In a brief essay,  Bates finished writing “America the Beautiful” before leaving Colorado Springs but didn’t think of publishing it until two years later. The poem was first printed in a weekly newspaper, The Congregationalist, on July 4, 1895. Bates’ patriotic words were soon set to music, most popularly to composer S. A. Ward’s “Materna,” the tune to which we sing it today. Celebrating “country loved” and the “patriot dream,” the song resonated with Americans from all walks of life and became enormously popular. Within twenty years, Bates (after revising some of the lyrics in 1904) had “given hundreds, perhaps thousands, of free permissions” for “America the Beautiful” to appear “in church hymnals and Sunday School song books of nearly all the denominations; . . . in a large number of regularly published song books, poetry readers, civic readers, patriotic readers . . . in manuals of hymns and prayers, and anthologies of patriotic prose and poetry . . . and in countless periodicals.”

While Bates was initially surprised by the poem’s success, she later reflected that its enduring “hold as it has upon our people, is clearly due to the fact that Americans are at heart idealists, with a fundamental faith in human brotherhood.”

This is the version of the poem that Katharine Bates copyrighted and authorized people to use:

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

O beautiful for spacious skies,
   For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
   Above the fruited plain!
      America!  America!
   God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
   From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
   Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
   Across the wilderness!
      America! America!
   God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
   Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
   In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
   And mercy more than life!
      America!  America!
   May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
   And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
   That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
   Undimmed by human tears!
      America!  America!
   God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
   From sea to shining sea!

In a brief essay, Bates finished writing “America the Beautiful” before leaving Colorado Springs but didn’t think of publishing it until two years later. The poem was first printed in a weekly newspaper, The Congregationalist, on July 4, 1895. Bates’s patriotic words were soon set to music, most popularly to composer S. A. Ward’s “Materna,” the tune to which we sing it today. Celebrating “country loved” and the “patriot dream,” the song resonated with Americans from all walks of life and became enormously popular. Within twenty years, Bates (after revising some of the lyrics in 1904) had “given hundreds, perhaps thousands, of free permissions” for “America the Beautiful” to appear “in church hymnals and Sunday School song books of nearly all the denominations; . . . in a large number of regularly published song books, poetry readers, civic readers, patriotic readers . . . in manuals of hymns and prayers, and anthologies of patriotic prose and poetry . . . and in countless periodicals.”

While Bates was initially surprised by the poem’s success, she later reflected that its enduring “hold as it has upon our people, is clearly due to the fact that Americans are at heart idealists, with a fundamental faith in human brotherhood.”

This is the version of the poem that Katharine Bates copyrighted and authorized people to use:

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

O beautiful for spacious skies,
   For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
   Above the fruited plain!
      America!  America!
   God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
   From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
   Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
   Across the wilderness!
      America! America!
   God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
   Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
   In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
   And mercy more than life!
      America!  America!
   May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
   And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
   That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
   Undimmed by human tears!
      America!  America!
   God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
   From sea to shining sea!

While Bates was initially surprised by the poem’s success, she later reflected that its enduring “hold as it has upon our people, is clearly due to the fact that Americans are at heart idealists, with a fundamental faith in human brotherhood.”

This is the version of the poem that Katharine Bates copyrighted and authorized people to use:

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

O beautiful for spacious skies,
   For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
   Above the fruited plain!
      America!  America!
   God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
   From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
   Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
   Across the wilderness!
      America! America!
   God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
   Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
   In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
   And mercy more than life!
      America!  America!
   May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
   And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
   That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
   Undimmed by human tears!
      America!  America!
   God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
   From sea to shining sea!

I am angry. I’ve been relentlessly scrolling through social media and sundry reports tracking Marco Rubio’s statements throughout the day at various forums during his visit of India. It is Sunday, Day 2 of his four-day sojourn, and he has already kicked up quite a storm, telling the audience at an event in US embassy in New Delhi to mark America’s 250th Independence Day celebrations that “one of those relationships”… he is “so excited about going in to the 21st century, given the challenges and the opportunities of this new era, is India… one of those countries that I know that we have this very valuable strategic partnership with and we share so many values and so many common interests.”

“Valuable strategic partnership”? Of the kind that necessitates slapping the “strategic partner” with 50% tariffs while giving a free pass to the “adversary”? “Shared values” and “so many common interests”? The least the US secretary of state could do is spare us the duplicity.

Does Rubio expect Indians to have the memory of a goldfish? Social media is still rife with images of America’s top diplomat cracking up at the Oval Office in the presence of Shehbaz Sharif and Asim Munir, the man who orchestrated the Pahalgam terror attack, a few months after the heinous crime took place. As mature democracies and partners, both India and the US should be able to continue with their strategic partnership without demanding mutual exclusivity. America might be guided by legitimate national interests in keeping Pakistan close. India equally needs to maintain its close strategic ties, defence and energy partnership with Russia. What America cannot do, is expect India to work against its own national interest and sever ties with Russia while Trump hosts Pakistan’s military dictator at the Oval Office, the man India holds responsible for masterminding one of the worst terror attacks known to humanity. Trump calls Munir “an exceptional human being”, a “fantastic” man, his “favourite field marshal” thrice a week, almost as if to rub India’s nose in the dirt. The US president is entitled to his opinion, but it can’t be the defining principle of India-US ties.

