The Zelenskyy Case and Us Europeans

Once again, the greatest luck for us Europeans is that America exists.  Donald J. Trump and JD Vance may not be world champions of good manners, but they make up for it with vision, courage, and determination.

These days, more than ever, Europe—the whole of it, including the United Kingdom—is demonstrating the extent to which manipulation by corporate media that are now largely unreliable has had devastating effects on public opinion. Not only governments and parliaments but also the people seem to have become incapable of recognizing the stupidity and inadequacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as his madness and the fact that he has brought us to the brink of a Third World War by pursuing the impossible mission of winning an utterly unequal conflict.

Of course, it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Of course, Vladimir Putin’s style of governance is far from what’s described in the best textbooks on liberal democratic theory and practice, but the same can easily be said of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Moreover, as anyone who isn’t entirely a victim of the rampant propaganda in the West can see, the Ukrainian leader bears responsibility for countless and ongoing provocations, persecutions, and violence against Russian-speaking minorities within his country’s borders. And then there’s the (for Russia) unacceptable prospect of Ukraine potentially joining NATO, a possibility strongly supported by Zelenskyy and advocated by many European countries and NATO itself. And then there’s NATO’s Eastward expansion since 1997...

Anyone with normal intelligence and intellectual honesty should know that while Russia has its faults, Ukraine, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Biden administration, and NATO also have theirs. But beyond all this, one fundamental fact remains: Zelenskyy seems to underestimate the potential cost of his extremism, encouraged by the aforementioned—a global conflict. What’s more, he gives the impression that that is exactly what he wants. And the same could be said of some countries in the old continent, with Northern Europe countries, France, and the United Kingdom leading the way. Only Italy and Hungary are exceptions, albeit with different nuances. And not just the governments and parliaments of these two countries, but also the people.

Italy, from this perspective, is a very particular case: with almost all media aligned with Zelenskyy, the people are largely very distrustful of the Ukrainian leader and see him as a warmonger, a madman, or at the very least a narcissist and a puppet serving colossal economic and financial interests. These days, it’s true, there are quite a few who did not appreciate the treatment he received from Trump and Vance, not to mention the media, which is 99 percent aligned with the supposed victim of the two “American bullies.” But this doesn’t lead most people to change their overall opinion about the Ukrainian leader.

Yet, what’s absolutely striking is that the rest of Europe is with Zelenskyy—mind you, not just with Ukraine, which is entirely understandable, but precisely with its leader. What to say? For one thing, someone should explain to them that looking at the history, even the recent history of Ukraine, it is clear that many Ukrainians hate Russia for flaws and faults that they themselves are deeply affected by. Why, then, should we ever get involved in their squabbles? And why should we even take on such a risky move for the entire West and the world, like picking a fight with the world’s second strongest military power, especially one with a massive nuclear arsenal? When you really think about it, nothing in this mess suggests that Good and Evil are so black and white that we have to pick a drastic side. You can’t side with Russia, the invader, but you also can’t fully side with Ukraine, the invaded, given the history and the bigger geopolitical picture.

When you think about it, the only ones who seem to have perfectly grasped the core of the entire issue are President Trump and Vice President Vance, who are working hard to bring an end to the Russo-Ukrainian slaughter without being influenced by the Zeitgeist. And so,  once again, the greatest luck for Europeans is the fact that America exists. In this case, of course, not the America of Obama and Biden, but the America of Donald J. Trump and JD Vance. They may not be world champions of good manners, but they make up for it with vision, courage, and determination. 

Once again, in short, it will be up to the Americans to get old Europe out of trouble. There’s a bittersweet quote attributed to Winston Churchill that fits this situation well: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” The other possibilities, of course, had already been tried by Biden’s America. 

Trump's Counterrevolution

Photo composite: Guardian Design/Getty Images/Rex/Shutterstock/AP/PA

Trump and Vance have done nothing less than expose the naked truth—the king has no clothes, dramatically and pathetically so.

Looking at what’s happening in the world these past months and weeks, it’s enough to leave anyone speechless for many reasons. First and foremost, there are the “Trump revolutions” – in both domestic and foreign policy – that are radically reshaping scenarios and narratives that once seemed solid and almost unchangeable.

