Virginia.

Lest it be mentioned, this naturally ignores the U.S. Senate race with Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) most likely squaring off against retired General Bert Mizusawa. Warner remains the most popular politician in Virginia thanks to his “radical centrist” persona, but as his own consultants continue to have him screaming and swearing into the iPhone, Mizusawa is going to give Warner a run for his money. If one assumes that even in bad years that Virginia is 53-47 lean Democrat, the sagging congressional ballot numbers combined with agitation from the DSA wing of the political left means that Warner might have to cough up 4… 5… 6 points?

Then we get to the three sandbags.

Q: Will Virginia Democrats Double Down on Crazy?

What might have made sense to the DSA types while Spanberger enjoyed a 15-point margin in November 2025 clearly doesn’t make sense now. As Holsworth and others continue to point out, Spanberger really did believe that her election results were an endorsement of her rather than a repudiation of Trump — the ambrosia of every politician.

Spanberger is realizing too late that the old Potomac Two Step — where every politician governs two steps to the left of how they campaign — doesn’t quite work in the muck and brine of the James River.

As opposition to the state amendments ramps up, there is a certain sobering effect of not having $80 million on hand to push crazy, making it far harder for the referenda to stand on their own two feet (which is very ableist of me — mea culpa).

The counterarguments to each are simple enough.

• “Bodily autonomy” is code for transgendering kids.

• Forcing pastors and priests to sign off on mock marriages against their deeply held religious belief is a First Amendment violation that will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Automatic restoration of rights means pedophiles can serve on school boards.

Gross. Outrageous. Wood chipper.

Combine the near universal disgust with Mamdani and the rise of democratic socialism as an actual option, the contaminant rise of anti-Semitism on the political left, the knife fighting within the General Assembly, the dysfunction in Richmond, and Spanberger’s volte face on the “radical centrism” that has served Virginia Democrats for a quarter century — and there is no denying a very simple fact.

Virginia Democrats are out of money, short on ideas, and very much in trouble for the 2026 midterms. Should this dynamic hold going into 2027, Virginia Republicans are just two state senate seats away from providing a sanity check against a political left held in thrall to either socialism or crazy.

Don’t forget — the loyal opposition is watching. Virginia Republicans can offer a sound and economically rational alternative in contrast with budget hysteria and off-the-wall social agendas of democratic socialism. Spanberger cashed out every ounce of political capital on the gerrymandering referendum and followed it up with a budget crisis that handed out 300% pay raises to lawmakers.

Now Virginians are in a mood to punish.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

If the old adage that socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money, then charity just might start at home.

To wit, the Democratic National Committee is presently facing a severe cashflow problem, with $15 million on hand against a staggering $18 million in debt. Trump’s approval ratings? Right about where Obama and Clinton’s approval ratings were during their second term. The generic congressional ballot for 2026 is less than half of what it was this time in 2018. Job approval ratings for Democrats in Congress sits at a paltry 18% whereas Republicans sit tight at a far more modest 35%.

One might think that the Democrats would put up traditional numbers against Republicans in Washington. Yet in their effort to bring Trump down to their level in approval ratings, Democrats are running into two problems reminiscent of the more libertarian leaning Tea Party Revolution in 2010 and the populist MAGA Movement in 2016. First and foremost, the Democratic Party has run out of ideas — the old school neo-liberal corporatism simply isn’t working for the working class. Second and perhaps more dangerous for the Democratic Party is the rise and energy of the Democratic Socialists of America — who are precisely what they say they are, who point at liberals and conservatives and populists as all cogs in the same capitalist machinery, and whose means are justified by the ends. Assassinations of CEOs and politicians all serve a greater good. Rent controls serve a greater good. Eating the rich all serves a greater good.

When Leo Trotsky — who himself was outflanked by Stalin — told the Mensheviks to go into the “dustbin of history” when they walked out of the 1917 Second Congress of Soviets, the feature proved itself not to be a bug. As liberals are outflanked by progressives who are then outflanked by socialists, the Democratic Party as the party of the left is about to have a struggle for its soul and present a real contrast to the wider right, one where the Republican Party’s “big tent” will be tested indeed.

Caging the Elephant: Democratic Socialism Against the Evidence

In Europe, democratic socialism was viewed as a response to the rise of the German Empire under Otto von Bismarck in the late 19th century. Historians are keen to remind their students that social security — which Franklin Roosevelt adopted as a Democratic plank during a time where conservatives and progressives were in ideological alliance — was indeed a conservative reform, used primarily by Bismarck as a tool to tamp down revolutionary fervor.

The key to understanding the geist of democratic socialism is that economies across Europe quickly changed during the 19th century, far faster than society’s ability to absorb the changes. Democratic socialism was the halfway house between labor unions and communism before there was a Soviet Union and state sponsorship with which to contend. The economy had changed faster than the culture, the complexity of the economy concentrated wealth in ways unimaginable 100 years or even a decade before. If progress was the new god, its adherents demanded a share.

Of course, in America we learned something a bit different.

Not only did the Industrial Revolution come late to the United States, but the bedrock of industrialization was also the free market — what Jefferson termed the “empire of liberty” in the pursuit of free trade and free goods. Labor unions in America had a far different history than the labor unions of Europe, and though the rise in wages from 1860 to 1960 is commonly sold as the rise of labor, the true marker has been built around three poles: (1) the rise of productivity, (2) the increase in technological advancement and the education required to develop this technology, and (3) the spread of free markets and globalization after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Wage stagnation — the bogeyman of ever democratic socialist — is quite simply a myth. Not only do we live in an era where humans (and particularly Americans) have never had it so good, but other intangibles not measured by the antiquated models. The simple fact of the matter is that real consumption per capita has skyrocketed in the United States:

By grossly lumping together part-time and full-time weekly earnings while leaving out job benefits such as health insurance (among other things), such “data” is often produced and cited to support the stagnation argument frequently made by Krugman and company. The critics of capitalism have been caught in their shortcomings.

Another fantastical trick is to measure the erosion of real income via the Consumer Price Index (CPI for short). Yet the CPI has a tendency to overstate the annual rate of inflation as a function of how it gathers data. By counting the price of a collection of goods and services over time while these very products are themselves changing over time, CPI data often miscounts ordinary price increases as inflationary. This conversely means the CPI understates gains in real income.

Real wages — when you include the intangibles such as health care and 401ks — has actually gone up 18% since the 1980s and consumption has gone up an astounding 74% between 1980 and 2004.

Adjusting for inflation? Real consumption per capita has gone up 110% from 1980 to 2026. Americans are twice as wealthy as we were at the beginning of the Reagan era, and was only interrupted by the Great Recession during the Obama era and one heck of a dip during COVID in 2020 from which the US economy bounced back as if nothing happened despite the inflationary pressures of the Biden era.

So what’s left for the Democratic Party to conquer?

Gone are the days where Lyndon Baines Johnson co-opted the Eisenhower-era Civil Rights legislation with his Great Society project. Obamacare as policy has no true fans, expanding health care access without expanding health care insurance and raising costs across the board.

Meanwhile, the results are in. America spends the most on public education among the G7 and the G20 and routinely turns in mediocre results. University funding is on the cusp of a crisis both in affordability and maintenance. Open immigration policies have backfired. Crime goes up and public safety goes down. The CATO Institute ranks the United States as 15th in economic freedom — not first, but fifteenth — while scoring on par with South Africa in terms of political freedom according to Freedom House.

Whatever is working simply isn’t working for working class anybody. On the right, the revolt take the form of populism and always has — from Andrew Jackson to William Jennings Bryan to Patrick Buchanan to Donald J. Trump.

Yet on the left? Sometimes it looks like Franklin D. Roosevelt in its benign forms, but other times looks a lot more like Eugene Debs.

The Vapor Barrier Between Politics and Revolution?

Rather than going off of what the media pretends democratic socialism to be, Americans should take good hard look at what they say they are for — and believe them the first time:

Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.

We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.

When you are invoking the words of Leon Trotsky? Believe them.

We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.

What does the freer, more just life entail? Socialized medicine which has never worked in any nation that has ever adopted it (see: Britain and the NHS). Disarming communities to the tender mercies of street gangs. The so-called Green New Deal which is making energy more expensive for homeowners.

Don’t worry — there’s room for the weird who want to turn pro. Bodily autonomy — the language of the so-called Virginia amendment on abortion that embeds transgenderism as a basic human right — is right up front on the agenda. In the DSA’s own words:

Like race and class, gender is used to divide and exploit labor under capitalism. It declares that some people, and their labor, are more or less valuable than others. When workers reclaim power over our gender identity, we threaten capitalists’ ability to enforce gendered exploitation and biological hierarchy. In this way, protecting transgender workers and those seeking abortion care also empowers all workers to control our bodies and determine our futures.

At the Chicago DSA Convention in late July, you can sign up for all sorts of conferences, including:

• Governing as Socialists

• Workers Deserve More: Building to a General Strike

• A Free Palestine in our Lifetime

• No Walls, No Cages: Organizing to Abolish ICE in the Trump Era

• Organizing Fundamentals: Building Blocks for Socialist Victory

Do these guys sound like they are taking hostages when they are using language and tactics such as “mass organizations, united to demand taxing the rich, abolishing ICE, and an arms embargo” (ostensibly against Israel)?

Now if you are a traditional Democrat reading this, you might be wondering what any of the DSA platform has to do with say, the Four Freedoms.

Making matters slightly more complicated, Americans have already experienced the use of direct action for social change. Richmond’s business community has still yet to recover from the SPLC-fueled riots of 2017 and 2020. Degrading law enforcement and offering amnesty to criminals only resulted in more crime. Increasing the minimum wage resulted in more automation, fewer job opportunities, and higher prices for consumers across the board. Data centers have driven the positive growth in the Virginia economy over the last few years — without them, Virginia’s growth would have remained stagnant as increase pressures on local and state governments continue to mount. Once again — socialists should be judged on their results, not their rhetoric.

Yet the leadership class within the Democratic Party is now hooked on the horns of a dilemma, where their own base is finally beginning to believe the rhetoric. Only socialism is strong enough to fight so-called fascism and authoritarianism. Middle ground? Mensheviks go to the wall, comrade. Liberals and conservatives will go to the dustbin of history. After all — so goes the mantra — why elect Democratic majorities if they will not enact socialist policies?

Let’s face it. When even Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) isn’t enough for the socialist left? That’s a problem.

When you lose guys like Bill Maher? That’s a real problem.

Defending the Free Enterprise System

The old critique that liberals and conservatives are two sides of the same coin isn’t as much of a put-down as one might think anymore. In broad terms, both liberals and conservatives are committed to the constitutional framework, economic freedom, the FDR social safety network and a national defense posture easily recognized by Ronald Reagan. NATO would be the cornerstone; the Five Eyes instrumental; the “special relationship” between the United States and United Kingdom as sacrosanct. Public education, in desperate need of reform, is a positive public good. Free markets, free minds, and a free society should still remain the functional core of who we are, and despite our many differences, much of the problem of scarcity can be solved through economic growth, not social redistribution.

Yet the problem for liberals and conservatives alike is the problem with the prefix far-.

The old saw use to be that the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America was five percentage points in the tax rate. Today, the commonalities should bind the two together against a rising nationalism on the right and a rising socialism on the left — two ideologies alien to the American framework which managed to swallow Weimar Germany whole.

The problem is the far left. The problem is the far right. The problem is that we surrender every disagreement on policy to the words extreme, radical, hateful, bigoted, cruel, or my favorite supremacist. Or even better, if your intellect is informed by the sacred, then your opinion can be instantly discarded whereas secular religions — far more deadly in the 20th century than sacred ones — are nearly always permissible. The problem is that in our effort to be good Nietzscheans and win every argument through coercion and force, we preclude the opportunity to be good Aristotelians in the effort to argue to understand. Our forefathers would have called it compromise.

Yet will Democrats who are soon to be driven out of their own party find any sort of welcome in the present day Grand Old Party? As the extremes continue to stretch the boundaries of acceptable opinion, it might be high time to rediscover our roots in the face of actual socialists and actual nationalists. For instance, in Virginia, we have the RPV Creed which begins with the following:

We believe…

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,

That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.

One might even argue that the free enterprise system is the entire ballgame. We can argue over the size and scope of equal rights and justice as we have done for 250 years and will continue to do so. We can argue over the definition of fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraint. We can argue over the scope of individual liberty against its enemies, foreign and domestic. We can debate the defense and intelligence budgets. Our faith in God as recognized by the Founding Fathers most certainly includes Jeffersonian ideas of religious freedom.

Yet all of these are predicated on economic growth and free enterprise. One can accomplish a great deal with economic growth, but if one truly cares about all the things the socialists claim to care about, the absolute precondition is and will always be the free enterprise system.

Insofar as Republicans are willing to defend this principle, and insofar as conservatives are ready to reassert themselves as the true leaders of the Republican Party in both sensibility and scope, then the res publica might very well have a chance against its enemies in the 21st century — and believe me, the nationalists and the socialists are indeed enemies to human freedom.

