The State of the Church: An Interview with John MacArthur

US Needs to Be Prepared for Nuclear Threats to Homeland

nuclear threats



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Glen VanHerck, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, brought some necessary attention to the growing nuclear threats to the U.S. homeland.

Russia was at the top of his concerns. To match a more assertive nuclear doctrine, Russia is undertaking a massive nuclear modernization effort. This includes a first-of-its-kind heavy intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry a hypersonic glide vehicle that is able to evade U.S. early warning systems.

VanHerck also highlighted Russia’s entirely new capabilities under development, including a nuclear torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile, which could have unlimited range.

China, once hoped to rise peacefully, has also been rapidly advancing its ability to reach the U.S. homeland with a nuclear weapon. It has deployed several road-mobile ICBMs and ballistic missile submarines, and, according to VanHerck, will eventually deploy advanced hypersonic weapons.

Adm. Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, has already warned us that China is on track to become a nuclear peer to the U.S. by the end of the decade.

And, of course, we can’t forget about North Korea and Iran.

Despite longstanding doubts about the rogue nation’s abilities, North Korea has made significant strides with its ballistic missile arsenal. Since 2017, North Korea developed three ICBMs that could target the U.S. homeland and recently paraded a new ICBM that could be even more powerful.

North Korea also has an active nuclear weapons program. It’s worth contrasting this with the state of the U.S.’ nuclear infrastructure, which—after being allowed to atrophy for years—is incapable of building a nuclear weapon.

And then there’s Iran, which continues to invest in missile and space technologies. Iran is steadily increasing its potential to eventually assemble an ICBM that could hold the continental United States at risk.

To address these threats, VanHerck homed in on missile defense, which provides the capability to deter an adversary by denying its ability to harm the U.S. That means that if an adversary sees the U.S. has a capability to stop a successful attack by shooting down a missile, an adversary will be less emboldened to press the launch button.

The first step to a strong missile defense is a good network of sensors and radars able to see the incoming threat. When discussing the growing cruise missile threat posed by Russia and China, VanHerck remarked, “We don’t want to be in a situation … where endgame defeat is our only option.”

He’s right on the money with this. Defeating advanced missiles must start with improving sensors. After all, seeing the threat is a prerequisite to being able to shoot it down.

One improvement the U.S. is making in this area is the development of the Long Range Discrimination Radar program in Alaska, which will improve the ability to track incoming missiles headed toward the homeland. Last year, Congress also provided funding for radar to be built in Hawaii to further expand radar coverage.

And of course, the U.S. needs to be able to intercept incoming missiles. Currently, the U.S. deploys 44 ground-based interceptors capable of defending against a limited ballistic missile attack.

Fielded in 2004, these interceptors are currently undergoing repairs and upgrades to ensure they will last through the end of the decade, but will ultimately need to be replaced by the upcoming Next Generation Interceptor program.

The next-generation interceptors will bolster the size, reliability, and capability of today’s interceptors, and are absolutely crucial to being able to defend against increasing threats from North Korea and Iran.

After over a year of delay in the contract award for the Next Generation Interceptor, it currently awaits approval on the desk of Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks.

In a response to a question from Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., VanHerck was clear about the importance of moving forward with the Next Generation Interceptor: “It gives us extra capacity to go against threats that … could exceed our current [ground-based interceptor] inventory and … will give us capability because the threat continues to advance their capabilities.”

The deputy secretary’s decision to approve the Next Generation Interceptor program will surely be an easy one.

VanHerck’s testimony gives a useful reminder that missile defense must be a top priority. Threats to the U.S. homeland are clearly becoming increasingly challenging, and in turn, so is the task of fulfilling the United States’ moral obligation to protect its citizens from attack.

To realize this reality, the onus is on the Biden administration and Congress to ensure this critical priority receives the attention and funding that it deserves.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory Have No Place in US Military



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Sen. Tom Cotton, rightly angered that the Department of Defense is moving to indoctrinate U.S. military personnel in divisive critical race theory, has introduced a bill that would forbid it.

Like colleagues in the House who sent letters to Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of naval operations, expressing severe disapproval of the Navy’s decision to include books on critical race theory and other aspects of identity politics on professional reading lists, Cotton, R-Ark., and a former soldier, demonstrated he understands the corrosive effect that such teachings would have on the U.S military.

In 1968, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. expressed his dream that one day people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It is a powerful message consistently referenced by everyone who seeks true equality in diverse populations.

King, like so many before and since who have championed a unified people within our great American experiment, worked to replace identity by race, ethnic group, economic status, gender, or religion with a shared humanity that prizes mutual recognition and respect, regardless of the various characteristics that tend to segregate people by type.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

In many ways, America’s military strives to manifest King’s dream of a world that values people by their character, shared identity, and commitment to a common, noble purpose.