As Evan A. Feigenbaum, a senior diplomat and former policy advisor in the George W Bush administration writes, “the United States and India often differ on Pakistan, but Washington had been sensitive to New Delhi’s equities and tried to shape US policies accordingly. Trump’s fulsome praise for Islamabad and dealmaking with Pakistan’s army and government now raise obvious concerns in New Delhi that this too has gone by the wayside. And these concerns have been amplified exponentially because Trump’s moves came within weeks of the April 22 terrorist attack that killed twenty-six Indian civilians in Pahalgam and led to a new outbreak of hostilities between the two countries.” Secretary Rubio is presumably here to smooth over a fraught relationship and resuscitate a moribund Quad. He should restrict himself to sounding thoroughly transactional, like asking India to buy more American oil and reminding Indian companies of their commitment to purchase $500 billion worth of American goods. That, at least, is an honest approach. Trump, with all his onerous behaviour might be more authentic about the state of the relationship.

Supposedly a frontrunner for 2029 US presidential campaign along with US vice-president JD Vance, Rubio is a clever man. Highly articulate, ‘wicked smart’ and a seasoned diplomat who has set about ‘repairing’ ties after his boss undid 25 years of painstaking diplomacy and took the US-India relationship to the cleaners. But he should not insult our intelligence. Let us not pretend that the past year did not happen, or Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones descended from the silver screen to wipe our collective memory clean with the ‘Neuralyzer’.

In its report ahead of Rubio’s visit to India, the New York Times observes, “Mr. Rubio is in India playing cleanup for Mr. Trump, who tried to cripple the country’s economy with high tariffs last summer after Mr. Modi, the prime minister, refused to nominate the American president for a Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Trump had insisted that he played a crucial role in getting India and Pakistan to reach a cease-fire after each country had carried out deadly military strikes against the other.”

To its credit, the American newspaper has got the framing right. The single most reason why Trump imposed tariffs on India for buying Russian oil, and did not in the case of China, the biggest buyer, or America’s European allies, was that he was mighty pissed at New Delhi denying him the fake credit for India-Pakistan ceasefire.

The reason was so incredibly petty, so utterly devoid of rationale or common sense that commentators, analysts, journalists and the like offered all sorts of other reasons, but the obvious one.

And that was just the beginning of a comprehensive assault on bilateral ties authored by Trump whose callous disregard for what Rubio claimed on Sunday a “very solid and strong, strategic partnership… one of the most important ones in the world” is matched only by his limitless ability to set the floor consistently lower till it completely collapsed.

Rubio should not expect Indians to forget so soon how his boss through a social media post, announced “Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country. Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE — ALL THINGS NOT GOOD! INDIA WILL THEREFORE BE PAYING A TARIFF OF 25%, PLUS A PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE, STARTING ON AUGUST FIRST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. MAGA!”

India pointed out that the US and EU continue to do big business with Russia in terms of fertilizers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel and machinery and transport equipment, and that the “targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable.”

A few days later Trump followed it up with another 25% hike in tariffs, holding India solely responsible for bankrolling Russian war, all the while giving a free pass to China, the biggest buyer by far of Russian hydrocarbons. When Trump singled out India, several European nations were still actively buying Russian energy, specifically LNG and pipeline gas worth billions of dollars. While the EU had largely banned seaborne crude, it had not yet banned Russian LNG or pipeline gas. In 2025, the EU spent approximately $7.8 billion on Russian LNG alone.

So, India was singled out not only for refusing to acknowledge Trump’s mythical role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire, or refusal to nominate him for the Nobel prize, but also because Trump wanted to show New Delhi its place. His interventionism in India’s foreign policy, his coercive measures to dictate India’s energy procurement were designed to simultaneously display his awesome power, and he sought to do so by repeatedly humiliating New Delhi with harsh words and juvenile insults.

India chose reticence over retaliation. But that does not mean we have forgotten everything.

It is not just about the juvenile behaviour, or the racist characterisations about India and Indians that Trump and senior figures around him made commonplace. The structural underpinnings of the ties are now under threat that no amount of smooth talking from Rubio may fix.

Trump is messing with India’s effort to ensure plentiful and cheap energy to its people. He has drawn Pakistan closer in an ever-tightening embrace, made it the fulcrum of America’s West Asia policy. He is seeking a détente with China, treating its own allies and partners as supplicants (including India) to be squeezed for resources, and his reckless war against Iran has struck a body blow to India’s macroeconomic stability.

Trump’s war has severely disrupted India’s energy security by effectively shutting down transit through the Strait of Hormuz. This maritime chokepoint facilitates nearly half of India’s crude imports and 90% of its LPG needs. The conflict has forced India into emergency supply diversification, triggered domestic shortages of LPG and LNG, and heightened macroeconomic risks like inflation, widening of current account deficit and downward pressure on the rupee. Each of these actions, by itself, is enough to interfere with the stability of India-US ties and cause a fatal rupture.

During his remarks at the US embassy event on Sunday, Rubio told the audience – with India’s foreign minister Jaishankar in the room – that “I want you to know that part of my visit here is also to reinforce how important this relationship is, how exciting it is, and how many opportunities we have to do things together. If I think about all of the key issues and all of the key opportunities of the modern economy, India and the United States together are perfectly positioned, are perfectly positioned to work together on these issues to achieve a better life for the people of the United States, for the people of India, and frankly for the people of other countries working together as well.”

These tall words sit uneasy with the fact that under Trump Washington might be inching towards what former foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale calls a “de facto G2” where an ascendant China and accommodative US may “increasingly behave like major powers setting the terms of the global order.”