America is about to undergo a profound economic change that is going to reassemble political allegiances as the nature of work undergoes a dramatic transformation. Whatever the challenges, democratic socialism is a 19th century answer to a 21st century problem. Whether or not the Democratic Party in their present state has the ability to push them back remains to be seen, and the pessimists hold the majority. Whether or not Republicans are ready to assert themselves in such a way as to create a majority which puts the first thing first also remains to be seen — yet given the stakes and the danger, conservatives would be wise to rediscover their first principles and build our coalitions accordingly.

The DSA isn’t a left-wing version of the Tea Party by a mile, but rather a dangerous new twist to the game that is alien to our history, rule of law, and constitutional government — and if it is to be vigorously opposed, then it must be done even at the risk of finding likeminded, business-oriented friends in the political center.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

I was looking forward to reading Peter Onuf and Francis Cogliano’s Thomas Jefferson Survives right up until page 12 of the Introduction.

Once upon a time, I had the pleasure of reading Jeffersonian Legacies in my younger days as a consumer of all things Virginia history, which was the result of a conference on Jefferson headed up by Onuf.

The late Daniel P. Jordan — whose long tenure with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation helped shape the Jeffersonian renaissance — capstoned the conference celebrating Mr. Jefferson’s 250th birthday with the following tribute:

While the conference and essays allow fresh voices to be heard on aspects of the Jefferson legacy, good and bad, at times they merely echo partisan arguments about Jefferson’s life and politics going back to his own era; in other ways they provide a 1990s standard of judgment. The centrality and complexity of Jefferson’s ideas and career, his extraordinary versatility, his gift of felicitous prose, and the exceptional corpus of letters he left behind will assure that Jefferson will remain a fascinating and compelling subject to examine and ponder for edification and inspiration, for admiration and admonishment, for generations to come.

For those interested in how profound the shift has been on Jefferson from paragon to parasite, Ken Burns is your answer. His 1997 Thomas Jefferson documentary treats Jefferson as a Founding Father, yet his 2026 documentary on The American Revolution only begrudgingly admits George Washington as the indispensable man. In fact, all of the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers are footnotes rather than pivotal moments in history — and if pivotal, then most certainly imperfect. From this treatment, Jefferson has provided a deep mine from which countless historians have delved and picked apart to exhibit and even invent the very worst of imperfections in an industry rewarding grievance. God forbid to see what a Ken Burns documentary on Jefferson would look like today.

What should fascinate and compel us presently at the 200th anniversary of Jefferson’s death and the 250th birthday of these States United is that Jordan’s commitment to pluralism and the collision of ideas has been eclipsed by a 2020-ish standard of judgment seeking to recapture Jefferson for the 21st century political left — or worse still, abandon Jefferson to a caricature and label it as “far right”, a tactic which has proven to be very useful to organizations such as the SPLC.

Jefferson’s Legacy and False Dichotomies

Of course, critiquing Peter Onuf is no small task, as he is perhaps at present the premier historian on the life of Thomas Jefferson and his legacy into the present day. This is no small boast, as not only is he the inheritor of the tradition laid down by such luminaries as Dumas Malone whose six-volume biography of Jefferson remains unparalleled, but who has been succeeded at the University of Virginia by the inestimable Alan Taylor whose books I cannot recommend more highly: Thomas Jefferson’s Education is a book I have thrust upon my daughters, and The Infernal Enemy which remains an excellent and insightful volume on the mindset of Virginians during the Federal era. I’m sure Dr. Onuf is a wonderful human being in person and would love to disagree with him (and others) without the contaminant of being disagreeable.

So goes the preface. Into the Onuf and Cogliano’s introduction, as they explain how Jefferson’s legacy has been borrowed, appropriated, and fostered over the last two centuries — most notably by Franklin D. Roosevelt who championed Jefferson’s reputation in service to 20th-century New Deal liberalism as an enlightened figure, only for the political left to take a more recent and socialist turn by which Jefferson was not progressive enough for 21st-century tastes:

In recent years the American political left has largely jettisoned Jefferson. For his critics, Jefferson is no longer seen as the man who articulated the “American creed” but rather as a plantation patriarch and enslaver who epitomizes the hypocrisy of the founders of the American republic.

Onuf and Cogliano include an endnote here. Their source? The 1619 Project — critics certainly, but by no means mainstream.

Yet Jefferson most certainly does have his mainstream critics, adjacent to the spirit of the so-called 1619 Project (and masterfully refuted by Peter Wood’s The 1620 Project and reshaped by far superior narratives such as Joseph Kelly’s Marooned) and sympathetic to the task of reducing the Great Men of History (TM) to constructivist assessments in the spirit of Michel Foucault.

Here’s where the heartburn begins:

As Jefferson’s stock declined on the left, he was taken up by the right — and embraced and repurposed as an avatar of white nationalism (sic). . . .

Trump’s and DeSantis’s celebrations of Jefferson were reminiscent of Roosevelt’s in 1936. Indeed, their positive views of Jefferson sit nicely within the Apostle of Freedom version of Jefferson that was a mainstream view in the middle of the twentieth century. But unlike Roosevelt, Trump ascribed Jefferson’s beliefs to his supporters, not to all Americans, excoriating those who disagreed with his version of American history. . . .

For Trump and many of his followers, Jefferson is no longer a synecdoche for America or a spokesman for universal liberty. Jefferson is instead seen through the narrow, sectarian lens of reactionary populism. He has been reduced to a partisan talisman.

One of the best and imperceptible ways to detect the presence of bovine excrement is to make the argument in reverse. Jefferson has become a partisan talisman. Jefferson is the Apostle of Reactionary Populism. Jefferson is defended by Trump (egads!) and DeSantis (horror!) in the wake of the SPLC-driven 2017 riots.

For those who see the play coming, the insinuation remains. Jefferson’s flaws are by extension Trump’s virtues and the policy of a reactionary populism. Jefferson’s legacy — if swallowed whole — somehow implies an endorsement of his vices as well, and the intentional admixture of Roosevelt’s admiration with present day sentiments regarding the Founding Fathers as flawed men whose dreams and achievements rested upon the backs of an oppressed underclass. To vindicate Jefferson is to absolve his vices; to defend Jefferson’s memory is to repudiate the arc of history which the revisionists claim to be Jefferson’s cardinal virtue pulling him out of the mire of disgust and contempt.

Also — Orange Man bad, so Jefferson also bad. QED, guys.

Jefferson, Casuistry, and Special Pleading

Would that such pedestrian casuistry merely amuse rather than offend. Yet Onuf and Cogliano attempt to create a grand unified theory regarding Jefferson’s legacy, namely his belief that each generation be allowed to enact a new constitution and not bind the previous ones — evidence that Jefferson’s “arc of history” is the true key to unlock and save Jefferson from the dustbin of history.

One could rightly raise the point on how Jefferson’s commitment to democracy and revolution while out of power discovered within itself a radical commitment to both tradition and reaction once the Jeffersonian Republicans obtained power — yet such realizations only interrupt Onuf and Cogliano’s attempt to midwife an alliance between democracy and tradition — one which will ultimately fall flat. What is ignored in the shotgun marriage is that democracy, in its purest form, is by nature ruthlessly both reactionary and populist, and readers were previously assured by both historians that this is very bad. Why observe property rights or any “intergenerational peace plan” — our euphemism for tradition — if the rules can change at the whim of a demagogue and whatever mob they inspire in the name of false gods? Or are we only concerned about their demagogues while our democracy must be preserved?

Or — and I am just spitballing here — perhaps the best intergenerational peace plan is the one crafted by James Madison? This in spite of Jefferson’s perhaps temporary and convenient admiration for the sans-coullets in revolutionary France?

Sadly, they save the best insinuations for last:

Each “living generation,” Jefferson insisted, must reconstitute itself as a people, responsible for sustaining “a more perfect union” across time. But Americans are not shirking that responsibility, taking their status as a people for granted and failing to recognize that republican self-government is a great and ongoing experiment. Rather than following the example of the revolutionaries who launched that experiment, many patriotic Americans imagine that a providentially sanctioned new nation miraculously emerged from the war in the nation-making worlds of the Declaration. They assume that the republic is fixed and permanent. Assuming an enduring collective identity, they look back to the founding and find strikingly familiar images of themselves in Jefferson and his fellow founders. (emphasis added)

Those who defend Thomas Jefferson’s legacy against his critics do so because they find “strikingly familiar images” in the Founders themselves. What are those images again? Onuf and Cogliano tell us up front what Jefferson’s defenders really intend for his legacy, not an honest defense of a Founding Father, but darkly hidden and barely whispered prejudice that is “embrace[s] and repurpose[s] [Jefferson] as an avatar of white nationalism.” Jefferson’s prejudices are modern-day GOP policies, don’t you see? The veil is torn, the true nature of those-who-disagree is exposed to the harshness of their daylight, and only from this place can we — and Onuf and Cogliano — declare that our discussion can truly begin.

This is where I close the book.

One wishes their argument include the courtesy of a steel man response from those who defend Jefferson’s legacy without the caricature of being crypto-fascists. Certainly such defenders exist, and the implication that those who defend a more robust interpretation Jefferson’s legacy are, in fact, apologists for white supremacy or tools of political hatchetmen in service to the Civitas Terrena is in its best light within the “the grip of anachronistic characterization and special pleading” — words which Onuf and Cogliano claim their argument seeks to escape, but only within the straitjacket they offer to the reader.

This is no olive branch, but a false dichotomy designed to identify an “us” at the expense of a “them” — good guys against terrible guys. In short, the very special pleading they put upon a mercurially crafted opposition.

America’s Founding Fathers and the Great Men of History

One supposes this passes for insight in certain quarters. After all, it is entirely avant garde for small thinkers to earn a name by tearing down great ones.

For instance, Winston Churchill continues to be the victim of both hagiography and pathography, starting with Churchill’s own hand (or the hands of his ghostwriters) in his history of the Second World War only for the shockingly unethical reveal and counter position by Lord Moran — Churchill’s own physician — in 1966, opening the floodgates to Churchill’s critics great and small.

Jefferson would never be immune to such attacks and re-evaluations. Fawn Brodie’s psychoanalysis in the 1970s has been largely superseded by reformers such as Andrew Burstein whose Being Thomas Jefferson begins as an attempt — and Burstein has the epistemic humility to see that the effort is indeed an exploration and attempt — to bridge Brodie’s psychoanalysis with Malone’s magisterial work. Yet Brodie’s work was not the first fusillade against the reputation of the Sage of Monticello. That honorific goes to none other than U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall whose five-volume The Life of George Washington excoriated the Jeffersonian Republicans against what Marshall would perhaps term the “reactionary populism” of what he saw as a Jacobin-inspired rejection of the hard-earned Federalist status quo — particularly with regards to the courts and the rule of law. Even in life, James Callander who once embellished the Jefferson reputation only to attempt to destroy it with his Jeffersoniad series after being refused key positions in the new order of things after Jefferson’s election to the presidency, who as late as fifty years after the publication of Callander’s screeds Jefferson’s own granddaughter Ellen Wayles Randolph Coolidge pronounced that there were such things as moral impossibilities.

By no means I am suggesting that Onuf and Cogliano are in the same school as James Callender. Yet one cannot help but extend a long and crooked finger at the spirit of the times, haunted by the specter of the 1619 Project and exemplified by the present-day excoriation of the Founding Fathers in general — and the attempt to dismantle the Great Men of History theory in principle.

For those unfamiliar with the argument, Great Men of History will argue that history is indeed moved by great individuals who — given the moral and extraordinary choice for leadership — choose to lead. By contrast is the “history from below” thesis, which will argue that Great Men only have the opportunity to lead not because they were great, but because of their times. Thus Churchill in May 1940 was the product of history and not exemplar. Thus the Founding Fathers were the product of socio-economic circumstance and not moral force.

The grounding goes deeper than this, I’m afraid, because if one buys the idea that Great Men and Founding Fathers are circumstances of time, environment, and economy, then who are truly responsible for the great moments of history? The answer is those who put the men in positions to become great — and in the American experience, that is going to be not just the men, women, slaves, “indigenous peoples” (and is there any more loathsome and condescending postmodern phrase than to call a people merely indigenous as if they were the victims of history without autonomy or power of their own? Anathema sit), economies, power structures, circumstances, and so forth. All agency is removed as if we were reviving the Soviet-era doctrine of scientific history, where all history magically bends towards progress and justice just because that’s just what economies and societies do.

Greatness Doesn’t Have to be Perfect in Order to be Good

The problem with this is that the Great Men of History are indeed great, not because they had the opportunities to be great, but because they chose to be great in the moment. Churchill could have listened to Lord Halifax. Washington could have defended the British Crown. Jefferson felt the choice as well and put it in his own words:

"[W]hen I recollect that at 14. years of age, the whole care & direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely, without a relation or friend qualified to advise or guide me, and recollect the various sorts of bad company with which I associated from time to time, I am astonished I did not turn off with some of them, & become as worthless to society as they were. . . .