Another reason for astonishment comes from Europe, meaning the European Union and the United Kingdom, due to the spectacle of impotence and indecision they’ve been displaying to the entire world regarding peace between Russia and Ukraine. Peace seemed distant and complicated by the intransigence of all parties involved: Putin’s Russia, Zelensky’s Ukraine, Joe Biden’s United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and NATO. Then Trump arrived, and almost miraculously, peace now seems just around the corner, or at the very least, much, much closer than it was just a few weeks ago.

Adding to this is the embarrassing inconsistency – dramatically and relentlessly highlighted by JD Vance in his “historic” speech in Munich – of the European Union in relation to its own founding values of democracy and freedom. It’s practically a dystopian scenario where the will of the people is crushed and mocked by an all-powerful bureaucracy completely aligned with international economic and financial elites.

Victor Davis Hanson

The same scenario, to be sure, that Biden’s America and his puppet masters have been presenting – an America that has forgotten its history, its “exceptionalism,” and the immortal principles on which it was founded. In this case as well, Trump’s arrival has shaken things up. A revolution, or rather, as the ever-sharp Victor Davis Hanson observes, a “Trump restoration” emphasizing it as a counterrevolution against the changes brought by the Obama and Biden administrations. “ We don’t really appreciate what we’ve been through with eight years of the Obama revolution and the four-year, more radical third term of Obama using or employing the wax effigy of Joe Biden,” says Hanson. It was a revolution that was a cultural, economic, political, social revolution, he continues. It was very similar to the French Revolution under the Robespierre brothers: “You should remember what they tried to do. They changed the days of the week. They renamed things. They tore down statues. They went after the churches.” Does this sound familiar? It was a revolutionary movement: “Movies were different, sports were different. Take a knee.” Then Donald Trump came in and… “It’s a return to normalcy. It’s a return to common sense. It only looks revolutionary to revolutionaries. But to the rest of the people, it is a counterrevolution to restore normalcy and bring the country from the far-left fringes back home again.”

Simon Jenkins

In foreign policy, the “restoration” is certainly no less remarkable. Let’s set aside the polemical tone of Trump’s statements, including some of his lexical choices—which could be debated at length. If we focus on substance, we can’t help but acknowledge the high level of realism, pragmatism, intellectual honesty, and common sense in what the President and his Vice President have proposed so far. So much so that even the left-leaning British Guardian, through one of its most prominent columnists—former Times of London editor Simon Jenkins—has had to recognize it. Read it and see for yourself: 

As for Ukraine, enough is enough. Putin is not going to invade the US, nor has he any intention of invading western Europe. If Europe wants to pretend otherwise, champion Vladimir Putin’s foes, sanction and enrage him, it can do so alone. […]
What Trump/Vance are now saying to western Europe is get serious. The cold war is over. You know Russia has no desire to occupy western Europe. This proclaimed threat is a fantasy got up by what a wise president, Dwight Eisenhower, called the US’s military-industrial complex, long practised at extracting profit from fear. If Keir Starmer really wants “to give priority to defence”, he can slash his own health and welfare budgets to pay for it. But is he really that threatened, or does it merely sound good?
Joe Biden was meticulous in the degree of help he extended to Kyiv. Now is the inevitable moment of extrication, but it will require a very difficult ceasefire to precede it. Without a substantial guarantee from Washington, it is hard to see anything other than eventual defeat for Kyiv. Ukraine could yet prove a rerun of the US in South Vietnam.
With a minimum of delicacy, Trump/Vance have decided to expose the mix of platitude, bluff and profiteering that underpinned much of the cold war. Nato’s victory in 1989 suggested the need for a shift to a more nuanced multipolar world, one that was never properly defined.
Trump/Vance are right that a realignment is badly needed. They have chosen the worst possible moment and the worst possible way to say it. We can be as rude to them as we like, but they will have US democracy on their side.