The US-India strategic partnership in the post-Cold War order was built on the central premise of shared concern over China’s rise. From the 2008 Civil Nuclear Agreement, the Quad, the iCET, TRUST, Pax Silica, and deepening of defence cooperation, every major institutional advance in the partnership was underwritten by a common interest in preventing Chinese dominance of the Indo-Pacific. Trump’s accommodation with Beijing removes the foundational logic of this partnership.

India, consequently, finds itself simultaneously penalised with punitive tariffs and deprived of the strategic cover that Washington’s posture had provided. Trump has also demonstrated a profound disregard for India’s core security and economic interests through his senseless Iran war. For India, a stable West Asia is not a remote foreign policy abstraction, but an absolute necessity for energy security, maritime trade, and the safety of millions of its diaspora workers.

For Trump to suddenly appear over the phone during the live event in New Delhi and in his characteristic bombast, claim that he “loves India”, that he is a “big fan of Prime Minister Modi”, and that “we’ve never been closer to India… anything India wants, they get…” is not just discourteous, it’s condescending.

In his infinite hubris, Trump might think that base flattery can fix broken relationships, but that’s not how it rolls here in this part of the world. Stay transactional, Mr secretary of state. Tell us what we can do for you

Trump may delay, Congress may posture, and Iran may stall—but the endgame remains the same: finish the job or repeat the failures of Obama and Biden.

By Roger Kimball

I am out on a limb. The clock is ticking. On Wednesday, I wrote in my new Substack column that I thought it unlikely that “the ‘negotiations’ or (to describe what is happening more accurately) the grandstanding and playing for time by Iran will not result in an affidavit of surrender that is acceptable to President Trump.”

If that is the case, and given that the U.S. Senate is making noises about enacting a War Powers resolution aimed at “forcing Donald Trump to end the war in Iran unless he receives congressional authorization to continue it,” I suspect that hostilities will resume quite soon. Today is Wednesday. The next sleepy news day is likely Friday, May 22. Look for the short, sharp shock then or over the weekend.

Friday has come and gone. Do I feel like revising the timetable or even adjusting my prediction that hostilities will resume?

As to the first, not really. It’s Memorial Day weekend here in the States, which means that it is a long weekend. If something kinetic (I love that Greek-inspired euphemism) is going to happen in the near term, I believe that it will happen now, taking “now” in the generous sense we all accord to historical happenings.

There are both intrinsic and what we might call extrinsic reasons for this.

The intrinsic reasons include the fact that the replenishment of U.S. forces in the area is basically complete. Men and matériel are both at the ready. Too long a wait risks dulling the edge of readiness. Then too, the ceasefire has given Iran time to catch its breath, dig out and deploy its remaining drones and missiles, and resume its antic threats and posturing.

In short, as Shakespeare has Brutus observe before the Battle of Philippi,

The enemy increaseth every day;

We, at the height, are ready to decline.

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat;

And we must take the current when it serves,

Or lose our ventures.

When it comes to the extrinsic factors impinging on the president’s deliberations, most of them can be filed in the dossier marked “politics.” The conflict with Iran is not broadly popular. In part, this is because it was undertaken by Donald Trump and is, therefore, for a certain portion of the populace, most of the media, and for all of the Democrat party, by definition illegitimate.

There is also the issue of the cost of oil, which means the cost of energy, which includes the cost of gasoline. Voters do not like it when those costs rise. It’s getting towards the end of May now. The cost of oil must come down soon, or the situation will hurt Republicans, and therefore Donald Trump, in the midterm elections come November.

But maybe I need to rethink the entire scenario. Maybe, when push comes to shove (as it always does with Iran), Donald Trump will pull off a mask and reveal the ghastly rictus of Barack Obama or Joe Biden. That is to say, maybe President Trump will push back from the table and say, “We won. We’re going home. Iran can do as it likes.”

That contingency, as Jeeves would say, is remote.

Iran has just issued another in its seemingly endless series of proposals to bring the conflict to an end. This one is in two parts. Part 1: the U.S. declares that the war has ended and sets up a scheme to compensate Iran for the cost of the war. For its part, Iran would “provisionally” open the Strait of Hormuz.

Part 2: Iran wants full relief from the sanctions that America has imposed upon it and recognition of its formal right to enrich uranium. In exchange, Iran would agree to suspend enriching uranium above 3.6 percent for 10 years and would dilute any uranium already enriched above 20 percent. Iran would also commit to not developing a nuclear weapon.

What do you think of this proposal? I think that the chap who described it as “a bad joke” got it in one. “No serious American president,” he wrote, “—especially President Trump—would accept a deal that makes the JCPOA look brilliant by comparison.” Another commentator performed an admirable translation of Iran’s proposal into plain English:

1) The U.S. will give up all leverage

2) Iran will pretend to relinquish some leverage, while not actually doing so

3) Iran will then engage the U.S. in endless negotiations that never lead to any meaningful concessions

Do you believe Donald Trump will acquiesce to these terms? I don’t. On the contrary, the ultimatum the U.S. just issued to Iran demonstrates how far apart the two sides are. That ultimatum includes non-negotiable demands that Iran give up its 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and that its nuclear program shrink to one facility. It also denies absolutely any “reparations” for the cost of the war and refuses to unlock frozen Iranian assets.

Another tidbit to feed into the policy abacus: Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, it was just reported, was targeted by an IRGC-trained Iraqi terrorist called Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood Al-Saadi. This lovable chap was arrested in Turkey on May 15 and extradited to the U.S. I reckon that was something President Trump thought about when he suddenly canceled his plans for Memorial Day weekend. He skipped his son’s wedding and his trip to his country club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Instead, he returned to Washington as the Pentagon put its staff on “moment’s notice” status, the National Security Council huddled with the president, and Iran started jamming GPS signals and closing its western airspace.