“[F]rom the circumstances of my position I was often thrown into the society of horse racers, cardplayers, foxhunters, scientific & professional men, and of dignified men; and many a time have I asked myself, in the enthusiastic moment of the death of a fox, the victory of a favorite horse, the issue of a question eloquently argued at the bar or in the great council of the nation, well, which of these kinds of reputation should I prefer? that of a horse jockey? a foxhunter? an Orator? or the honest advocate of my country’s rights?"

The entire letter is a repudiation of “history from the bottom” and well worth your time to read it in full. Jefferson knew what sort of person he wanted to become despite the temptation to satisfy his appetites and be as worthless as his peers — and he very well could have done so.

This is the distinction between greatness and mediocrity. It is near impossible to think of how the American War for Independence would have been successfully prosecuted without Washington. Does anyone truly see the British Empire standing alone without Churchill? Who among the Founding Fathers writes the Declaration of Independence other than Thomas Jefferson?

Perhaps we should consider more deeply the opportunities individuals receive to become great who decline the offer? Who choose leisure over their studies, appetites to happiness, put themselves over others, and choose disintegration over integrity?

How many Jeffersons have been lost? How many Washingtons? Perhaps more important to ask — who is at fault?

Only those whose time it is for choosing.

Even deeper than this is the question as to whether or not Jefferson or Washington or Churchill — knowing they would be reviled by those who demand synchronicity out of the perfect and the good — would have chosen to make moral choices knowing their lives and decisions would be tortured by historians? The hagiographers create marble men, yet the error committed is that neither Churchill nor Washington nor Jefferson needed to be perfect in order to be honored, nor were any of them perfect men — but they did achieve good in the world, and that is what matters.

The world is better for May 1940, for Yorktown, and for the Declaration of Independence, and we are better for those who chose to expand the sphere of human freedom despite the adolescent ingratitude of its inheritors. Perfect is not the standard. In fact, there is a great deal of good in the world that isn’t perfect but is only good because it is — even imperfectly — directed towards and striving for an end which is Good. So too are America’s Founding Fathers.

America doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be loved. Our Founding Fathers do not have to be perfect in order to be honored. Neither does Thomas Jefferson need to be turned into a demigod in order to be admired, appreciated, and respected.

Pace Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson prevails — and he prevails for many reasons. Onuf and Cogliano both remark that unlike Roosevelt who made Jefferson for all of us, present day defenders of Jefferson and by extension the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and an antiquarian view of America which runs contrary to the present narrative of revisionist historians all do so perhaps not out of animus but most certainly out of a barely concealed prejudice based in racial superiority thinly veneered by an antiquated patriotism.

Such straw men are easy targets for the pyromaniacs, but hardly useful. In fact, one might even helpfully suggest that Roosevelt’s imagination of the Jeffersonian legacy is indeed the problem. Jefferson is not for all of us. Jefferson is not the common inheritance of every American. Rather, Jefferson’s legacy is for most of us — if at the very least some of us.

Former President Ronald Reagan put the question best:

It is time that we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers and if we will pass on to these young people the freedoms we knew in our youth, because freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It has to be fought for and defended by each generation.

Jefferson’s legacy of self-government in the face of those who “know best” remains his contribution to the inheritance Americans receive from the Founding Fathers.

That Jefferson did not perfectly adhere to his own aspirations can be studied and considered, but that Jefferson articulated those aspirations and put them into words each American can recognize as the freedom to achieve freedom — that is remarkable and unprecedented in the history of the world.

Jefferson gave us a horizon line, not a utopia. Those who honor Jefferson’s memory and example are not the troglodytes or crypto-fascists their enemies — and they are enemies by their own admission — cage them as, but rather they are defending the promise and tradition of human freedom in the face of those who see in that promise either a mere accident of history or a zero-sum game.

Jefferson’s legacy will be assessed and debated as long as there is an America to defend. Yet it would be awfully nice if the appointed custodians of the legacy of Thomas Jefferson would not hold those whose opinions were perfectly mainstream in the 1990s in such utter contempt as to level the charge of malice and malfeasance against those who continue to hold such assessments today. Such pretensions may serve as a sop to blind political ideologues searching for footing in the dark, but it is contemptuously narrow and ironically at odds with the Jeffersonian spirit of free inquiry wherever the truth may lead.

Like Jefferson, we accept the imperfections of the present day pathographers, knowing that much like their subject, the good they contribute outshines the many flaws. Yet for those of us who do defend the Jeffersonian legacy — and dare we still call ourselves Jeffersonian conservatives? — it would serve us all to be treated on our own terms.

The present approach by Onuf and Cogliano served no other purpose but to ruin a good book. Which to be consistent with the Great Men of History thesis, was a personal and moral choice — not a victim of an unfortunate historic circumstance.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

In 1989, Boris Yeltsin — a Moscow Communist apparatchik whose star was on the rise within the Supreme Soviet and would eventually become the first president of the Russian Federation — took an unexpected detour to an American supermarket in Houston. Yeltsin was astonished and initially believed the supermarket to be a product of some sort of propaganda effort. His aides quickly began touring other supermarkets and discovered that Yeltsin’s experience was not uncommon.

Facing food shortages and bread lines back in Moscow, the visit to this tiny miracle of American free enterprise rattled Yeltsin so badly that on the flight to his next visit in Miami, Yeltsin abandoned his longstanding socialist beliefs and became a capitalist, repeating over and over to his Soviet entourage: “What have they done to our people?”

When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people. That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.

"Even the Politburo doesn't have this choice,” remarked Yeltsin. “Not even Mr. Gorbachev."

The supermarket Yeltsin toured in Houston, Texas had over 30,000 products on its shelves. Consider that for a moment — 30,000 products in an era where Big Food hadn’t consolidated every option, from thousands of producers and distributors, on hundreds of trucks, with dozens of employees stocking and restocking, providing American consumers the cheapest and best quality options in a single location that is both a miracle of free enterprise and logistics.

Yeltsin was amazed that such a place could exist outside of New York (believing the Big Apple to be the near peer of Moscow or St. Petersburg). The revelation that every major town — forget city — had something of this quality? The Soviet propaganda simply did not match the experience.

Roughly two years later, Boris Yeltsin would be standing on a tank outside the Russian Duma as Soviet hardliners attempted to oust then-Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in August 1991 by means of force.

Yeltsin wanted for Russia what free enterprise had done for America.

The World Cup: Falling In Love with America

It has been 35 years since the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the triumph of American consumerism, free markets, and globalization. Quite literally billions of people have been lifted out of poverty by these miracles. The Pax Americana — the post Second World War peace that has existed since 1945 — protects the sea lanes and a stable world order.

Since the collapse of socialism, we have seen the number of small wars radically decline, and the GDP of the Russian Federation itself — shorn of the Baltic States, Ukraine, and the collection of Central Asian successor states — far higher than the former Soviet Union exercising total control of all of the former 15 Soviet republics in 1991 combined.

If you want to fall in love with America, visit America — so goes the saying.

If you want to hate America, read the newspapers. This is no stain on the honor of the fourth estate, but rather its consumers. Yet beyond the consumerism are a series of modern miracles created by American logistics, cheap energy, and the economic growth.

The videos of World Cup tourists discovering a Buc-ees’ or discovering that chips and salsa (and free ice water) is complimentary rather than expensed should shock us just as much as it shocks our guests. Air conditioning? Somewhere between 43,700 and 175,000 Europeans die from heat related illnesses according to the World Health Organization — compared to 1,200 to 2,300 deaths in the United States from heat each year and on the higher end two times the number of suicides, firearm deaths, and car accidents in the United States combined. Food portions? Americans eat well indeed whether it is steak, seafood, or pizza.

In short, World Cup tourism is reminding America just how good we have it compared to everywhere else in the world. What we take for granted is what the rest of the world admires and why the land of the free still is the home of the brave.

…and unfortunately, the entitled.

It Can Happen Here: Democratic Socialism and American Entitlement

Americans aren’t just born on third base. We are born on third base with a running start toward home plate and the baseball is still ascending into the bleachers like it was smacked by Babe Ruth in his prime.

Yet since the failure of socialism in Eastern Europe we have seen a militant return of what Winston Churchill aptly called “the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery” return to the mainstream of American politics — first in our suburbs, then in our cities.

Forget for a moment the rise of AOC and Mamdani in New York. The creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy have permeated the institutions themselves, right up to the point where in Virginia, the state budget is being used as a piggy bank in ways the media would never tolerate from any Republican governor in the effort to spur economic growth. Grand gestures of cash are given to pacify the masses and keep the Democratic coalition together. Instead of USAID, we get VAAID.

Democratic Socialists, of course, will wrankle at the very idea that they are communists at core. Pinks rather than reds, one might say. Yet the end remains the same — revolution through means peaceful or violent to overthrow the existing order. From Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things….Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Kierkegaard argues that the worst sort of tyrant are those who do things on principle, because you can justify a litany of horribles if one on principle.

Democratic socialism and communism differ only in the means, but not the ends or their objectives — and as we have seen in instances where the progressive left holds total sway in power, they are more than happy to use coercion and peer pressure to impose their will upon those who disagree.

To wit, the Wall Street Journal is openly discussing the rise of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party and the helplessness of the “radical centrists” to stem the rising tide of undergraduates who are taking their education and employing it in their politics:

The party’s centrists are alarmed. “The left, the DSA, and the right, the MAGA movement, they’re both very well organized, and those of us that oppose those policies are talking to each other at cocktail parties and wringing our hands,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Long Island Democrat. “But we got to get organized.”

“I agree that people’s economic anxiety is real and we have to address it—I just happen to disagree with their solutions,” Suozzi said.

Precisely what are the solutions of the DSA? Punishing success.

The definitions of freedom remain in place, provided you express the allowed opinions, the permitted liberties, the authorized Second Amendment rights, the admissible religious convictions — whether sacred or secular.

Yet all of it revolves around what Churchill diagnoses as the “gospel of envy” as if the opportunity to achieve is somehow synonymous with achievement in and of itself. Instead of educations, we hand out diplomas. One in three Americans haven’t read a book in the past year. Minimum wages are up and prices correspondingly match. Anyone else tired of paying $10 for a cup of coffee while being asked for a $5 tip when a bag of ground coffee costs the same and lasts two weeks? Or how’s about $20 for lunch when you could make the sandwich at home for $2.50? Don’t get anyone started on starting salaries coming fresh out of college, or the expectation that all of the other ancillaries of life should be paid by their parents until the age of 26 or 30.

Such is the mindset of an all-too-sizeable portion of the upcoming generation, welded together by the unreasonable expectations of Baby Boomers who will gift the most entitled generation ever over $84 trillion dollars through the year 2045. And this incredible wealth is doomed to be taxed by a generation more ready to consume than create? In an America more entitled than grateful? Where an individualism cloaked in socialism triumphs over a personalism which gladly see free minds, free markets, and a free society as the engine for economic growth?

Bear in mind that there are certain things a society requires in order to function. By no means is this some Rothbardian fever dream. Subsidiarity demands that certain functions that cannot be maintained by communities should and ought to be maintained by the government — education, transportation, energy infrastructure, national defense, economic development, planning, our justice system, and so forth. Yet the principle of solidarity also makes demands on behalf of individual initiative, localism, families, civic organizations, parks, charities and the like.

The fusing of government and society to produce individual outcomes is the error.

Regardless as to its soft or hard versions, socialism fails everywhere it is tried. That we as Americans are so spoiled as to refuse to see what others see in America? Not only is it a moral failure of our education system, but it is a principal failure of our institutions as they struggle to understand why socialism is surging in America’s suburbs and urban cores in spite of common sense and the evidence.

Facts are, I would rather be surrounded by World Cup tourists who love America rather than the self-styled credentialed elites who secretly and then openly hate this country. America doesn’t have to be perfect to be loved.

Will Centrists Be Allowed to Come Home to the GOP?

Ah yes — the million-dollar question.

If there is one thing Republicans are very good at, it is internecine warfare. Democrats are too difficult to beat, so goes the reasoning, so the purity contests are the shortest path to influence and power.

Obviously, Republicans have to believe in something. For as long as the conservative movement has been the centerpiece of the Grand Old Party — and at present, conservatives are most certainly a minority in their own ranks — we have held to certain principles. Free minds, free markets, free enterprise, and a free society. Or as the RPV Creed argues:

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,

In fact, it is our first plank.

The very first thing that unites the whole of the Republican coalition. In short — if you believe this, then welcome to the Republican Party.

We have other clarifications and ramifications. That rights come with responsibilities. Fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint. Individual liberty through constitutional limitations. Peace through strength. That faith is essential.

Yet these are ordinal for a reason. Certain things are pre-political, yet a defense of the free enterprise system is the first article. We can disagree on the how, but among Republicans our faith in the free enterprise system is sacrosanct precisely because it is the best system — not a perfect system — but by far superior to every other system that has ever been utilized or abused by mankind.

We should remember that the origin story of the Republican Party in America was predicated on human freedom. Our track record on human rights is impeccable: Republicans fought and bled to end slavery, Republicans fought against Jim Crow, Republicans fought against segregation and proposed the first Civil Rights Act, it was Republicans who argued against the dehumanization of the welfare state, Republicans who championed the basic right to exist and fought the war against terrorism.