In short, according to one of Britain’s keener observers, Trump and Vance have done nothing less than expose the naked truth—the king has no clothes, dramatically and pathetically so. Of course, in other parts of the editorial, the tone is scornful (as expected!). And yet, the message is crystal clear—a lesson not just for “progressive” commentators on both sides of the Atlantic, but also for certain conservative pundits who have greeted the Trump administration’s moves with a degree of condescension, if not outright skepticism. If a President and his Vice manage to restore a measure of truth and common sense through their actions, sweeping away lies and hypocrisy, shouldn’t we at least acknowledge that we’ve all taken a huge step forward?

* An Italian version of this article is being published in Atlantico magazine.

Trump’s hat tip to citizen journalism

My latest on American Thinker.

It’s taken a Republican administration to change the crumbling media status quo in Washington.

The news that the White House is rolling out a new policy allowing opportunities for so-called “new media” outlets — independent journalists, bloggers, podcasters, content creators, etc. — to ask questions during press briefings marks a significant turning point in the history of journalism. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the move during her first briefing on Tuesday. “We welcome independent journalists, podcasters, and social media influencers,” she said. “Millions of Americans, particularly young people, have shifted away from traditional television and newspapers to consume news through podcasts, blogs, social media, and other independent platforms. It is crucial for our team to share President Trump’s message widely and adapt the White House to the evolving media landscape of 2025.”

First and foremost, the decision is nothing more than the official recognition of something that had already been in place for some time. It’s called “citizen journalism,” a term that refers to the collection, reporting, and dissemination of news and information by ordinary people rather than professional journalists. It empowers individuals to play an active role in the news-gathering process, often using digital tools and platforms like social media, blogs, and video-sharing websites.

Although “citizen journalism” is a relatively modern term, the concept has existed for centuries. Ordinary people have always shared news through word of mouth, letters, or pamphlets. For example, during the American Revolution, pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense were a form of citizen-driven communication. As we all know, especially those who are not so young, the advent of the internet in the 1990s and the proliferation of digital tools in the 2000s revolutionized citizen journalism. Platforms like blogs and forums and social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube allowed individuals to share news and opinions widely. They become hubs for citizen journalism, especially during crises or protests. In summary, citizen journalism has transformed how news is created and consumed, making it more participatory and decentralized. Although it has its challenges, it has become an essential part of the modern media landscape. [...]

 

Read more: Trump’s hat tip to citizen journalism

O America!

 What is at stake on November 5 is the idea of America *

During these pre-election weeks, a two-word phrase  keeps coming to my mind. The phrase is the title of a book I read in my 20s, O America, by Luigi Barzini. These two words are somehow a concise but accurate summary of what I think and feel about this election—and what’s at stake in this election. Subtitled When You and I Were Young, the book is a reflective memoir where the author reminisces about his time in the U.S. from 1925 to 1930. The son of one of the most brilliant journalists of Italy during the war years, Barzini arrived in the U.S. as a young man full of hopes and illusions, and he uses this book to explore his personal experiences and impressions of a rapidly modernizing America. Through a poetic and nostalgic lens, he portrays a vibrant and youthful America, detailing the culture, challenges, and unique aspects of American society as seen through the eyes of a young immigrant.

My approach to contemporary America, and the tremendous challenges it faces, foremost among them the upcoming presidential elections, is a bit less poetic and nostalgic and a bit more dramatic. The stakes are incredibly high and the only literary genre allowed is tragic theater. Then again, as Victor Davis Hanson suggested, Donald J. Trump might embody the characteristics of a tragic hero in the ancient Greek sense, and the entire complex reality of American history in these years can be seen through the lens of tragedy—and we know, since Nietzsche, that if tragic language is born “from the spirit of music,” the tragic scene is born from the vision of the lyrical poet. Hence, perhaps, in the present days, my inclination towards poetic invocations, such as Barzini’s “O America,” or Langston Hughes’s poem “Let America Be America Again”:

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
…

But really, in just a few words, how could we express what is at stake on November 5, the 60th presidential election in United States history? Let’s say that, beyond the many issues on which the lives of millions of Americans—and very likely billions of people around the world—depend, what is most at stake is an idea: the idea of America. ‘Things change, the world changes, we cannot remain loyal to outdated concepts and values.’ So say the enemies of that idea (even though, of course, they deny being so). But the truth is that the idea of America, far from being subject to fads, fancies, and chatter of Hollywood stars and mainstream media gurus, must be seen, so to speak, sub specie aeternitatis (in the perspective of eternity).