What’s the end game? President Trump vouchsafed the world a hint in a Truth Social post on Saturday. It’s a map of the Middle East showing Iran bedecked with the stars and stripes and emblazoned with the headline: “United States of the Middle East?” Later Saturday he announced that “An Agreement has been largely negotiated,” subject to review. All of which is to say that I stick by my original prediction. Donald Trump is not Barack Obama. One way or the other—through tough negotiation or by force—he will “finish the job.” He would prefer the former. If he wants a longstanding peace and a free Iran, he is likely to require the latter. 

About Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and the president and publisher of Encounter Books. He is the author and editor of many books, including The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine’s Press), The Rape of the Masters (Encounter), Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse (Ivan R. Dee), and Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity (Ivan R. Dee). Most recently, he edited and contributed to Where Next? Western Civilization at the Crossroads (Encounter) and contributed to Against the Great Reset: Eighteen Theses Contra the New World Order (Bombardier).

It’s amazing, the insanity leftists can get away with today.

When I think about the changes I’ve seen in this great nation over the course of my life, I’m stunned at the many bizarre deviations that have occurred right under my nose.  Did I not see it coming?  Was I so confident that the U.S. would always be rooted in moral values that I let down my guard?

Looking back, I’m reminded of the maxim about the frog placed in a pot of comfortable room-temperature water while the heat gradually turns up until the frog is boiled alive.  How many of us are so comfortable that we pay scant attention to the rising fever of corruption that has become SOP?

Certainly, if you’ve lived through the past few decades, you’ve seen a steady decline in the cultural and moral values that most of us grew up with.  During our younger years, we would have been shocked out of our shorts to hear some of the mind-boggling concepts that have been insinuated into our lexicon.

Imagine attending a social function in the late seventies or early eighties and hearing someone say, “I heard that Mike had that sex change operation and is now a woman.  He’s planning to get pregnant before the end of the year.”  Everyone within earshot would have turned toward the voice and thought someone was beginning a comedy routine.  However, if that person had continued talking seriously about it, the guests would surely think the speaker was suffering from a mind-altering drug.  Moreover, the host would have been questioned as to how such an oddball got an invitation to a party with normal folks.  There wouldn’t be anyone trying to make sense of such gibberish by attempting to reason with the weirdo.

Those were the days when we weren’t so tolerant of aberrant misfits.  It was before we were indoctrinated to believe that being intolerant toward radical notions made us narrow-minded troglodytes.  It was the beginning of a sinister and well orchestrated campaign of mind manipulation, designed to replace common sense with a mental state that would accept all forms of degeneracy in our homes and in our schools.

Before we were conditioned to accept such repugnant ideas into the fabric of what was acceptable social discourse, someone, or perhaps many in the group, would have had no compunction about chastising the speaker.  Not anymore!  In our current capitulation to the dystopian fog, which has invaded our reasoning processes, we attempt to deal with the perversity gracefully, rather than appear to be inflexible tyrants, bullying those who are different from us.        

It seems as though every mode of communication has been altered to implant a distorted image of reality into our psyche.  Ask ChatGPT how many genders there are, and you get this: “Gender is broadly understood as a social, psychological, and cultural concept, distinct from biological sex.”  That is textbook psychobabble directly out of the woke playbook!  You’d get similar answers from Google and many other mainstream Internet search engines.  Would I be considered a conspiracy theorist if I said there seems to be a pattern by America’s enemies to infiltrate and conquer the U.S. by shattering the Jewish and Christian foundation on which it is based?

Therefore, what has happened to our country is that too many decent Americans have decided to stay out of the vicious war on their values, customs, and shared beliefs…most likely because the conflict hasn’t arrived at their doorstep.  Yet!

American Thinker

In the wake of several close elections and a few Republican upsets, Democratic Party elites are increasingly embracing rhetoric that suggests a growing contempt for the will of the voters and an eagerness to circumvent the democratic process to beat the opposition party.

The redistricting wars have resulted in Republicans gaining a modest advantage in the upcoming race for control of the House, and legal setbacks to Democratic countermeasures have resulted in pivotal political leaders voicing their frustrations in increasingly provocative ways.

“Either MAGA extremists are gonna break the country or we are gonna break them,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said this month. “We have to beat them electorally and then we have to break their spirit.”

Polling data, moreover, appears to suggest that a conscious willingness to circumvent the will of voters, even through cheating, has become a pervasive attitude among a top slice of party elites.

Accusations of cheating and electoral fraud have become commonplace, especially since President Donald Trump spearheaded a campaign questioning the veracity of the 2020 election results. Despite limited evidence to support those specific claims, the idea of cheating itself is, unsurprisingly, broadly unpopular with the public.

A recent Napolitan Institute/RMG Research survey found that a mere 7% of voters would actively support their preferred party cheating to win an election. Despite broad public sentiment against it, however, support for outright cheating in elections rose dramatically among a group of voters that Napolitan identified as the “Elite 1%.” Of that group, 73% identified as Democrats, 67% were aged 35-54, 86% were white, and 47% embraced “Sanders-like policies.”

Among that block, 35% expressed support for cheating to win elections. But the survey broke it down further to address “politically active elites,” 69% of whom said they would support their side cheating to win an election.