When Democrats argued it could never be done, it was Republicans under President Ronald Reagan who successfully broke the Soviet Empire.

Now we should remember that Republicans worked in coalition with Democrats to achieve much of this. Many of these Democrats came over to the Republican coalition in due course — in fact, many of the present administration in Washington are former Democrats pushed out of their own party.

If the Democrats continue their inexorable push towards democratic socialism, will Republicans have the courage to set down the internecine conflict in order to focus on a clear and present danger?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know it is a good question to raise early and ask ourselves to consider in a world whose politics are about to change rapidly with the onset and advancement of artificial intelligence, work patterns, and an increasingly dangerous world.

Here’s hoping that we see in ourselves what others see in us.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

President Ronald Reagan did not come up with the term trust but verify all on his own. Rather, it was a quip directed at the old Russian phrase доверяй, но проверяй (doveryai, no proveryai) provided by Suzanne Massie — her book The Land of the Firebird remains essential reading to understand the Russian character, which Reagan read vociferously and consulted with Massie on multiple occasions while negotiating with the Soviets.

What Reagan effected through these talks with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, predicated on an earlier MOU which earned a great deal of scorn from conservative commentators and Kremlinologists, conceding everything while gaining nothing.

Yet the final draft of the INF Treaty itself succeeded temporarily in eliminating the threat of intermediary nuclear weapons in Europe while allowing Reagan to pour money into the Strategic Defense Initiative, one of many programs which ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union in their efforts to keep up with American advancements and economic globalization.

Unfortunately, the Russian Federation would eventually turn their backs on the INF treaty by resuming the development of intermediary-range missiles. President Donald Trump would repudiate the treaty in 2019 due to a combined problem of Russia’s resumption of weapons development and the fact that the INF treaty only confined the United States and the Russian Federation — but not the People’s Republic of China as they continued to cast their eyes across the Straits of Taiwan.

Yet the MOUs for the INF treaty were instrumental as a steppingstone to a final agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, precisely because the MOUs did not exist in a bubble — globalization and free trade were lifting billions out of poverty, American defense spending was putting tremendous pressure on Soviet satellites to choose their allegiances wisely, Charlie Wilson’s War was bleeding the Soviets in Afghanistan, Solidarity continued to capture the imaginations of Poland, Vaclav Havel continued to grumble in Prague, and the East Germans were discovering that socialism with a human face was still socialism — and still required the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain to keep people within its tender mercies.

So What About the Trump-Iran MOU?

One of the key planks of the post-Second World War peace — the Pax Americana — is that the United States alone guarantees the freedom of the seas.

What is more commonly known as the Mahan Doctrine, it states that those who keep the trade routes also keep the world peace. Freedom of the seas is its the principle foundation, and the chokepoints of world trade — Panama, Suez, Malacca, Hormuz — are the keys to maintaining the freedom of the seas.

Contrary to this is the Heartland Theory which argues that whichever power controls Central Europe controls the outer rim (Western Europe, the Bosphorus, the Middle East, India, China). Which is partially why the European Union continues to push the Russian sphere of influence away from Central Europe at any and all cost.

Now you know why we expanded NATO eastward and are supporting Ukraine in Russia’s near abroad — at least in very broad strokes. The West are the Athenians; the Germans were and Russians are the Spartans.

Here’s what concerns me most about the details of the Trump-Iran MOU at present:

5. Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start and, considering the needs for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

That is a non-starter, ladies and gentlemen.

Central to this MOU going into effect in good faith are the implementations of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11. Paragraph 1 is an immediate ceasefire, including in southern Lebanon where Iran has taken the step of recognizing Hezbollah as a state proxy of terrorism — a short-term win with a long-term consequence.

Paragraph 4 should be read concurrently with Paragraph 5:

4. Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of prewar traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.

In short, whatever administration (sic) the Iranians and Omanis intend to establish over the Straits of Hormuz is predicated on the restoration of a former degree of traffic resuming its normal functions through the straits themselves — and with the full co-operation of Oman.

Now one might imagine a scenario where the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates build their pipelines so as to circumvent the Straits of Hormuz, thus negating their reliance on tankers navigating our present-day version of the Barbary Pirates.

If Paragraph 4 does not come into force, Paragraph 5 is in jeopardy. It’s a semantic reading of the MOU, but it is most certainly an interpretation.

Paragraph 10 allows the Iranians to sell their oil, ostensibly to the Europeans and Chinese. Paragraph 11 is the unfreezing of Iranian funds, to be negotiated by both parties pursuant to a final agreement. Which, for those keeping score, state sponsors of terrorism (see Paragraph 1) don’t get their funds unfrozen easily. Well played, U.S. State Department — well played indeed.

Which then brings us back to Paragraph 5. There are instances in world diplomacy where agreements based on the mutual consent of all parties are designed to keep a thing in stasis. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 did precisely that with their boundary commission to the shock of the Irish and the pleasure of Ulster — Northern Ireland certainly did not consent to the boundary commission, and the boundaries without a border remained.

One cannot stress hardly enough. The freedom of the seas cannot be negotiated away. In fact, should the Iranians demand “administration” of the Straits of Hormuz, it will send a signal to the Chinese government that they too can “administer” the Straits of Taiwan and the South China Sea. Can Egypt return to “administering” the Suez Canal as they attempted to do in the 1950s under Nasser?

Interesting to me is Paragraph 6 which is an odious $300 billion (with a B) cash giveaway to the Iranian government should they comply with the aforementioned paragraphs in the MOU.

Some people see a carrot. If so, there isn’t much stick behind it. Conversely, much like Reagan with the INF treaty, there are other things moving that do not require the United States to keep its promises if the Iranian government does not in turn keep theirs. Case in point? The paragraphs relating to the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. If the Iranian are crowing about the entirety of the provisions in the MOU, then they are either willfully missing the if/then nature of the document, or they are obfuscating the disarmament portions of the MOU with the intention of obfuscating the rest.

If one is reaching for a boxing metaphor, this is the equivalent of allowing the opposition who has taken multiple body shots to catch their breath, which the Iranians will undoubtedly do. Simultaneously, the United States is buying time to develop its own alternative strategies — and time is not on the side of the mullahs of Iran at present. Consider:

• The entire Iranian Navy has been destroyed.

• The entire Iranian Air Force has been destroyed.

• The Iranians have effectively run out of drones and missiles.

• Iranian mines are only showing limited effect.

• Iran has suffered over a trillion dollars in damages over the last 40 days.

• Two layers of its leadership cadre have been killed.

• Hezbollah has suffered a tremendous loss in both force projection and prestige over the last 40 days, specifically in Lebanon.

Concerns that the United States has depleted its military stockpiles are a shiver looking for a spine. Only 10% of U.S. naval power has been deployed in theater, and the overwhelming force Trump promised to use has yet to truly be felt. In short, the United States has plenty of cards left to play.

Much like Reagan in 1987, one doubts that many would have predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later (Paul Kennedy did, but that’s another matter) as forces were working assiduously to make that happen in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. What the American public sees are the face cards. What we don’t know will be read in the history books 20 years from now.

One does have concerns that the MOUs tip our hand too much in favor of keeping the ayatollahs in power, which at present seems to be the objective of this new and third leadership cadre in Iran — survival. That’s information enough. One wonders what pro-democracy efforts would achieve with $300 billion in support — by contrast, the United States has given Ukraine about $134 billion since the beginning of the conflict with Russia.

Yet in the abstract, the pieces on the chessboard are still moving in Islamabad just as they were at Reykjavik under Reagan. Breaking faith with the Mahan Doctrine would be the beginning of the end of the Pax Americana, just as surely as Russia losing Ukraine would — for them — be the breaking of any hopes to revive the Heartland Doctrine.

The Trump-Iran MOU signed in Versailles needs a great deal of work over the next two months, but one cannot stress this point enough — the freedom of the seas is essential to the Pax Americana and no degree of appeasement — no matter how well disguised — will provide future generations with the long-term security of a free world.

The difference between realpolitik and appeasement seems to be about $300 billion and the so-called “administration” of the Straits of Hormuz.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

Let’s start with the basics.

As of this moment, the generic congressional ballot is D+5. Which isn’t great for Republicans. Yet when compared to other midterm elections? Democrats enjoyed a D+10 environment in 2018 and a D+11 environment in 2006.

This is the problem with the race to the bottom. For as radioactive as Democrats are have made Trump in the public eye, ignored is the fact that the only thing more unpopular than Trump in the eyes of the American public are the Democrats themselves. Unwilling or unable to sideline their own progressive base, Democrats have to hope that they can convince enough people that Republicans are slightly more dangerous and crazy.

Which is — of course — dangerous and crazy.

In the pages of The Atlantic, whose contempt for intellectual insight is seconded only by its devotion to the partisan screed, the navel gazers are still amazed and in wonderment that the tagline “save democracy!” simply isn’t convincing middle America:

We learned that the central question for the conservatives we met is not “Should America be a democracy?” Instead it is: “Has American democracy remained faithful to what makes it legitimate?” Democratic institutions are legitimate, in the view of conservatives, when they honor and protect the faith, freedom, families, and communities of their constituents. When institutions and the politicians who inhabit them fail to appreciate the centrality of these core values, they become illegitimate.

The dangerous part here is that the writers aren’t exactly engaging in an exercise in empathy by any stretch. Instead, we are on an expedition for some other Holy Grail, that being how progressives can legitimize crazy. Zero introspection on the last decade of coercion and peer pressure as weapons of social change — far from it.

Our research suggests that activists seeking to protect American democracy from authoritarian influences are pursuing a failing strategy. They are defending largely abstract democratic processes, such as norms and rules, on the assumption that everyone agrees that they are legitimate and worth saving. But such arguments are unlikely to resonate with voters who have come to believe that many of these norms and processes have abandoned the country’s bedrock values. Calls to defend democracy promise to alienate anyone who feels that democratic institutions have somehow failed them. Few care to preserve a system they feel stopped serving its purpose long ago.

In their own words, the search for legitimacy is the preoccupation. Democrats are shocked — shocked! — to discover that the violations of normative behavior on the left are not magically absolved by accusing Republicans of doing likewise.

What baffles my mind is that for decades, the political left has used the institutions as a means of changing society. Of the seven institutions — bureaucracy, media, education, universities, entertainment, religion, and military/first responders — the left has total control over five. Religious institutions are being contested. Only the military and first responders seem to gravitate away from constructivism and towards reality, if for no other reason than if they get it wrong, someone gets hurt or dies.

Yet in each instance where the left has wiped out contrary opinion, the institutions themselves immediately go on life support. Even to entertain the notion that diversity in opinion is a positive good for a pluralistic society is anathema. Noam Chomsky’s illusion of choice comes back into play. Free expression of ideas, but only these ideas. Everything else is [insert terrible thing here].

The Golden Goose: Senate Democrats and the Mamdani Problem

Which brings us to the Virginia state budget.

Virginia Democrats are presently one week away from a self-imposed deadline, and they seem much further apart than the White House and the ayatollah’s at present. Former Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling openly wonders what Virginia Democrats are possibly thinking in the most expensive game of chicken Richmond has ever seen:

Even though Governor Abigail Spanberger magically “found” an additional $1.5 billion for legislators to spend on their favorite government programs, the budget impasse remains, driven by a fundamental disagreement between the Senate and the House of Delegates on how to move forward with a longstanding tax exemption for data centers that has been in place since 2013.

That exemption for data centers is no small thing. Not only were the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between Richmond and the tech industry used to secure financing to build these centers, but they are an economic boon to cash strapped localities struggling to make ends meet for schools and deputies.

Making matters more complicated, should Virginia rip in half these MOUs, the message sent not just to the technology industry but to industry of all kinds up and down the East Coast will have manifold repercussions indeed, as Todd Haymore explains in the pages of Virginia Business:

As a cabinet secretary and state agency head for three governors — two Democrats and a Republican — I represented the Commonwealth in high-stakes, competitive recruitments and negotiations.

In the private sector, I have helped companies negotiate new investments, expansions, relocations, and agreements with the Commonwealth.

No matter which seat I occupied, there was never any question about whether Virginia’s promises and agreements were reliable.

Never — until now.

Data centers themselves support 170,000 jobs and $17 billion in salaries and wages in Virginia each year, generating $5 billion in tax revenue over the last two years with no ceiling in sight. JLARC itself has stated that anywhere from 90% to 100% of the growth in data centers would not be happening without the sales tax exemption, with 84% of all new business investment in Virginia since 2020 being due to data centers themselves.

Clearly this is a goose laying golden eggs.

Just the threat of ending the sales tax exemption has already cost Virginia two major investments — one project of $25 billion and another in southwest Virginia totally $100 billion.

Yet more expensive than this, Haywood warns, is the damage that repudiating the MOUs will do to Virginia’s reputation as a state to do business:

Virginia’s reputation as a top state for business was built in large part on our reputation for reliability, predictability and thoughtful governance by elected officials across the political spectrum.

The Senate proposal threatens to decimate the credibility and trustworthiness of Virginia as a partner for businesses that want to start, grow, relocate, invest, and create jobs in the state.