The American experiment began with a revolutionary idea that a nation could be founded on the principles of democracy, equality, and liberty.  The wager was that a coherent, stable culture allowing the greatest possible freedom of religious and political thought and expression could actually be created. The idea of America envisions a society where all people can pursue their dreams and live without oppression. When the Founding Fathers wrote about “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, they referred to an individual’s right to seek a fulfilling and meaningful life. This phrase implies that people are entitled not only to basic freedoms but also to the chance to improve their lives, pursue passions, make choices, and seek well-being, however they define it. Happiness, in this sense, is more than pleasure; it’s about purpose, dignity, and the opportunity for personal and social growth. The government’s role, as envisioned by the Founders, is to protect these rights so each person can freely pursue their version of happiness without undue restriction.

Unfortunately, in our days, certain societal forces—such as unchecked globalization, identity politics, and the erosion of national borders—are diminishing the traditional role of citizenship in the United States. Yet, a meaningful and unified American identity, based on shared values, is essential for sustaining the nation’s democratic fabric. The American founding ideals rely on a cohesive sense of citizenship, which fosters individual liberties and collective responsibility. Without revitalizing these values, America risks losing its unique democratic spirit and the social cohesion that has historically defined it.

Victor Davis Hanson

In his books—such as The Dying Citizen and Mexifornia—articles and lectures, Victor Davis Hanson often points to historical precedents from classical civilizations, comparing modern challenges to those faced by ancient Greece and Rome, where similar internal divisions and weakened citizenship led to political decline. “America,” he writes in The Dying Citizen,” was always about self-governing citizens who took pride in their country, were autonomous and self-sufficient, and who recognized that citizenship implied both rights and responsibilities.” Here he emphasizes that the American ideal is built on the concept of responsible citizenship and individual sovereignty, viewing these core values as essential to preserving freedom and democracy. Real lovers of America must advocate for a return to a robust concept of citizenship that honors American principles of self-governance and national sovereignty, aware that without these ideals American society risks losing the cohesion and vitality that make it unique.

That said, we can return to the point where we started and add that there are an increasing number of people who, thanks to the good ideas and prodigious tenacity of Donald J. Trump, look forward with hope and confidence to the approaching historic moment. Of course, if “The Chosen One” loses, most likely everything—along with the idea of America—is lost. But this is not going to be the case. O, America, in you we trust. And may God always bless the United States of America.

* An Italian version of this article is being published in Atlantico magazine.

Luck or God?

My latest on American Thinker.

My take on a timeless, but very current, issue. Many top Republican officials have embraced divine intervention -- “the hand of God” -- to help explain how former president Donald J. Trump survived the recent assassination attempt. By crediting “luck or God” for saving him from the assassination attempt, Trump was cautious, but “open”. He showed statesmanlike wisdom. We ordinary citizens and Christians can afford to go a little further. Personally and honestly, I feel like believing that the world witnessed another miracle performed by God on July 13, 2024. I believe that God spared Ronald Reagan and St. John Paul II for a reason. Likewise, God spared Donald Trump for a reason.

There are questions that mankind has always been seeking answers to, not only through reason and argumentation but through intuition, faith, or direct experience. One of them concerns miracles. Christians believe that the Almighty God communicates with humans in various ways, one of which is through particular events in history or in the present. To be sure, believing that a specific event is actually “a message from Above,” or a miracle, is a personal decision for each individual.

We believers know well that from a Christian perspective the understanding of God’s will can be nuanced and is often viewed as both accessible and mysterious. In other words, you cannot treat what you believe in like something taken from Walmart: chosen, paid for, packaged, and brought home. You cannot take the things we believe in and put them in your pocket: the moment you pronounce their names they escape you because in most cases they belong to the realm of symbols, which by nature allude to something that is hidden, that is elusive. Therefore, for one thing, it is useless to counter our statements from a rationalistic or positivistic standpoint. What purpose do self-referential objections and counter-objections serve? Nobody wants to convince anyone: it would be futile and senseless.