“These attitudes reveal an elitist revolt against the nation’s founding principles,” pollster Scott Rasmussen wrote of the results in a USA Today column. “A growing faction within America’s leadership class increasingly believes it is better suited to rule than the public itself.”

Rasmussen’s analysis appears to validate some longstanding Republican gripes about the “left-wing political elite,” which have persisted for decades but grew even more prevalent after then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s notorious “basket of deplorables” comment.

Further data suggests an equally significant disconnect between the average voter and the elite voter on basic ideals like individual freedom.

Overall, 35% of the elite 1% said the U.S. had “far too much” individual freedom, compared to 58% of politically active elites who said the same and a mere 4% of voters overall. A further 19% of the elite 1% said the U.S. had “somewhat too much” individual freedom, while another 11% of the politically active elite said the same and just 12% of voters overall did.

Some such attitudes and comments seemingly dismissing the intelligence of the average voter have brought trouble for Democratic candidates this cycle.

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Mich., for instance, is seeking the Wolverine State’s open Senate seat and caught flak in April over a CNN report documenting her deletion of “thousands of old tweets” in which she criticized the Midwest, speaking as a Californian, and demonized the “morons from the other side of the country.” McMorrow defended her past comments as “normal” and suggested that she had not curated her Twitter feed to be a politician.

The recent redistricting effort in Virginia, moreover, drew widespread accusations of an antidemocratic, pro-elite sentiment among state Democrats.

To be sure, Republicans have faced similar allegations over redistricting, but the specific redraw in Virginia notably split the heavily Democratic-leaning suburbs of Washington, D.C., across several congressional districts to create a 10-1 Democratic-leaning slate of maps in a state that broke for that party by mere single digits in the last presidential election.

The state Supreme Court ultimately invalidated the referendum in which voters narrowly approved the change, prompting Democrats to make claims of antidemocratic actions against Republicans.

Ultimately, neither the survey data nor public comments from political figures have suggested that an open embrace of undemocratic methods and attitudes would go over terribly well in either party. Nevertheless, the evidence of such sentiment among the top brass will potentially undercut any messaging from the party claiming to represent the downtrodden.

Just the News

President Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland on Saturday after posting an image to Truth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

President Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland on Saturday after posting an image to Truth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain said Greenland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

James Morley III ✉

James Morley III is a writer with more than two decades of experience in entertainment, travel, technology, and science and nature. 

mage to Truth Social showing himsel

President Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland  an image to Tr

President Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland  image to Truth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer eenland’s government had already made its position clear to W

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

James Morley III ✉

James Morley III is a writer with more than two decades of experience in entertainment, travel, technology, and science and nature. 

uth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer enland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

f peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain said Greenland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

esident Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland  image to T

President Donald Trump reignited mage to Truth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain said Greenland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

ruth So

President Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland on Saturday after posting an image to Truth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain said Greenland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

cial showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Artic island territory with the caption: “Hello Greenland.”

The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting “Greenland is for Greenlanders” and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.

Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain said Greenland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.

“In a democratic world, no means no,” he told the BBC.

Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.

The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed “Trump Towers” by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.

The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.

While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.

James Morley III ✉

James Morley III is a writer with more than two decades of experience in entertainment, travel, technology, and science and nature. 

Mike Lindell just posted numbers that have to be making his rivals nervous.

A new Big Data Poll released by the Lindell campaign shows the MyPillow founder leading the Minnesota Republican gubernatorial primary at 21 percent, narrowly ahead of Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth at 19 percent.

election is less than a week away.

The poll, conducted May 18 through May 20, surveyed 1,236 registered voters including 512 Republicans, according to the Lindell campaign.

On the initial ballot, Lindell is listed at 21 percent, Demuth at 19 percent, and Qualls at 9 percent, with Patrick Knight, Peggy Bennett, John Krhin, Phillip Parrish, and Raul Estrada trailing behind them. The release gives Big Data Poll’s field dates as May 18 through May 20, with 1,236 registered voters, 1,114 likely voters, and 512 Republicans included in the sample.

The release puts the overall sampling error at plus or minus 2.8 percent and says subgroup margins are higher, which matters because the Republican primary numbers come from a smaller slice of the full sample. The President Trump endorsement test is the other major piece: under that scenario, Lindell jumps to roughly 36 percent, Demuth falls near 14 percent, and Qualls sits around 8 percent.

That is the poll result driving the political heat here, especially with convention week now closing in on every campaign.

Now here is the number that jumps off the page: in a President Trump endorsement test scenario, Lindell surges to nearly 36 percent while Demuth drops to roughly 14 percent.

That is a 22-point gap if Trump were to put his thumb on the scale.

To be clear, this is an internal poll commissioned by the Lindell campaign rather than an independent media survey. Internal polls are designed to show a candidate’s best possible positioning, and campaigns rarely release numbers that make them look weak.

Still, the trend line is not new. An older Peak Insights/NRSC topline from earlier this year already had Lindell at 18 percent and Demuth at 17 percent among GOP primary voters, with 68 percent of respondents identifying with the Trump/MAGA wing of the party.

Lindell has been competitive in this race for months. The new numbers suggest he may be pulling ahead.

The massive undecided vote is the elephant in the room. Over 40 percent of Republican respondents have not committed to a candidate, which means the convention fight is wide open and delegate loyalty will matter enormously.

The Republican Party of Minnesota has the convention stakes laid out here:

The 2026 State Convention is scheduled for May 29 through May 30 at the Duluth Entertainment Center, with the event built around party business and statewide endorsements. One listed purpose is endorsing gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates, which makes a late movement poll especially important for campaigns trying to show delegates they have real grassroots energy.