If Virginia breaks a promise to an industry that has invested hundreds of billions of dollars and created tens of thousands of jobs, businesses of all sizes in any industry will think twice before doing business in or with Virginia.

This is why Governor Abigail Spanberger is playing fast and loose with the numbers, conjuring up a $1.5 billion surplus by raiding the funds carefully shepherded by former Governor Glenn Youngkin to pay for things such as Medicaid.

In short, Lucas is presenting Virginia with a Mamdani problem:

Beyond the incentive dollars, workforce programs, and anything else Virginia can offer when recruiting jobs and investment, what a business really wants is certainty, predictability and confidence that Virginia is going to hold up its end of the bargain.

If Virginia undercuts itself in such a dramatic way, every private sector decision-maker will have reason to wonder if Virginia is worth the risk, or whether their investment is safer in another state.

Queue the socialism jokes.

The problem with socialism, so the story goes, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. What precisely will this new money do and for whom, you ask? Well — that’s not quite clear. Or at least, your inclusion or exclusion from the budget bill will be conditional on whether or not you support the winning team.

Meanwhile, gasoline taxes in Virginia are up despite the dizzying cost of the Iran conflict. Virginia’s reintroduction to RGGI is driving up energy prices at home. Food prices remain shockingly high, interest rates remain higher than they ought to be, housing prices continue to escalate, wages continue to be eaten up by inflationary pressures from the Biden administration spend-and-spend policies — the hits on the middle class just keep on coming.

In the interim, Virginia Republicans continue to make recommendations such as a temporary suspension of the gasoline tax. Given the amazing discovery of the tax surplus, one might even be inclined to believe that overtaxed Virginians deserve a tax break rather than being told to get back to work for the millions of people depending upon them. No worries — at least Virginia will get an open-air cannabis market to help cope with reality, right?

Dysfunctional or Democracy: Can Anyone Tell the Difference?

In the meantime, oil futures are down to $72 a barrel and falling:

Speaking of MOUs, the new agreement between the United States and Iran has seen gas prices return to sanity. For instance, gasoline in most red states is now down to around $3.40 a gallon on average. In Virginia, gasoline prices are down to about $3.78 according to AAA but wildly varying even inside a 15-mile radius.

Meanwhile, the Trump economy over the last 18 months has added 900,000 new jobs, even while eliminating 340,000 federal government positions. Wages are indeed rising despite the fact that most of the wages are temporarily being eaten by energy prices. America’s manufacturing centers are coming back. The stock market is hitting historic highs. USAID and a whole host of NGOs and non-profits which previously enjoyed six-figure salaries are defunded and with that defunding goes the wind in the sails of groups who made a fortune dividing America.

Give credit where it is due.

Best of all — data centers are expanding and Virginia is rapidly becoming a hub for this economic investment, one that brings with it the productivity gains of artificial intelligence (AI) — though such gains remain at present a promise yet to be seen.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee is virtually bankrupt. If the Democrats were banking on a strategy to see America fail, then those hopes have been successfully dashed this week. If Virginia Democrats — eager to fuel a Mamdani-style budget — fall for the trap of ripping apart MOUs in order to use Richmond as a piggy bank for their pet constituencies, the message to the wider business community will be heard loud and clear.

The problems continue to pile on for Spanberger and the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. Crime is already on the rise in Virginia localities. Firearm restrictions are headed to certain defeat in the courts. That $80 million stacked and burnt on an unconstitutional gerrymander might as well have bought 8 million Happy Meals to starving kids and done more good in the world. Virginia 250 has been an open disaster as Democrats certainly don’t seem particularly keen to celebrate America’s birthday — and it is a damn shame at that.

With gasoline prices headed for relief and the national economy set to finally take off after the Biden economy, the only question at present is whether or not Virginia intends to come along for the ride?

If the Democrats nationally are at D+5, those numbers are set to collapse rapidly as gas prices start coming down to the $2.99 range. Even if Virginia Democrats manage to course correct, the dysfunctionality and fear they have sown among teachers and deputies will not dissipate overnight. Is this what they deserve?

Let’s not undersell the impact of the unconstitutional gerrymandering effort has done to the moral reputation of our friends on the left. Virginia’s Democratic incumbents will now have to explain to the constituents they wanted to fire in an unconstitutional gerrymandering effort why they should be hired again. Eugene Vindman is certainly on that bubble, but Elaine Luria and Shannon Taylor and Tom Perriello will all have to answer the same question as to why politicians get to choose constituents but not the other way around.

Should we get into July without a budget, we may very well learn that there is something worse than crazy. Worse than dysfunctional. Pity the poor souls at The Atlantic, but few things seem to undermine legitimacy more than the self-styled defenders of democracy.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

by Daniel P. Cortez

The nation’s enemies shouldn’t take our visible and open political or military debate as a sign of our weakness or indecision.

As guest of White House Freedom 250, I attended the premier of Young Washington at the Kennedy Center still displaying the Donald Trump and John F. Kennedy For The Performing Arts on its front.

Personally, I’m fine with that and regardless of any political animosity, I hope it remains.

The movie scheduled to be released July 3, centers on the history of a very young George Washington played by William Franklyn-Miller, with Ben Kingsley as Robert Dinwiddie who is credited for starting the military career of Washington, and a powerful performance by Kelsey Grammar as Thomas Fairfax who befriended Washington in Virginia as he attempted to improve his station in life.

With help, young Washington uses surveying as the basis to gain a royal commission in the British military.

Initially denied, Washington utilizes his guts, guile, and knowledge of surveying while demonstrating known tactics and intelligence regarding local native Indian tribes and leaders in the surrounding terrain as the French attempt to gain a foothold in the colonies.

The year is 1755.

While initially met with tactical combat failure and acknowledging his being politically used to facilitate involvement in the French and Indian War, Washington eventually gains respect of the English crown and becomes commander of Virginia’s militia.

Washington’s story remains a remarkable plot of resilience, learning from failure, with loyalty to family and principle through education both formal and informal.

The movie was produced through Angel Studios, an independent media company based in Provo, Utah. It was co-written and directed by Jon Erwin.

A fast-paced movie with remarkable cinematography this remains a must-see film particularly for the nation’s young and history enthusiasts, especially veterans.

The release of the film comes at a critical time in our nation and a reminder of the need to embrace our collective history.

At a private pre-movie reception, the development of Liberty Village located in Hurricane, Utah was discussed by innovators and Utah Senator Mike Lee.

Liberty Village is a remarkable use of immersive technology with rich educational experiences among over 20 re-created historical structures such as St. John’s Episcopal Church, Mount Vernon, Monticello, Betsy Ross’s home in Philadelphia, Paul Revere silversmith, and Independence Hall promoting the history of our founders and the nation’s core values.

It remains appropriate for organizations such as Liberty Village reinforcing our nation’s struggles and historical actions as imperfect as some were.

Adapt to Win: Technology and the 21st Century Battlefield

Audiences can’t but help acknowledge young Washington’s ability to learn from mistakes and develop military tactics and command presence at such a young age to win, all with the right individual for the job.

The timing of this movie is perhaps divine providence as during a recent meeting with the Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, we — both as combat veterans —spoke of issues relating to victory.

Discussed was learning from past battles such as my time fighting during the Vietnam War. Cao, born in Vietnam, was more than receptive as he was keenly attuned to our tactical needs. The same prevailing attitude was apparent from my discussions with America’s remarkable Marine Commandant General Eric Smith and the nation’s finest training commander Lt. Gen. Ben Watson, the Commanding General of Training & Education Command at Quantico, Virginia, both of whom are extremely experienced and decorated warfighters.

Along with Cao acknowledging the need for modern day tactical advance in the form of drones, this was proven by the recent utilization of a 24-foot Saronic Corsair autonomous surface vessel — an unmanned sea drone powered by artificial intelligence which just recently rescued two downed U.S. Army Apache attack helicopter pilots in the Straits of Hormuz.

The use of autonomous drones demonstrates collective thinking and the ability to adapt — just like Washington did.

As I shared with Cao, Smith, and Watson, imagine if we’d had such technology during Vietnam and the lives we could have saved.

Hopefully the nation like during the time of young George Washington, continues to learn to adapt and embrace the realities of new tactical advances, that will save lives as we defeat our insurgents foreign and domestic.

The Changing Nature of Warfare and the Necessity to Adapt

Problematic remains politicians such as Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and fellow liberals who remain hell bent on continuing their attack to eliminate assault weapons totally based clearly on their cosmetic look and not reality.

Not difficult to fathom the bleeding heart dem faction from calling drones an assault weapon and attempting to eliminate funding of such critically needed assets as part of Virginia and the nation’s Navy and Marine Corps arsenal.

At the preview of the move Young Washington last night was Virginia’s Cameron Hamilton, who was recently renominated to lead FEMA.

Hamilton, a Navy veteran with a commonsense persona, hopefully embraces Cao’s continued use of drones to save lives with responsible congressional and state funding.

Clearly in the event of a federal emergency, drones are vital, not to mention use in law enforcement.

Virginia State Sen. Bryce Reeves, a former Army Ranger himself, stated his support of continued funding of such programs.

“Drone use is responsible defensive and offensive use for our state and our military,” Reeves remarked.

First District Congressman Rob Wittman, Vice Chair of the House Armed Services Committee also fully supports the continued funding of such programs.

Wittman indicated maybe in a broader sense unmanned systems in the air, ground and sea include expendable and attritable systems.

“We must look at every opportunity to not put human beings in harms ways when we don’t have to,” said Wittman. “Unmanned systems give us that capability and more. They also let us do more with the resources that we devote to our nation’s defense.”

About a month ago in Ukraine, the Ukrainians pursued a combined arms, ground maneuver using nothing but unmanned systems defeating a human force and holding ground against a human force.

“That’s a game changer in the history of armed combat,” Wittman concluded.

Another reason to keep individuals like Wittman and Reeves in office.

They get it.

More reason to send solution-oriented candidates to Washington such as Doug Ollivant, an Army veteran and intelligence community expert who knows the stakes and is championing veterans as part of his campaign.

In stark contrast to his opponent — Democrat Eugene Vindman — Doug Ollivant knows how to protect his team and ensure America retains her cutting edge on the battlefield and on the homefront by focusing on America First and not those who seem to be protecting the Vindman family’s personal interests with self-deals to book deals. Vindman will still have to explain to Virginia’s 7th District why they should be forced to re-hire him after Vindman tried to fire them.

The Great American State Fair: Celebrating America Through Prayer and Patriotism

All actions during America’s 250^th celebration being coordinated by Brittany Baldwin, Executive Director of the White House 250 Task Force as part of the Domestic Policy Council that many of us have partnered with, clearly promote patriotism and prayer embraced by our military with responsible congressional support.

As the events continue to evolve, all eyes will be on the President at the Mall in Washington, D.C. June 24 with the kickoff rally for the Great American State Fair commemorating the 250^th signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Petulant entertainers with big egos and little actual star staying power such as Bret Michaels, Morris Day, Martina McBride and the Commodores, pulled out of the entertainment portion of the Freedom 250 concert series slated for the National Mall that day.

Not to be out done, the biggest draw in the nation, President Donald J. Trump himself now becomes the headliner with a classic musical and patriotic performances for the ages.

The nation’s military will take a unique front and center position entertaining our masses June 24, perhaps sending another message to our foes as our nation’s military recruiting remains off the charts.

Like in the movie Young Washington the father of our country learned from his mistakes, received a political education from would be grifters and cut relationships when necessary.

Today our nation continues to evolve and in our young 250 years of existence, provides political education to those who will listen to avoid grifters and cut unworthy relationships but continue to celebrate American exceptionalism with purpose.

That is done through prayer and patriotism.

May our enemies never forget what Young Washington learned.

DANIEL P. CORTEZ is a presidential and gubernatorial appointee, political writer and broadcaster who lives in Stafford County.

Now I will grant this. Never has a unit committee or state committee endorsement swung an election, at least not in recent memory.

This is how inconsequential votes from the Republican Party apparatus have become.

Yet a 32-30 voice vote where the members of the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee refused to put their names to a vote of neutrality on a trio of really bad Virginia state amendments? Amendments from the same political party that botched the gerrymandering amendment?

That’s wrong.

Look — I have no problem advising a unit committee to hold back on these amendments knowing that they are so terrible as to command unanimous opposition. That’s a perfectly acceptable answer and a politically smart one as well.

Yet neutrality on these questions? As if we have no opinion whatsoever on these things? Or worse, we have no opinion on these things because the Democrats might call us bad names?

What are you guys thinking??

Of course the Democrats are going to call you names. Of course they are going to tell us we are racists and bigots for insisting that someone who served a 20-year sentence for pedophilia shouldn’t be able to stand for election to school board. Of course they are going to say words don’t mean things. Of course they are going to upend parental notification and parental consent in the name of freedom and equality.

Who cares anymore? Who actually cares about the name calling? How’s about the people these amendments are going to hurt? In the name of God, why are we so afraid to fight for and defend common sense against its enemies?

Very low-T behavior, folks. I’m tired of it.