Just recently many top Republican officials were embracing divine intervention -- “the hand of God” -- to help explain how former president Donald J. Trump survived the recent assassination attempt. “The most incredible thing was that I happened to not only turn [my head] but to turn at the exact right time and in just the right amount,” Trump himself said. He also credited “luck or God” for saving him from would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks’s bullet.

Understanding God’s specific will for individual situations can be particularly challenging. There is an acknowledgment that God’s ways and thoughts are higher than human ways and thoughts: [...]  

 

Read more: Luck or God?

How the West Was Lost at Oxford University

My latest on American Thinker.

The British cultural establishment triumphantly welcomed a new history book according to which Western civilization has always been a bad idea... This unequivocally means that the capitulation of the British cultural establishment to “woke” culture — and other elite obsessions — is complete.

Once upon a time, we were told that the peoples of the Western world — which includes countries like Australia and New Zealand, although located in the Eastern Hemisphere — are heirs and trustees of Western civilization, imbalances and excesses included.  Often referred to simply as “the West,” Western civilization is a broad concept used to understand the cultural, social, political, and economic norms, traditions, values, and institutions that originated in or are associated with Europe.  It has its roots in Ancient Greece and Rome as well as in Christianity, humanism, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution. It values rationalism, democracy, and individual freedoms and rights.

Later on, Marxist and otherwise far-left historians argued that the history of the West is marked by exploitation and conflict among different social classes, from feudal lords and serfs in the Middle Ages to capitalists and workers in the modern era.  Marxists, in particular, introduced the concept of cultural hegemony, formulated by Antonio Gramsci to describe ideological domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.  In other words, according to this type of approach, the dominant cultural norms and values of Western civilization serve to maintain the power of the ruling class.

As of now, the left-wing narrative is that Western civilization is an illusion.  Postmodern and deconstructionist historians have claimed that the West is a late invention of the 18th-century philosopher. Skeptical of the grand narratives that have historically been used to describe Western civilization, such as progress, enlightenment, etc., they argue that these narratives often oversimplify complex histories and marginalize alternative perspectives.

It is in this context that the new book How the World Made the West, written by Josephine Quinn, professor of ancient history at Oxford University, needs to be read.  It’s aimed to bring to fulfillment the goal and the dream of legions of leftists the world over and from time immemorial. [...]  

 

Read more: How the West Was Lost at Oxford University

Ukraine’s War: Let’s Hope Trump Wins

My latest on American Thinker.

In short, the scenario is that of a Western world in the grip of a strange obsession arising from a misunderstanding, whereby we are confronted with the possibility of WW III without there being any good reason for it.

When three weeks ago French President Emmanuel Macron said he refused to rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine, his words stood in stark contrast to both the European and American “red line” when it comes to putting boots on the ground in that country. As a matter of fact, several NATO countries, including the U.S., Germany and the UK, were quick to rule out that hypothesis. The "path to victory" is providing military aid "so Ukrainian troops have the weapons and ammunition they need to defend themselves," a White House statement said. Analogously, German chancellor Olaf Scholz, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s spokesman, and the office of Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni reiterated the agreed commitment to supporting Ukraine without including the presence of troops from European or NATO states on Ukrainian territory.

Since then things haven’t changed that much, except that the awareness that the risk of plunging the world into the Third World War has increased. This is especially thanks to three factors. The first is the so-called Weimar Triangle. “Today we agreed on a number of priorities, including the immediate procurement of even more weapons for Ukraine on the entire world market,” announced Scholz at the end of a summit meeting, held on March 15, with the French president and the Polish prime minister Donald Tusk referring to the launch of “a coalition of Ukraine’s allies for long-range weapons.”

 The second factor is the insistence with which Macron reiterates his position.  “Maybe at some point -- I don't want it, I won't take the initiative -- we will have to have operations on the ground, whatever they may be, to counter the Russian forces,” the French president told newspaper Le Parisien in an interview on Friday.