The statewide abiding-candidates page names Lisa Demuth and running mate Ryan Wilson, Kendall Qualls, and Patrick Knight as governor candidates who agreed to honor the convention endorsement. Lindell is absent from that abiding list, so his campaign can fight for delegate momentum while also preserving the option to take the race directly to August primary voters.

That dynamic gives this poll a second layer. If Lindell can convince Minnesota Republicans that he has the strongest connection to President Trump’s voters, he can pressure the party establishment even if the formal endorsement process tilts toward one of the candidates already committed to abide.

That distinction matters.

A candidate who does not agree to abide by the endorsement can still run in the August primary regardless of the convention outcome. Lindell appears to be keeping his options open.

KTTC reported that a May 21 GOP gubernatorial debate featured Demuth, Knight, and Qualls, each of whom had committed to honor the convention endorsement.

Lindell missed that debate stage. If these numbers hold, he may not need that stage to prove he has a lane.

The MAGA grassroots energy in Minnesota is real. Nearly seven in ten GOP voters in the earlier NRSC survey identified with the Trump wing of the party, and Lindell is the candidate most visibly aligned with that movement.

Whether this momentum carries through Duluth next weekend is the question that matters now. With 40 percent of voters still up for grabs, nothing is locked in, but Lindell has positioned himself exactly where he wants to be heading into convention week.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

What are your thoughts?

The story of the Protestant Reformation is a complicated and often confusing series of historical events to approach. With the geopolitical and social movements of the time, getting a clear timeline is a difficult task. Along with this, many of the big themes are difficult to comprehend as they deal with medieval metaphysics.

For much of Reformation history, this is the hard truth though, in my opinion, we do get to see a plethora of fascinating groups. One of the most intriguing groups to emerge from the Reformation period were the Anabaptists.

Why are They Special? Without getting into the specifics of the doctrine, Anabaptists were known for two important things: Radical political views and baptism… hence the name.

The term Anabaptist itself has the Greek prefix “ana” meaning “again,” so their name literally meant “re-baptizer.” One of their core beliefs focused on adult baptism, and they claimed that the traditional practice of infant baptism had no use.

Actually, the name Anabaptist was a derogatory nickname given to the group, though it eventually stuck.

The second core Anabaptist belief came in the form of the “Two-Sword Theory”. This theory traditionally stated that the Spiritual Sword, given to the Pope, and the Temporal Sword, given to kings, were the two important seats of power in the world.

Anabaptist leaders such as Hans Hut and Balthazar Hubmaier (awesome name, I know) were quick to hop on the bandwagon to reunite these two swords, effectively turning church and state into one.

These early Anabaptist leaders expanded this sword-unifying theory to its extreme, especially Hut. He took an… apocalyptic approach, and began to claim that we humans could only hope to hold the spiritual sword, while the temporal sword would only return to the earth in the hand of Jesus Christ based on The Book of Revelation.

All of this is a complicated way of saying that the only true Christians were the Anabaptists and, if you wanted to be saved in the upcoming apocalypse, you better get re-baptized and join. Hut was so sure of this that he actually calculated the date of Revelation. He claimed it would happen on May 31, 1528.

Communism? Doomsday prophecy aside, Hut also had some other big ideas that were radical for the time. He believed that as spiritual sword holders, it was the Anabaptist’s job to create the ideal society for Christ to come back and rule.

This society was to be one of “communal aid.” One where all assets, food, money, and more, were to be divided among everyone to create an ideal Christian community. While this was completely revolutionary for the time, it also sounds strikingly similar to another communal theory that would be introduced not 400 years later.

The “Incident” Things stayed relatively silent for a few years. Hut’s doomsday date came and went, and the Anabaptists had general radio silence for about three years. This was until a duo arrived on scene in the city of Münster.

Bernard Rothmann, a local mover and shaker, and Melchior Hoffman, a classic “the end is nigh” preacher, began to spread Anabaptism around in Münster, and it spread… fast. As Anabaptism spread, two more players joined, Jan Beukels and Jan Matthys. The Jan’s only sped up this spreading doctrine, and by 1534 Rothmann was re-baptized.

Now, this in itself is impressive, but within 8 days of Rothmann’s re-baptism 1,400 more Münster citizens were baptized.

Rightfully so, the leaders of Münster began to express their concerns about the rapidly growing Anabaptist force, but it was okay because Rothmann and co. held a new election where he and his subordinates were elected as Münster’s new leaders.

To top that off, as his first new act as ruler, Rothmann ordered all of the previous rulers of Münster publicly executed, if they didn’t immediately convert or leave.

Growing Problems Naturally, the public murder of their leaders was off putting to some, so many fled to both Catholic and Reformation states. This news was so shocking to the rest of northern Europe, that both Reformation and Catholic armies showed up at the walls of Münster.

Meanwhile, events inside of Münster were going just swimmingly. Seven deacons were appointed and all inhabitants of the city were forced to hand over their belongings. So, the Anabaptist commune was established. The “true Christian community” was finally equal. Though, not all conformed to this new doctrine, so Rothmann had them publicly executed if they didn’t leave.

With the two armies stationed outside the wall, the new Münster government decided to close off all the gates… cutting off the food supply. Not only this, but Jan Beukels (a.k.a. John of Leiden) was named the new king declaring himself the “voice of the Lord”, and under him were twelve elders/disciples… I can not make this up.