So here we go. On the ballot in November are the following amendments:

1. HJ 1: Enshrines an absolute right to abortion, overriding both parental notification and parental consent while targeting pregnancy resource centers whose primary role is to support women.

2. HJ 9: Not only repeals the Virginia Marriage Amendment, it writes gender ideology into the state constitution and despite claims, forces clergy to recognize the new definitions.

3. HJ 2: Automatically restores voting rights, the right to serve in public office, the right to serve on juries, and firearms rights for all felons upon release from jail or prison.

The summaries tell one story in crayon. Yet the actual texts of the amendment themselves do nothing of the sort — and in fact, are far worse and deeper reaching than the summaries let on.

In fact, these amendments are so bad that it should be obvious to stand against them. It should be so obvious, no vote from State Central should be required.

Yet here we are with over half of the governing board of the Republican Party refusing to defend our own principles? I’m sorry — that’s outrageous, folks.

HJ1: Removing Parents from The Decision Making Process

Shocking no one, the actual language of the amendment is far different than the summary:

That every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one's own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.

An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

Where can the Commonwealth of Virginia intervene, you might ask? Well — certainly not on the basis of age:

For the purposes of this section, a state interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose of maintaining or improving the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of care and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision making.

This amendment isn’t about just reproductive freedom per se but can be construed to “make decisions relating to . . . fertility care” — which means that should a guidance counsellor or Planned Parenthood physician (sic) steer your child at any age towards a certain conclusion, parents would neither be required to consent to the act much less even be notified it was happening, from a chemical abortion to transgender reassignment surgeries — no matter what the age of that child.

This amendment guts Virginia’s parental consent and parental notification laws in any and all matters regarding what a bureaucrat deems and persuades to be the best interest of someone’s child. You’ll find out — but only too late.

Dangerously enough, the bill is so loosely constructed as to put pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations (including places of worship) in the crosshairs, as the default setting will be towards the Orwellian euphemism reproductive freedom rather than say, the Hippocratic Oath.

HJ9: Redefining Reality

This one is a bit more tricky, because in order to do what it wants to do, the language of the amendment has to elevate marriage to the level of a basic right:

That marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.

Full stop — no it is not for this and for one reason alone: you do not have the right to another person. EVER.

Let’s all repeat after me: No one has the right to a marriage, because no one has the right to a person.

In like turn, words mean things. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, with children who have an equal and separate right to their biological mother and biological father. Children have rights to persons because they are children, and there are certainly rights within a marriage, but no one has the right to a marriage.

Now the advocates of this amendment claim that clergy will not be subject to an amendment that is — by its own admission — in defense of what we are asked to believe is an essential and vital personal right.

Yet curiously, or perhaps more accurately in direct violation of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the text of the amendment mentions nothing of the sort:

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two adult persons seeking a lawful marriage on the basis of the sex, gender, or race of such persons. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall recognize any lawful marriage between two adult persons and treat such marriages equally under the law, regardless of the sex, gender, or race of such persons.

Just in case you are lied to in future, there is no exemption for clergy in the amendment.

Which means clergy will now have to make a decision — will you marry a couple in violation of both conscience and strongly held religious belief? Or will you forfeit your ability to recognize a marriage by law?

In France, this is the routine where couples will first be married by the magistrate before being married by the clergy, that is to say, if that part is important to the couple in the first place where the sacred is entirely optional, but the secular entirely mandatory.

Now whether or not this will hold up to First Amendment scrutiny is another matter altogether. One doubts that it will, but violations of conscience protections and religious freedom alone should make the decision clear that this is a poorly constructed amendment that goes too far.

HJ2: Moving The Blame from Governor to Constitution

This amendment has to be the most cowardly of them all.

Right now — the governor of Virginia can with the stroke of her (auto)pen restore the rights of each and every felon in the Commonwealth.

The governor can do this right now.

Instead, we are going to remove the odium of blame by shifting the duty from the Executive Mansion to autopilot, once again by shifting the discussion of the right to vote from qualifications to entitlement:

Every person who meets these qualifications shall have the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, and such right shall not be abridged by law, except that: (1) No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be entitled to vote during any period of incarceration for such felony conviction, but every such person, upon release from incarceration for that felony conviction and without further action required of him, shall be invested with all political rights, including the right to vote; and

(2) No person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting shall be entitled to vote during such period of incapacity until his capacity has been reestablished as prescribed by law.

Not just the right to vote, ladies and gentlemen — but all political rights. Including jury duty, the right to hold public office, become a notary public, and the right to possess firearms.

This means that a pedophile sent to prison for 20 years can run for school board immediately upon release.

Did you go to prison for beating your spouse? No problem — in Virginia if this amendment passes, you can spend a few years (maybe months?) in prison, get out on Virginia’s early felon release program (EEOC) and give it another go as over half of EEOC beneficiaries eventually do.

There’s damn good reason why we want the Governor of Virginia to review the restoration of rights for felons and not do it by autopen. Conversely, there are damn good reasons why a Democratic governor might not want their fingerprints on the weapon — just ask Fairfax County’s Steve Descano and his lax enforcement of the laws.

Time to Say It: RPV Just Failed a Sanity Check (Badly)

I have a lot of friends on State Central Committee. Many of them are stalwart volunteers and activists who are trusted to help guide the party — or what’s left of it — through tumultuous times.

I can’t help but think that in this instance, SCC failed.

There is nothing redeemable in these amendments to which anyone should feel the emotion of neutrality. They are odious. Even if someone doesn’t believe we can turn these amendments back, human decency should compel each and every single conservative to at least fight them for the sole reason that they are bad amendments.

One district chairman who voted against the amendment argues that the Democrats will claim we are racist for voting against two of the amendments. Seriously? Is that all it takes to turn back the sons and daughters of the Reagan Revolution? Namecalling?

For those of us tired of losing all the time, we need to get back to the things we are for rather than being worried about being against something. Who cares what names the Democrats are going to call us? Who cares whether or not we keep losing elections — we are already losing elections.

For myself, I don’t think it is a particularly high bar or difficult argument to say that if my six-year-old daughter decides she is really a boy and an orchestra of bureaucrats and plastic surgeons see the dollar signs behind that move, that as a parent I should have the right to both know and step in.

Or if my 17-year-old daughter is convinced to have an abortion, that as a parent I should have the right to both know and step in.

Or that marriage really does have a definition and that we don’t have an imaginary right to other people.

Or that restoring the rights of felons via autopen is a super bad idea.

What bothers me is that we actually do feel compelled to say the obvious. The fact that over half of the members of our governing body could not say the obvious shocks me entirely. Are we that trapped by the ideological left? Are we so in fear of their criticism that we refuse to advance our own values? Do we lack the confidence of our own values so as to render them defenseless? Or are things so obvious to most of us no longer worth defending in the eyes of the very smart people?

Is this the party of Reagan? Of Obenshain? Of Jefferson and Madison and Monroe? Are we so unworthy of the inheritance of these great men?

I doubt seriously that the imprimatur of RPV matters a great deal to a soul. But we failed a sanity check this weekend, guys — not just by a little bit, but by a lot. A vote to be neutral in the face of stupid isn’t a smart play.

These amendments need to be not merely opposed but fought and relentlessly so. Drive the questions back at the proponents. Demand better answers. The words of the amendment are clear — and millions of dollars will be spent by bad people turning them into Orwellian euphemisms such as freedom or equality when they mean the very opposite of both.

This wasn’t a hard test and we failed it. Here’s hoping for more grit and a deeper look at what we are for rather than operating in fear of what names people who don’t like us might call us.

After all, who wants to invest their time, talent, and treasure into a party apparatus to scared to believe in itself?

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor of The Republican Standard.

Recent primary elections in several states have clearly shown that the Grand Old Party as we once knew it is stone cold dead.

The GOP is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan. Not even close. The GOP has been totally redefined in the image of Donald Trump.

Some will see the Trumpification of the GOP as a good thing. Others will see it as a bad thing, but make no mistake, it is a thing

The GOP is Donald Trump’s party. No one else matters, just Trump. No one else’s opinion matters, just Trumps.

Consider Indiana, where Republicans who defied Trump’s calls for participation in the mid-decade redistricting wars, were turned out of office by Trump loyalists,

Or Louisiana, where Sen. Bill Cassidy, who supported Trump’s impeachment following the January 6th Capitol riots, was denied another term in the U.S. Senate, defeated by another Trump endorsed challenger.

Or Kentucky, where Rep. Thomas Massie, a frequent Trump critic, was defeated by a Trump endorsed challenger.

Or Texas, where Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has more personal and political baggage than Samsonite, defeated long term Sen. John Cornyn following a late endorsement by Trump; and may very well have put the Texas Senate seat into the competitive mix this November.

These elections show that Donald Trump controls the Republican Party much like Boss Tweed controlled Democratic politics in New York in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Or the way Harry Byrd and the Byrd Organization controlled Virginia Democratic politics in the mid 20th century.

In Donald Trump’s GOP there is no room for dissent. You must back Trump all the way every time, or he and his most ardent supporters, who control the state and local Republican political apparatus, will come after you.

The irony is that the GOP faithful continue to hitch their wagon to Trump, even though his approval ratings continue to fall and he is rapidly losing support among key voter blocks that helped him secure reelection in 2024.

How will this impact the 2026 mid-term elections? Time will tell.

While the GOP appears to be losing touch with most centrist and independent minded Americans, Democrats have not shown that they have a viable alternative to offer, and very few congressional seats are really that competitive.

What a mess we have created, or as Alexander of the children’s stories would say, “What a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day” this is.

But then again, Trump loyalists would say this is the Golden Age of America!

BILL BOLLING is the 39th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.

Don’t ever ask anyone where they are from, goes the old joke. If they're from Texas, they will tell you, and if they aren’t? You don’t want to embarrass them.

Of course, Virginians can joke about this because after all — we are Virginians and it is adorable when the second sons of the Old Dominion flatter us by imitating our magnanimity.

I’m certain that Democrats are quite pleased that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton not only upset but crushed Senator John Corbyn (R-TX) in the Republican primary, anticipating that it will now be easier to defeat Paxton in the general.

Yet there’s something missing in the hubris. Yes, President Trump endorsed Ken Paxton, but unless anyone need reminders, if there is one thing more unpopular than Trump and MAGA it is the Democratic Party. This is the blind spot of just about every Democrat when it comes to Trump, because the question isn’t whether one supports Trump or opposes him, but rather whether or not one is willing to stand up to the Democratic Party or compromise.

Consider Loudoun County at the height of the COVID restrictions and the transgender movement. Parents were actively being pushed out of public education, with former Governor Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) famously crystalizing the concerns with the gaffe that teachers — not parents — are the primary educators of our children. Virginia Republicans rode the wave of outrage, and the result was a trifecta for all three statewide seats.

In 2021, the fighter was Youngkin. In 2016 and 2024 — the fighter is Trump.

What we are seeing in Texas and elsewhere isn’t due to the popularity of Donald J. Trump in Republican circles. Far from it — Trump is a divisive figure who pushes people off the fence and will remain as such when the history books are written, and the final analysis drawn up free of hyperbole or sentiment.

Yet what Democrats are missing in all of this is that Trump is a symptom of their own party’s intransigence. When the opposition wants to pack the courts, pass a host of openly socialist policies, openly supports gender ideology in education, puts an amendment on the ballot that will upend parental notification and parental consent on transgender surgeries as well as elective abortions for minors, and passing a series of unconstitutional legislation from gerrymandering to anti-2A provisions — that’s a problem.

In Virginia, the fact we are even remotely considering upending Right to Work, considering upending the MOUs for data centers, that we are even remotely considering collective bargaining, that we are actively considering further DEI mandates, that we still do not have a state budget, and that Virginia Democrats are much more concerned about one-upping one another rather than doing the basic blocking and tackling of governance?

Here’s where the Democrats simply do not get it. The reason why Trump has the staying power that he does is precisely because the Democrats continue to push crazy instead of policy. Fulminating against Trump isn’t the solution it seems, and among Republicans, the crazier and more emotive the Democrats sound the greater the demand for fighters to resist the crazy rather than statesmen.

That’s how you get Trump.

In the meantime, the UVA Center for Politics has shifted the Texas Senate seat from Likely to Leans Republican.

Meanwhile, Virginia still doesn’t have a budget.

Instead of working on a budget, Senate Democratic leadership is now openly threatening a government shutdown unless they get what they want. Governor Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) is unapologetic on the vetoes — even going so far as to claim that the leadership of the Democratic-controlled General Assembly simply isn’t used to female leadership, per Dwayne Yancey over at Cardinal News:

Just as she repeated the phrase “the devil’s in the details” later in our interview, the governor’s power to propose amendments — and her intention to use it — was a theme Spanberger returned to several times during our interview. She also said that some legislators have told her privately that some of the conflict between the General Assembly and the new governor could be due to resentment on the part of some legislators at having to deal with a woman in the role of chief executive for the first time.

Interesting to me is that Yancey’s conversation seemed to be more confessional than homily, so we should be looking forward to a real glimpse of just where Spanberger is after bankrupting her political capital in pursuit of unconstitutional gerrymandering. If there is a centrist in Spanberger, now is the time to lay down a marker.