The third factor is the myopia with which NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg [...]  

 

Read more: Ukraine’s War: Let’s Hope Trump Wins

America’s Descent into Madness and Back

My latest on American Thinker.

Several indicators suggest that a shift in public sentiment is taking place

It’s become almost a cliché that the United States of America, once a shining beacon of freedom to the world, is increasingly becoming less of a model and more of a bad experiment of political culture, a country that is losing its moral compass and is becoming more and more dysfunctional with each passing year. Until some time ago such kinds of observations were typical of left-wing intellectuals and activists, but in the last few months/years they have become bipartisan, though of course for opposite reasons.

One of the maîtres à penser—probably the most prominent one—of this new approach to understanding the evolution—or, better, involution—of American political culture is Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow in military history at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a professor emeritus of classics at California State University, Fresno. A good summary of his views on how America has changed in these past few years is a recent American Greatness article that explains how, by whom and for what purpose American civilization has been turned upside down, which is why “we have a rendezvous soon with the once unthinkable and unimaginable.” In the last six months, he says, we have borne witness to a series of iconic moments evidencing a self-induced collapse of American culture. “The signs are everywhere,” he explains, “and cover the gamut of politics, the economy, education, social life, popular culture, foreign policy, and the military.”  Although he doesn’t explicitly say it, the implicit message is that America is descending into a sort of madness.

How else can we explain why the Biden administration fled from Afghanistan, leaving behind billions of dollars of advanced military weaponry and equipment in the hands of Taliban?  Or why has the Pentagon revolutionized the entire system of recruitment, promotions, and tenure in the armed forces, “by predicating them in large part on race, gender, and sexual orientation rather than merit or battlefield efficacy?” [...]  

 

Read more: America’s Descent into Madness and Back

Why Elon Musk Is Right about George Soros

My latest on American Thinker.

Musk gets it: at the core of Soros’s project is the destruction of America and what she stands for.

Something some observers of public life in the United States and elsewhere have been wondering for a long time is whether, if you wanted to destroy American civilization, its values, traditions, and institutions, you would act differently from how George Soros has acted so far. I’m pretty sure the answer is no. Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and the world’s richest man, seems to agree.

“In my opinion, he fundamentally hates humanity,” Musk said during an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. “He’s doing things that erode the fabric of civilization, getting D.A.s elected who refuse to prosecute crime. That’s part of the problem in San Francisco and L.A. and other cities.” As for why Soros uses his Open Society Foundations to focus on local races instead of national campaigns, “once you get to city and state district attorneys,” he explained, “the value for money is extremely good. Soros realized you don’t actually need to change the laws; you just need to change how they’re enforced; if nobody chooses to enforce the law — or the law’s differentially enforced — it’s like changing the laws.”

Not by chance, to make an example, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, who a few months ago became the first prosecutor to bring a criminal case against a current or former American president when a grand jury indicted Donald J. Trump, according to reports, got support from a political action committee that took money from George Soros. Not to mention that Bragg’s controversial “Day One” memorandum reportedly said his office wouldn’t prosecute some “nonviolent” crimes, such as resisting arrest and fare-beating. Later, Bragg backtracked on that policy after strong public resistance.

Cities in which Soros has successfully installed D.A.s have become ungovernable and increasingly unlivable because of the high rate of crime and violence.

Another recent example is that, according to the filings reviewed by Fox News Digital [...]  

 

Read more: Why Elon Musk Is Right about George Soros

Ron DeSantis’s War on Woke

My latest on American Thinker.

There is no politician who better understands that Woke is an existential threat to America

Ron DeSantis calls himself the governor of the state “where woke goes to die,” and his track record of accomplishments in the fight against wokeness as governor of Florida – which he believes will be a model for his presidency of the whole country – has caught the attention of many across the country.  Take Senate Bill 266, which prohibits Florida’s public universities from spending money on programs or activities that “advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion or promote or engage in political or social activism” and weakens tenure protection for professors. Or House Bill 1069, dubbed by critics as “Don’t say gay,” which liberates teachers and students from having to use fashionable nonstandard pronouns. The law also expands existing parental authority over a child’s education by extending the existing prohibition on instruction relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3 to include prekindergarten through grade 8 and expressly stating that charter schools must comply with this requirement. The bill also requires that instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in grades 9 through 12 be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students. A review process is also established that allows parents to object to inappropriate books in schools and requires school boards to discontinue the use of any material the board doesn’t allow a parent to read aloud in public meetings.