Quickly after becoming King, Beukels enacted Civic Ordnung (civic order), and this introduced new, stricter, laws. Many of which took more away from the common person while also making polygamy a requirement for all men. The idea was that this was the only way to rapidly grow the Anabaptist community.

A Bloody Conclusion June 25, 1535, both Reformed and Catholic forces stormed the city and slaughtered all who opposed.

It is important to note that everything from Rothmann’s re-baptism to the fall of Münster happened in the span of a year.

Many of Münster’s leaders were captured and on January 22, 1536 they were publicly tortured and executed. After this, their bodies were thrown into cages and hung from the top of St. Lambert’s church for 50 full years.

It was a clear message to any who might have wanted to repeat the Münster experiment.

---

America survives as a healthy, wealthy nation only if the majority of the population is willing to stand on its own two feet.

Allan J. Feifer | May 23, 2026

Long before we Americans pick a side politically, we adopt a rhetorical stance that matches our worldview. That stance becomes the filter through which we interpret everything we see and hear, shaping our preferences and our politics.

Broadly speaking, Americans fall into three groups:

A. Dependents—those who believe in the primacy of the collective, where individualism is subordinated to the needs of the group. Their worldview echoes the “it takes a village” mentality.

B. Individualists—those who believe that responsibility begins and ends with oneself, and that we are meant to become the best version of who we are through our own decisions, actions, and consequences.

C. Amoral Pragmatists—those who choose the path of least resistance. They are situational, opportunistic, and guided more by emotion and convenience than by principle or ethics.

These three groups are roughly equal in size. Dependents form the backbone of today’s progressives. Individualists form the core of today’s conservatives. And the third group—the amoral pragmatists—constitutes the modern swing vote. They are highly persuadable, driven by emotional security, and often vote with their pocketbooks. During times of societal stress, this group becomes especially volatile, prioritizing safety and comfort over principle. High gas prices, war, and economic anxiety can swing them dramatically, and as a result, they frequently determine election outcomes.

For a society to prosper, it needs more individualists than dependents. But government policy has spent generations cultivating the opposite. Government, by its nature, expands. America’s safety nets—federal, state, and local—have grown steadily for more than a century, and many people, especially those in the third group, no longer see themselves as responsible for their own well-being to the degree their parents or grandparents once were.

Advertisement

https://95cf8d5f404dd44f06b14d51af805a86.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

Geography reinforces this divide. The South and Southwest remain strongholds of individualism. The North and West Coast have embraced a near-total reliance on government to shield them from crime, economic hardship, health risks, and educational failures. Government has become, in effect, a surrogate parent—a provider of safe spaces and emotional reassurance. To individualists, this is anathema. To the swing group, it is sometimes comforting, sometimes not. Together, these dynamics explain much of the country’s deepening bifurcation.

It’s worth remembering that none of these three groups existed in 1776. The country was founded by people whose values centered around independence, self-governance, and personal responsibility. These principles left no room for a dependent class or an emotionally driven swing bloc. Those who still favored British rule kept quiet and adapted. And the dependent group, as we know it today, simply could not have survived. There were no government programs to fall back on, and private or religious charity came with expectations that discouraged idleness or fantasy.

It took roughly 140 to 150 years after America’s founding for large-scale, government-run safety nets to meaningfully displace America’s original model of individualism supported by local charity. The shift began in the late 1800s, accelerated at the state level in the early 1900s, and became unmistakably national with the New Deal in 1935. That moment marked the inflection point at which individualism began to give way to federal and state social programs and a growing cultural belief in government’s central role.

From that point forward, a kind of countdown began—a slow transition from independence to dependence. Immigration played a major role in accelerating this shift, particularly by introducing large numbers of people whose cultural assumptions were incompatible with the most productive aspects of the American ethos.

America has never opposed immigration per se, but we turned it into a lottery for those entering, rather than a benefit for those already here. And when change wasn’t happening fast enough for progressives, they just opened the doors to anyone and everyone, regardless of health, education, criminality, or willingness to assimilate. We all know how that turned out. It was simultaneously their most brilliant and most disastrous tactic.

Some argue that this flood of incompatible immigration was accidental—a misguided act of empathy. It wasn’t. It was a deliberate strategy by those who envisioned a Marxist America and were running out of time to see it realized. Their impatience may yet prove to be their undoing.

We recently came very close to the tipping point. Had Kamala Harris been elected president, the transformation would likely have been completed. Another 15 to 20 million illegal immigrants would have crossed the border, creating a national crisis of staggering proportions.

Under a Harris administration, the filibuster would have been eliminated, D.C. and Puerto Rico would have become states, and the Electoral College and Supreme Court would have been “reimagined.” Progressives would have framed all this as moral necessity—a suicidal empathy, to use Gad Saad’s term, demanding that we absorb tens of millions of newcomers at any cost, just as Europe did, surrendering sovereignty and stability in the process.

Through divine providence, Donald J. Trump’s election, and other forces, we may yet avoid the fate now overwhelming many first-world nations. But the other side is not giving up. As we approach a pivotal moment this November, we must understand exactly what we are up against and craft a message that resonates with the persuadable middle. That’s not a new insight. What is new is recognizing that dependence functions like a drug—and more and more swing voters are becoming addicted.

The question before us is simple: What are we doing to counter that message?

God Bless America!

Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow.

American Thinker

The EU assumes the truth of an ideology that most Hungarians—and millions of other Europeans—reject.