In the meantime, Senate Democrats don’t appear to be in any rush to compromise. Neither do House Democrats, where Speaker Don Scott (D-Portsmouth) is playing a similar game with a more reasonable approach.

Then there is Governor Spanberger’s perspective, which to date has either not been considered by the General Assembly or she simply hasn’t shared her thoughts (or been invited to share them).

Ali Ahmad over at the Jefferson Forum writes about the impact that 11th hour thinking has on not just the state budget, but public services:

In the dead of night that the “11th hour” brings, House and Senate Democrats may also force the Governor’s hand, again, on the legislative priorities they have been tussling about since March. Governor Spanberger has made several high-profile vetoes against priorities of key legislators. Skill game legalization, the Tysons casino, banning ICE from making arrests in courthouses, collective bargaining, the prescription drug affordability board, trial-lawyer benefitting class action lawsuits, and retail marijuana are all out. But the General Assembly can put them back in as additional enactments tucked in the back of the budget.

If a budget bill is dropped on her desk on June 22nd, she will be limited in her ability to offer amendments without becoming the “trigger” of the government shutdown. When the budget is amended, it does not go into effect but goes back to the General Assembly for consideration.

She will have one other option. While not nearly as nimble, the Governor can “item veto” whole budget items and the spending they authorize. The power has been successfully used, most recently by Governor Youngkin, to veto out additional enactments tucked into the back of the budget.

If the legislature presses the issue, this sets up the once-sleepy Supreme Court of Virginia for yet another set of monumental rulings. While the “Capitol Square Shutdown Showdown” is certainly fun to watch, it’s not good for Virginia.

Fixing the problem is one thing. Yet as of this moment, Democrats seem far more intent on fixing the blame when they can’t get what they want. This works perfectly well when Republicans are in power thanks to a sympathetic press, but now that Democrats hold both houses of the General Assembly and the Executive Mansion, there should be no excuse for not being able to run the government.

Instead, there is a very expensive game of chicken being played where running Virginia into the ground somehow seems like a grand idea to the Democrats. When teachers aren’t being paid and deputies are working for free come July 1st, we will get to test how that theory will work.

Or won’t.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor for The Republican Standard.

First things first — gas prices.

As of this writing, the price of a barrel of Brent Crude has dropped from $108 to about $91 a barrel. The average price of gasoline in Virginia is $4.52 a gallon according to AAA. Should crude oil hold at these levels or lower even further, gas prices should drop sharply over the next three days but are not expected to recover quickly per the Wall Street Journal:

Assuming shipping traffic through Hormuz picks up in June, the U.S. Energy Information Administration recently forecast that the price of international benchmark Brent crude will average $89 a barrel at the end of this year and $79 in 2027. On Friday, front-month Brent closed at $103.54 a barrel. The price started this year around $60.

Last year, gas prices for Memorial Day weekend were $3.03 on average. During the Biden administration, gas prices went as high as $5.05 a gallon nationally.

After a rather shocking — and by shocking, I mean disappointing — exchange on social media with a sitting Virginia state senator regarding his misuse of Federalist 51 to insist that the legislature outweighs the other two branches of government, it dawned on me that this particular individual has perhaps never actually read the Federalist Papers much less Federalist 51.

A few things out of the gate. The Federalist Papers were written to describe the limitations on the federal government vis a vis the United States Constitution, not the state constitutions themselves. Madison is widely believed to have written Federalist 51, and though he argues that because the legislative branch is the more powerful precisely because it is accountable to the people, he does not argue that it is more superior to the other branches of the federal government.

In fact, the nature of legislative power being as such, Madison argues that the check on this power is a bicameral legislature — one being directly elected by the people themselves (the U.S. House of Representatives) to represent the demos and the other being elected by the state legislatures (the U.S. Senate) so as to represent the aristos. Of course, the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution eliminated the U.S. Senate as imagined by the Founding Fathers, and the state constitutions — though protected by the 10th Amendment — are presently subject to federal understandings of right and law as the 14th Amendment progressively restricts the states’ ability to infringe upon rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

If you have never read the Federalist Papers, or if the last time you bumped into them was either in a high school or college classroom, there are a handful that are considered requisite reading:

• Federalist 10 on the balancing of factions (Madison).

• Federalist 39 as to why the United States is a federal rather than national government (Madison).

• Federalist 51 on the separation of powers (Madison).

• Federalist 68 on the importance of the Electoral College (Hamilton).

• Federalist 70 on the need for a strong executive (Hamilton).

• Federalist 78 on the need for an independent judiciary (Hamilton).

Interestingly enough, Virginia Democrats have chosen to test the boundaries on just about each and every one of these items.

Given recent attacks on the independence of Virginia’s judiciary, the threats against the separation of powers, calls from Democrats to play fast-and-loose with the Electoral College, and the desperate need to balance factions — not just the branches of government but undermining of that balance by partisan faction — one might think that the Federalist Papers would be a good two-month vacation to remind us of the genius of Madison.

In fact, regardless as to whether or not you are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome or other variants, we may want to consider how a political temperament entirely focused on “we won” as the only arbiter of right and wrong just might not be what the Founders intended.

Interesting to modern readers should be John Jay’s contributions — specifically Federalist 2 through 5. What would sound positively remote to our ears in high school and most certainly settled after “the War” was the greatest fear of the Founding Fathers, namely that these states united might one day disunite into a series of competing and violent regional interests replaying the bloody wars of Europe, and not only this but pulled apart by those same powers so as to repeat the bloody wars of Europe.

Today, we find ourselves susceptible to foreign influence once again — sure there is China and Russia, but also Iran, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Latin American countries, sub-Saharan Countries. There are PACs of all shapes and sizes, and sometimes disproportionately out of size.

Yet there are also domestic influence operations that do the exact same thing, trying to pit one half of this country against the other half.

There’s a certain relief in reading The Federalist Papers if for no other reason than men as diverse as Hamilton, Madison, and Jay — two of whom would be Federalists, the other a Jeffersonian Republican who would become a part of the Virginia Dynasty that would lead America during the Federal Era — actively debated and discussed these questions, first at the State Capitol and then at the new Quesnay's Academy Theatre on Shockoe Hill at 12th and Broad and presently the site of the VCU Hunton Student Center due to the crowds.

The Virginia debates on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was thankfully recorded and include names you would instantly recognize Mason, Randolph, Madison, Henry, Tyler, Pendleton, Nicholas, Cabell, Taylor, Marshall, Lee, Monroe, Cocke, Washington, Wythe, and Blair.

Their concerns were different — there is a great deal of focus on whether or not the federal government would raise a standing army and tax the states for this national force, whether by defining a Bill of Rights we allow government a broad sphere to operate, whether the Northern Neck would remain loyal to Virginia if the Union ever dissolved or whether it would devolve to Maryland (p. 146) — but the debates aren’t terribly different than the debates we might have today, namely how to balance power against power, interest against interest, without devolving into violence and force.

Lawmaking is the ordinance of reason to the common good properly promulgated, so goes the saying. Laws being the second-best form of governance, how we got here is a good thing to study on a Memorial Day weekend as we lead into America’s 250th, especially if you are someone entrusted with the task of lawmaking by the citizens who elected to have you there.

Good for citizens too, especially as we fight to preserve the American experiment against its detractors.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor of The Republican Standard.

Who is this magical “we” Dan Helmer is talking about? Have the Democrats already decided that Kelsey must go? Are Democrats seriously contemplating a palace coup against Virginia’s judiciary branch? Who else knows about this conspiracy? Who is the ringleader of this conspiracy? What do people think the reaction across Virginia will be if Justice Kelsey is punished for not obeying the Democratic Party’s political desires?

Questions we ought to be asking — but aren’t.

Questions we would be asking if a Republican threatened a Virginia Supreme Court justice like this — but aren’t.

My antipathy for Helmer knows few boundaries. Not just that the man is wrong, but I can only have so many individuals come and talk to me about Helmer’s “reign of shame” in Richmond and elsewhere that you begin to observe the old Virginia dictum: a gentleman does not lie, cheat, or steal nor do they associate with those who do.

Helmer is not a gentleman — and let that carry all the insinuation and odium one might conceive.

It is therefore no surprise that Helmer — after trying to draw his own seat and select his own constituents — not only had so many Democratic challengers in the now widely derided “lobster district” so as to confirm his unpopularity in his own party, but the Supreme Court of Virginia in a narrow 4-3 ruling chose to overturn what was arguably from start to finish an unconstitutional process.

Helmer’s response to this loss? Openly threatening the judicial branch in what can only be termed as a threat and a promise, per Andrew Kerley at the Virginia Scope:

“We will make sure that Justice Kelsey does not serve anymore come this January,” Helmer said.

Justice Arthur Kelsey, who authored the redistricting opinion against Democrats, will reach the end of his term in January.

Oh boy, do they have it in for Justice Kelsey.

Virginia Republican House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore (R-Gate City) ripped into Helmer tipping the hand of Virginia Democrats and their effort to restrict judicial independence:

"The Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the rule of law and respected the Constitution. Disagreeing with a decision is one thing, but undermining the legitimacy of our judicial system because you don’t like the outcome is another. Our courts are not political tools for either party — and Virginians expect leaders to respect that."

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, to be sure. Which is why if Helmer’s sentiment is more than an opinion — that is to say, it really is a “we” rather than an “I think” or “I believe this should happen” sort of sentiment — that we are about to face yet another constitutional crisis far deeper and more revealing than the unconstitutional gerrymandering effort this year.

Delegate Wren Williams (R-Stuart) took it straight into Helmer’s teeth on the petulance and zero-sum reductivism of the political left whose only morality seems to be getting precisely what they want no matter what:

Now think about what that means for every other judge in Virginia. The next time a hard case comes across their bench, the judge will have to include whether they’ll be reappointed. Judges have children in college too. They have mortgages, law school debt, and often give up higher earning opportunities to take the bench. \

Now, it’s been made clear, they cannot afford to make the “wrong” decision, and now they know exactly what “wrong” means when Democrats are in charge.

This is how you get leverage over a judge. This is how you bend a court and compromise our third branch of government. With a paycheck. With a pension. With their retirement.

This is not how we do things here in Virginia. We follow the rule of law.

When Chuck Schumer threatened Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court steps in 2020, Chief Justice Roberts rebuked him publicly. Bar associations condemned him. Schumer walked it back the next day.

Schumer could not actually remove Kavanaugh, but Delegates will cast a vote on Kelsey’s re-election, if sought, in January. The threat is not rhetorical. It is operational. And has likely already had its impact on Justice Kelsey’s decision to move forward.

Democrats would be screaming if a Republican delegate or said this about a justice that ruled in their favor with a majority opinion. I’m interested to see the reaction if any to this threat of retaliation against Justice Kelsey.

Justice Kelsey decided the case in front of him on the law, in the majority with three other justices. Just as has done for twenty-five years.

The Commonwealth does not threaten its judges. We do not purge our courts. We do not measure justices by whether they vote the way the majority caucus needs for power.

This is brandishing power, and it needs to be called out.

Speaking of calling things out, State Senator Louise Lucas took some UVA 1L to the woodshed on Twitter calling him “chopped” (or whatever the hell that means) to the total silence of General Assembly Democrats.

Contrast that with the formal bullwhipping of former Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) after a then-17-year-old made an assumption and duly commented on an erroneous news report from a Richmond radio station repeated by the Washington Post claiming Youngkin was going to scrap an exhibit at the Governor’s Mansion detailing the history of slavery there.

Pearls were clutched! Sensibilities offended! Assumptions made!

Of course, that same student took photos with now-disgraced governor (yet somehow simultaneously okay) and blackface enthusiast Ralph Northam — a fact Team Youngkin was quick to point out. Granted, Lucas’ target was a 23-ish year old 1L — but the dynamic of picking on people smaller and weaker than yourself?

Such is the present condition of the Virginia Democrats.

Meanwhile, Justice Kelsey will have to decide whether or not he would like to stand for reappointment and dare the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to be just as vulgar and common as Dan Helmer supposes they are.

For the rest of us, there’s a certain fascination one typically reserves for train wrecks and car crashes when it comes to watching Virginia Democrats stab each other in the neck for temporary advantage. Virginia still doesn’t have a budget, Senate Democrats are now “further apart” from their House colleagues than they were a week ago, and Abigail Spanberger doesn’t seem terribly interested in either refereeing or insisting on certain things in the budget. Democrats seem terribly interested in packing the courts to get their way, which to them might seem like a solution of a sort — then they can run over top of the constitution to get their way.

Yet once again, when half of Virginia believes they can disenfranchise the other half to get 91% of the power, when progressives are perfectly willing to threaten 1Ls and justices alike to get what they want, and when they turn on one another with perfect willingness to shut down the state government in a rather expensive game of chicken?

This all looks funny and sounds petulant in June. Yet for unpaid teachers and deputies come July it is going to sound obtuse and childish. The good news is that there are plenty of Democrats and nearly all Republicans who see the game for what it is and are tired of electing the worst and expecting the best.