As former diplomat and host of “DeSantisland” podcast Dave Seminara summarizes [...]  

 

Read more: Ron DeSantis’s War on Woke

School choice could destroy the Democrat party

My latest on American Thinker.

School choice will drastically reduce the Democrat Party’s election workforce, squeeze its finances and even discredit its basic philosophy

"Surviving the next decades might be an uphill struggle for the Democrat Party. This not so much, or not only, because of the strength of its opponents, but because of education options that give students the choice to attend a school other than their neighborhood public school, commonly referred to as ‘school choice’ policies. So says The Spectator’s Lewis M. Andrews. His reasoning goes as follows: only occasionally in U.S. history does an issue surface that challenges not only the core values of a political party but the party’s working system, that is its ability to function. Now, “if any such issue has emerged in our own time, it’s clearly school choice.” Why? ‘Cause school choice “will severely reduce the Democratic Party’s election workforce, squeeze its finances and even discredit its basic philosophy”. Simple as that. The subject of fierce debate in various state legislatures across the United States, school choice policies, especially the widespread subsidy of K-12 grade schooling in venues not run by teachers’ unions, “would deplete the enormous army of campaign workers that Democrats have come to depend upon during every election cycle.” Not a minor matter. The case of New Jersey is both emblematic and paradigmatic of these dynamics:  [...]  

 

Read more: School choice could destroy the Democrat party

People, Publishers Speaking Out Against 'Insane' Censorship of Roald Dahl

My latest on American Thinker.

This latest woke assault to common sense and freedom of expression might just be turning against those who launched it.

"Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship.  Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed," tweeted American-British-Indian novelist Salman Rushdie in response to  chief executive officer of free expression group PEN America Suzanne Nossel, who said the group is "alarmed"  at hundred of changes to venerated works by Roald Dahl "in a purported effort to scrub the books of that which might offend someone."

As the Daily Telegraph first reported, "language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race has been cut and rewritten."  For instance, the word "fat" has been cut from every new edition of relevant books, while the word "ugly" has also been culled.  As a result, Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as "enormous" (instead of "enormously fat"), while in The Twits, Mrs. Twit is no longer "ugly and beastly" but just "beastly."  In addition to numerous changes made to the original text, some passages not written by Dahl have been added.  In The Witches, a passage explaining that witches in the book are bald beneath their wigs now includes a line that reads: "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that." [...]  

 

Read more: People, Publishers Speaking Out Against 'Insane' Censorship of Roald Dahl

Is America Falling Like Rome?

My latest on American Thinker.

Is America running low on the resources it requires to avoid ruin? Victor Davis Hanson concern about the fate of America

When news of the Battle of Saratoga reached Britain, a young Scottish barrister told economist Adam Smith: “If we go on at this rate, the nation must be ruined.” Adam Smith responded, “Be assured young friend, that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.” By that, he meant that nations can absorb a lot more blows than the pessimists tend to think. A few days ago, American Greatness had a very concerned article by Victor Davis Hanson on the future of America.  After quoting Adam Smith’s answer at the beginning of the article, and after reviewing the ills that beset America, Hanson concluded his reflection with the following statement: “We have seen lots of cultural revolutions in this country, but never one that was so singularly focused on razing the foundations of America -- until now. Yes, there is a lot of ruin in great nations. But even America is by now running low on it.”