On April 21, just nine days after Viktor Orban’s electoral defeat in the Hungarian parliamentary elections, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its ruling in Commission v. Hungary, decreeing that Hungary’s 2021 Child Protection Law prohibiting the exposure of minors to LGBT propaganda is in violation of EU law and core values. Sixteen member states joined the EU Parliament in the case against Hungary, and so the outcome was, in many ways, foreordained. Mark Rutte—then prime minister of the Netherlands, now secretary general of NATO—famously promised to bring Hungary “to its knees.”

News of the ruling reached Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel (who served as prime minister from 2013 to 2023) as he spoke to a meeting of foreign ministers. “It’s not the fact that I’m gay that I just fight for gay rights, but it’s the fact that I fight for minorities and it’s always easier to fight against the smallest group in some countries,” he gloated unconvincingly to Euronews, noting that he’d confronted Orbán about the law. “To do politics by blaming someone reminds me seriously of how it starts with Jewish people and then with gypsies and etc.” The allusion to the Holocaust was insidious and deliberate.

“There is now no excuse for the Commission not to require Hungary to quickly withdraw the law,” stated Katrin Hugendubel of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association Europe on the day of the ruling. “Hungary cannot enter a post-Orbán era without repealing [anti-LGBTQ+] legislation, including the Pride ban. If [incoming prime minister] Péter Magyar truly aims to be pro-EU, he must place this at the top of his agenda for his first 100 days in office, as an essential part of his EU-facing reforms.”

John Morijn, professor of law and politics at the University of Groningen, hailed the ruling as historic and far-reaching as a precedent for LGBT rights overriding the sovereignty of member states, telling the BBC: “You cannot equate what is totally natural—that 10% of the population loves the same sex—with egregious crime.” European Commission spokeswoman Paula Pinho was positively imperious. “It’s up to the… Hungarian government to abide by the ruling and once that is done the issue is solved,” she said.

Before leaving office, Orbán stated in a letter that Hungary would not comply with the order from Brussels, citing political, legal, and constitutional concerns. The ball is now in Péter Magyar’s court. Brussels and the LGBT activists they speak for have made their demands clear.

Both the timing and the tactic of ruling are obvious. If Magyar wishes to make nice with the EU and gain access to billions in frozen funds as he promised during the campaign—a declaration that Hungary “chooses Europe” was part of Tisza’s 2026 election program—he will have to genuflect to the LGBT flag to do so. He will, as Rutte demanded, have to bow the knee. For his part, Magyar has been slippery about how he will deal with EU demands to get in line with the EU-enforced sexual revolution. During his April 12 victory speech, Magyar called Hungary a country “where no one is stigmatized for … loving differently than the majority” but has been vague when it comes to policy.

The CJEU’s ruling has been universally celebrated across the European establishment, but the precedent is worth taking a closer look at. The CJEU, presumably sensitive to backlash from socially conservative countries, was careful not to openly articulate the implication of their decision: that children do have a right to LGBT content, or, conversely, that LGBT activists have a right to expose children to ideological content unimpeded by the law. The ruling even gave a perfunctory nod to the idea of parental rights, conceding that laws oriented towards the “best interests of the child” can justify restrictions.

But the ruling emphasizes the divide between those who believe that the public promotion and protection of the natural family and protection from LGBT ideology are in “the best interests of the child” and those who believe, for example, that sex changes for gender-dysphoric children are in “the best interests of the child.” Throughout its ruling, the CEJU promiscuously used phrases such as “sex assigned at birth,” indicating its complete acceptance of the premises of transgender ideology and emphasizing its total lack of neutrality. The EU assumes the truth of an ideology that most Hungarians—and millions of other Europeans—reject.

As I noted in at europeanconservative.com last year, public Pride parades and other LGBT events routinely expose children to adult nudity, displays of bizarre and grotesque sexual fetishism, simulated sex acts, and pornographic displays. This is not a matter of isolated incidents but recognized and celebrated standard fare—in 2021, Dutch photographer Jan van Breda won a €2,500 prize for snapping, as a local newspaper put it, “the most iconic, meaningful and aesthetic” picture from 25 years of Pride in Amsterdam, featuring a small child playing on a swing while men in latex bondage gear mingled nearby. This is what the CEJU is defending—and what Rutte was defending.

There is also the fact that multiple major studies—starting with Lisa Littman’s 2018 paper—revealed that trans identification among minors is often a “peer social contagion.” That is, it spreads through peer groups and is frequently driven by content consumed online. This thesis has been confirmed by other studies and has led to a reevaluation of transgender treatments for minors in many countries. Considering that exposure to LGBT content has measurably resulted in children identifying as transgender—and, indeed, a wide range of other new gender identities and sexual orientations—and that transgender treatments often result in irreversible damage, it is clear that protecting minors from such content is, in fact, in “the best interests of the child.”

CEJU’s ruling emphasizes the ‘values’ of the New Europe. Just fifty years ago, no civilized country would have accepted that children had a human right to consume LGBT content, or that LGBT activists had a human right to expose themselves in public or act out weird sexual fetishes in the streets. The EU despises leaders who will not accept these new ‘values’ because they are, fundamentally, more European than the new ruling class—because they cling to a continuity with the Christian civilization that once defined the continent, rather than the new Europe that has arisen out of the sexual revolution.

When Mark Rutte declared that he would work to bring Hungary to its knees, it is because he wanted Hungary to join the countries that already knelt before the rainbow flag. We will soon discover what sort of stuff Péter Magyar is made of.

The European Conservative