Maybe it shouldn’t be Justice Kelsey who should be worried about 2027. Maybe Dan Helmer needs a wakeup call from someone within his own party, backed by independents and Republicans who many disagree on policy but can temporarily unite around character — or a lack thereof.

Sounds like Dan Helmer needs to go.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor of The Republican Standard.

by Daniel P. Cortez

Preparations continue as events are being held across the nation in celebration of America’s 250 celebration especially for Virginia in the drama of our redistricting nightmare.

Prayer and patriotism will be on display on the mall in Washington, D.C. this Sunday, May 17th as a number of Fredericksburg area residents and officials attend “Rededicate 250” billed as a National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise and Thanksgiving for all faiths.

Icons of the nation’s religious doctrines such as Franklin Graham, Pastor Jonathan Falwell, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Bishop Robert Barron, Pastor Andy Frank and well-known Christian Speaker Sadie Robertson Huff, will join Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary Pete Hegseth, Rabbi Soloveitchik and testimony by Dr. Ben Carson from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Ambassador Monica Crowley will deliver welcome remarks along with a message from President Donald Trump.

Initial estimates are tens of thousands to fill the mall coordinated by Senior Advisor to the White House Faith Office, Pastor Paula White, and Faith Director Jennifer Sevilla Korn who plays a prominent role as one the most visible and renown Hispanic women in the nation.

Frankly, I suggest hundreds of thousands with the rebirth of religion in our nation, will come in prayer with music by the “The President’s Own”, U.S. Marine Band, the United States Navy Band, Bagpipes from the United States Air Force Band, the US. Armed Forces Trumpets, the Hillsdale College Choir and the Grand Canyon University Cannon Choral Society to name a few.

Nevertheless, with the responsible focus of pride in our nation’s decades of accomplishments, this weekend in particular, I take great interest to those taking issue by calling the National Jubilee of Prayer “Christian Nationalism” and ask would such a program continue if the 10-1 Virginia democratic districts had prevailed?

Coupled with ignorance and some troubling history, the issues might be understandable.

In spite of my strict Catholic upbringing, violations by church officials upon innocent youth caused a number the Catholic faithful to flee over the sexual abuse crisis. Church scandals became a global crisis of trust and justice with respects to protecting our children.

The scandal soured me personally, but as I matured and reviewed the genuine miracles I had experienced during my Marine Corps service in Vietnam as a combatant and life’s evolution thanks to my involvement with great national community leaders such as Korn and former GOYA CEO and member of the President’s Advisory Commission on Hispanic Prosperity, the Honorable Bob Unanue, my faith was eventually restored.

While the vast majority of our Founding Fathers embraced faith, it defiantly remains a conundrum with individuals such as former President Barack Obama and why he supported the gerrymandered Virginia action — and why so many on the left seem to want to break faith with America when they do not get their way.

Obama has stated we remain not just a Christian nation but a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and also a nation of nonbelievers.

Even the historic institution of Harvard University was founded on the principles of faith even though lately it demonstrates the antitheses of what our founders sought.

All reasons why a diverse religious crowd and with even non-believers along with my family will be present Sunday witnessing patriotism with prayer.

Such as what was displayed at one the nation’s premier airshows at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N. C. last weekend celebrating the nation’s birthday.

Over 100,000 spectators joined one of the Corps’ most distinguished flag officers, 2^nd Marine Aircraft Wing Commander, Major Gen. Ryan “Chick” Rideout and Base Commander Col. Tim “Nutz” Drieslien as they boasted the return of the U. S. Navy Blue Angels along with incredible aerobatic performances, a Harrier and F-16 Viper Demo, along with other fighter jets and a powerful Marine Air Ground Task Force demonstration.

The static displays of Vietnam era aircraft and medivac helicopters certainly brought back some painful but proud memories for a Vietnam veteran like myself, but the remarkable presentation, level of fitness and proficiency of Marines and civilian employees of Cherry Point demonstrate why Navy and Marine Corps team recruiting remains at record levels celebrating America’s 250^th.

President Trump’s recent actions nationally and internationally continue to validate to congress the need to continue to fund our nation’s key military operation in places like Virginia Beach and North Carolina.

Evidence also is being demonstrated in removing the military meek by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with commanders who understand loyalty and responsible leadership while utilizing superior tactics, support and logistics such as utilized in Iran.

This also was demonstrated with the appointment of Acting Secretary of Navy Hung Cao and his interface with Marine Commandant Eric Smith.

Unique about Cao remains his knowledge of the demonstrated political parallels between Vietnam and Iran and the need to maintain responsible funding supporting the addition of critical ships, drones, and logistical needs he and Smith are championing .

Cao who served on active duty as a Navy captain is perhaps the most qualified “Acting Secretary of the Navy in history. President Trump would be wise to make him permanent SecNav.

Cao born in Vietnam in 1971 when I was serving with Marine combat forces, remains a student of critical military history.

He knows that with President Nixon’s Watergate problems facilitating his resignation in 1974, he was forced to sign the Case-Church Amendment following the Paris Peace Accords. It caused the cessation of critical funding of the Vietnam War in 1973.

In spite of intense lobbying by President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to extend the deadline, it passed with a two thirds majority preventing a presidential veto. Many Vietnam veterans see this actions greatly aiding in the fall of Vietnam.

And why it remains vital to retain Virginia First District Congressman Rob Wittman, Vice Chair of the House Armed Services Committee and a strong candidate to become chairman, to work with Trump, Hegseth and Cao insuring funding remains at necessary levels to increase the Virginia fleet of ships needed to maintain the force on force to defeat our nation’s enemies.

That pride in national progression will be on full display this Sunday and throughout the summer according to Rachel Reisner of the Freedom 250 communications team.

Reisner shared the link Freedom250.org where a plethora of information can be found regarding other events such as the Great American State Fair, Memorial Day Parade, Salute to America (DC July 4) and Patriot Games to name a few.

Clearly, prayer and patriotism remain the backbone of our nation in this our national celebration.

Still, the interrogative remains. Now that the redistricting con has been alleviated by the Virginia Supreme Court, how will the upcoming November elections affect pride, prayer, patriotism, and defense readiness in the next 250 years?

One must ask, which side of the aisle demonstrates the greater willingness to preserve and protect family values promoted by Christian doctrine?

This is why officials such as Rob Wittman and possible candidates such as Doug Olivant contesting the seat held by Congressman Eugene Vindman in the 7^th District must be given a thorough moral and patriotic examination as to who best can serve.

Thoughts to pounder as we celebrate our 250 anniversary and the magnificent events across the nation.

DANIEL P. CORTEZ is a presidential and gubernatorial appointee, political writer, and broadcaster who lives in Stafford County.

The Washington Post — alternately condemned for being a fascist propaganda machine now that it no longer reflexively agrees with the political left, alternately praised as defending democracy behind paywalls — seems to believe that in the span of just one week, Governor Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) has rediscovered her mojo and is returning to her moderate roots.

How is she doing this? With one-word answers as to whether or not the Virginia Department of Elections will obey the rulings of the Supreme Court of Virginia, with a veto of collective bargaining, and with the slow walking back of repudiating the MOUs signed with data centers on tax exemptions. Is this the standard of moderation?

If the argument is that nothing has changed, then yes — we are indeed moderating, but not because of anything Spanberger is actively doing to calm waters nor because Spanberger didn’t do her utmost to change things.

Instead, she is merely being presented with a series of facts presented to her by an objective reality. One of those realities is math. State Senator Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) laid out those realities, in terms of both political and electoral cost:

Let’s remember what actually happened.

The General Assembly passed a bill deliberately designed to delay implementation until 2028 — safely after the 2027 elections and after the next budget cycle — so Virginians wouldn’t immediately feel the tax increases and financial consequences.

Governor Spanberger didn’t oppose the policy. In fact, she made clear she was willing to sign it. Her only objection was that the delay wasn’t long enough.

Her amendment would have pushed implementation all the way to 2030 — an extraordinary attempt to kick the consequences entirely beyond her own term in office so another Governor and another General Assembly would be left holding the bag.

When lawmakers rejected her effort to avoid political accountability, she vetoed the bill.

This veto was not about protecting taxpayers, local governments, or Virginia families from the costs of forced collective bargaining.

It was about protecting Abigail Spanberger from the blame.

There we have it.

Then there’s the whole plowing up of the Memoranda of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the burgeoning data center industry. Depending on which metaphor you would prefer — the shearing of the sheep, the killing of the golden geese, or a mafioso-style extortion — not only do such actions put pressure on the one engine that could fuel collective bargaining, but it puts into question whether or not Virginia can be trusted to keep her word. Given the relative vale of humility that is North Carolina, a Democratic party willing to rip up MOUs and trample its own constitution to get what it wants isn’t exactly the best and most stable place to do business.

Not Moderation, but Centrism?

Now Barry Goldwater isn’t exactly anyone’s definition of a centrist, but his admonishment that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice often excludes the follow up, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

The two terms moderate and centrist are often thought to be interchangeable, but they are far from it. Moderation can look like pragmatism, but too often it becomes vacillation in the face of serious choices. Centrism is the business at hand, and sometimes it can rock the boat when it forces the powers-that-be to own up to the hard choices they create. Pragmatism and centrism are near neighbors, yet where pragmatism looks to stabilize, centrism takes a longer view.

For instance, former Speaker Bill Howell (R-Stafford) saved the Virginia Retirement System. You’ll never hear about it nor read about it because it simply isn’t as sexy as raiding it, but hundreds of thousands of families will rest easy because of that hard work.

The whole idea of the “honorable middle” is contrary to the old William Butler Yeats poem:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
. . .
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Yet there is something to be said for the Burkean ‘little platoons’ who do all the working and living and the dying in this town which hold the worst at bay:

To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind.

By contrast again, Henry David Thoreau in Walden reflects on how too many of us are distracted by the pragmatics of treating symptoms (our moderates) while too few of us are truly committed to addressing cures (our centrists):

“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root”

My long experience in politics teaches me that too many of us are distracted by hacking at the leaves of perceived evils — and if the definition of evil is a privation of the good, then what most people are railing against is an old saw: life ain’t perfect.

Of course, we live in an era of explosive wealth. We have more material tools at hand to alleviate suffering and poverty in the world than any generation of human beings before us. So much of our policy is directed towards hacking at the leaves of want, ignorance, need, injustice, and so forth. Too little of it is directed at the root of the thing — and addressing that, those who are begging to have the symptoms treated by government and the god-that-fails refuse to share the trough with long-term solutions that actually address the cures.

No small wonder why the center has a hard time holding against the passionate intensity of the worst.

Now moderation might incline you to compromise, but centrism is going to focus on core things for the long haul. Centrism isn’t popular, and in many ways it is alternately both very liberal in the pursuit of things good, beautiful, and true and also quite conservative in the defense of those same things. In this, there is a sense of tradition passed forward in spite of those demanding moderation in the face of an injustice.

Acta Non Verba: Actions, Not Talk

Of course, striking out for the center means giving the extremes and demagogues — the cancers that eat a democracy — a firm and unquestionable “no” and for damn good reason. Ideological reasoning masks itself as a panacea, but it is nearly always a lie that converts people into things in the pursuit of power:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts.”

-- H.L. Mencken, “Minority Report: H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks” (1954)

And there it is. Centrism is realism in practice. Centrism sets boundaries, fulfills already given promises rather than invents new ones, and clarifies the demagogues from the doers in the public square. Centrists focus on the mission of any good government — public prosperity and human flourishing. Centrism has no space for those grifters who, under the guise of providing some public service, strive only for mediocrity and then fail to produce even that.

In short, for Spanberger to “not do” the super extreme things she previously championed is no move towards the center, but rather the acceptance of a cold hard reality.

No one doubts that Spanberger will not bring back collective bargaining for localities next session — but can we afford it? No one is surprised that Spanberger re-joined RGGI which will raise energy costs in Viriginia by hundreds of dollars a year — but is that the definition of affordability? No one believes that observing a court order from the state supreme court is a move towards the center — but are we really done with gerrymandering and raw power grabs in Virginia?

For Spanberger to recapture the center, she is going to have to actually do centrist things, buck the extremes in her own party, and find the big idea that will establish her as a centrist.

One early test will be the new constitutional amendment that will abolish parental notification and parental consent for abortions, transgender surgeries, and a host of truly strange stuff. Will we see yet another multi-million dollar push on a constitutionally questionable amendment with Spanberger championing the dangerous and the weird? Or is Spanberger in a condition — having spent a ton of political capital early — to recapture a fraction of it by saying the words “too far” to her own base?

Time will tell.

Yet the question still remains. How many more mistakes can Virginia Democrats afford as we head into 2026 with an arguably bankrupt DNC? For all the screeching over Trump, Democrats are still trailing five points behind the president in terms of popularity, and as Virginia heads into 2027 with the Virginia State Senate within grasp of the GOP? Democrats themselves are recognizing the problem, and short memories turn into long memories the more Democrats rely on the switch rather than the bait.

Words aren’t going to be enough this time.

SHAUN KENNEY is the senior editor of The Republican Standard.