In all fairness it has to be said that such a terrible sentence perfectly reflects the reality of the country as it has become today. We are $31 trillion in collective debt, says Hanson, the military is politicized and short of recruits, and the American people are witnessing the breakdown of basic norms essential for civilized life: “Old Cairo seems safer than an after-hours subway ride or stroll at dusk in many major American cities. Medieval London’s roadways were likely cleaner than Market Street in San Francisco.” Not to mention the fact that “speech was freer in 1920s America than it is now.” Nor can the “abject, deliberate humiliation” suffered in Kabul be forgotten, when the worst U.S. administration ever decided to flee  and abandon to the terrorist Taliban a huge, remodeled air base, tens of billions of dollars in military hardware, a $1 billion embassy, and thousands of friends. In addition, FBI is corrupt and discredited, collaborating with Silicon Valley’s Big Tech companies to suppress free speech and warp elections [...]  

 

Read more: Is America Falling Like Rome?

The Armageddon of Free Speech

My latest on American Thinker.

Let's hope Elon Musk at Twitter is prepared for an onslaught from the world's biggest players against freedom of speech.

Just a few days ago, as many will remember, Elon Musk trolled CNN by posting on Twitter a meme with a fake headline attributed to the the cable news network.  The image included a screenshot of anchor Don Lemon next to a stock photo of Musk.  The headline read, "CNN: Elon Musk could threaten free speech on Twitter by literally allowing people to speak freely."  Needless to say, CNN's public relations department quickly posted a screenshot of Musk's tweet, which included a disclaimer saying that the tweet was in violation of Twitter's rules.  In response, Musk brushed off CNN's response, tweeting: "Lmaoooo."  Those are the initials for "laughing my a-- off."

In addition to being funny, the episode was also in some ways incredibly meaningful and emblematic.  In other words, the "fake headline" was not so fake.  On the contrary, it was a brutal and effective synthesis of the way liberals, leftists, and progressives approach the issue of freedom of speech.  They put things less crudely; they are so often sophisticated intellectuals who speak elegantly and like to dance around things instead of getting straight to the point.  But the final result is always the same.  Their reproach for the supporters of freedom of speech — or what they call "free speech absolutists" —  is that "free speech is not simply about saying whatever you want, unchecked, but about negotiating complicated compromises."  According to the critics of Elon Musk, the "rhetoric of free speech absolutists" fails to understand that "for some speech to be free, other speech has to be limited."

It's curious that most of the time, their arguments are self-referential and self-assertive statements and propositions: "Like Trump, Musk has become the tribune of fascists and racists by way of adolescent contrarianism, an insatiable need to flaunt his control and a radicalising inability to cope with being told he's wrong on the internet.  For him, 'free speech' seems merely a vehicle for his delusional plan to make Twitter into a fawning 'digital town square' that he presides over."

Do you remember the medieval ipse dixit argument?  "He (Aristotle) said it himself," serving as a phrase capable of ending arguments.  Now it has become, "We (liberals, progressives, etc) say so."  It's true because we say it's true, and if you don't agree with us, you are a fascist/racist/homophobe, etc., and we don't want your kind here.  It's the contrary — o tempora, o mores! — of the answer Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis gave in 1927 to the question, "When someone says something we disagree with, should we shut them up?"  "The remedy to be applied," he said, "is more speech, not enforced silence." [...]  

Read more: The Armageddon of Free Speech

Is the EU’s Establishment Trembling?

My latest on American Thinker.

Apart from the EU’s establishment and the international leftist community, no one should be worried about Italy’s next government.

The New York Times’ Jason Horowitz on Monday correctly stated that “Italy turned a page of European history on Sunday.” Unfortunately, he was wrong in adding that Italy elected “a hard-right coalition.” In fact, the winning coalition led by Giorgia Meloni is a center-right one. But this kind of misunderstanding perfectly reflects the way liberals -- and the mainstream media -- change the meaning of words to suit their own narrative and agenda. Meloni, for her part, describes herself and her Fratelli d’Italia party -- Brothers of Italy, a name that echoes the first line of the Italian national anthem -- as conservative. “There’s no doubt that our values are conservative ones,” she told the Washington Post. “The issue of individual freedom, private enterprise in economy, educational freedom, the centrality of family and its role in our society, the protection of borders from unchecked immigration, the defense of the Italian national identity -- these are the matters that we preoccupy ourselves with.” Of course, she’s very firm on her beliefs and principles. As she said at CPAC 2022: [...]  

Read more: Is The EU's Establishment Trembling?