The beauty of military service is that the uniform and common objective supplants grouping by individual identities of color, class, gender, or religion.

I best know the U.S. Marine Corps, because I served in it for 20 years, but all of the services have a similar approach to forming a team—rather than sowing division by focusing on those things that separate individuals from each other.

What united everyone with whom I served was the singular identity of being a U.S. Marine committed to defending our country, a country comprising every sort of person from countless different backgrounds.

It didn’t matter where you came from. All that really mattered among Marines was whether you were competent in your job, committed to the mission, and were someone your fellow Marines could depend on.

Military service truly is the best example of America as the proverbial great melting pot.

This isn’t to say that the military is perfect. Like any other human endeavor, it is composed of people who bring their biases and prejudices with them. But the military knows this; hence, its constant emphasis on small-unit leadership, reinforcement of values, teamwork, and personal accountability.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the legal aspects of military discipline, amply addresses unacceptable conduct, including abuse and disrespect of others.

Every service chief, commanding officer, senior enlisted leader, professional military school, and unit training curriculum reemphasizes core values that characterize military service. It is always a work in progress, just as much as is our country and each of us individually. 

Critical race theory would, however, move the military in the wrong direction by undoing decades, even centuries, of work to foster a team-centered culture.

By relentlessly harping on and reinforcing specific identities—advocating for some, while disparaging others, and requiring certain levels of representation in jobs, ranks, and occupational fields as defined by those identities—what advocates of identity politics actually do is undermine the very thing they supposedly want to advance; namely, equality across peoples.

Racial and gender-based criteria for promotion or assignment to a position, as examples, cause people to wonder whether the person was selected on merit or merely got the job because he or she had a particular identity.

If the latter, then their credibility and the level of respect they should legitimately enjoy are undermined and damaged. They aren’t seen as having earned the position because of performance, competence, or leadership qualities.

People will still salute and carry out orders—but because they are obliged to, not because the person is perceived as rating such on their own merit. By emphasizing and sustaining stereotypes, advocates of racial and gender identity more deeply rooted prejudices, accelerating and amplifying them, rather than neutralizing and eliminating them.

Military discipline, expected conduct, and respect between and within ranks undergird a system in which military forces get the job done because those in uniform are reminded from the first day they put on their uniform that a soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, or Space Force guardian is just that—a fellow service member who has gone through the same training, had to meet the same standards, serves the same Constitution and country, and respects the same flag and national identity.

In short, military service already is the great equalizer.

Programs that emphasize differences among service members, that impose a demand for people to feel guilty about their identity and background, that elevate one group over another, or that seek to subordinate a group relative to another generate resentment, or a sense of aggrieved victimization, or entitlement to special handling.

Such initiatives destroy the fabric of military service that otherwise unites an extraordinarily diverse population in common purpose and identity. Identity politics is a cancer that corrodes good order and discipline and the necessary authorities inherent in a chain of command.

When we view people through the lens of race, gender, or religion, we embrace the polar opposite of everything the U.S. military strives for, being a colorblind, race-blind, gender-blind team that takes the contributions of everyone willing to serve their country and folds them into success.

Thinking less about teams and more about individuals is a recipe for failure for any military, yet this is exactly what critical race theory and other forms of identity politics attempt to do.

Cotton and Republican Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri are all on the mark in questioning why the most senior leaders in our military would act to damage the very foundation upon which our military forges an incredible team of like-minded people dedicated to a common cause, regardless of personal backgrounds and characteristics.

Our military leadership must focus on the core purpose of our military—organizing, equipping, and training a force willing and able to defend the nation from external threats—rather than mire itself in the self-defeating claptrap of identity politics.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

Lonestar Bias: Texas Election Officials Received $36 Million to Turn State Blue



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A new report documents that private foundations spent more than $36 million to pay local election offices in Texas to alter policies and practices in the 2020 election. The money was overwhelmingly spent in solid Democratic strongholds and designed to maximize turnout in these Biden-leaning jurisdictions. The money was concentrated in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and the Rio Grande Valley, according to a new report.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, with which I am associated, reviewed the grant letters and other government documents executed between Texas county election officials and the Center for Technology for Civic Life, a nonprofit that poured over $350 million nationwide into government election offices in order to have those offices adopt policies the nonprofit supported.

The nonprofit was funded by Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg after a dinner meeting where controversial Biden Justice Department nominee Vanita Gupta advocated for the strategy in 2019.

Other organizations donated another $100 million nationwide to local election offices in addition to the Zuckerberg-related nonprofit, raising the total to influence government election policy to almost half a billion dollars. PJ Media was the first to report the details of this plan last April.

Documents from Texas county election officials obtained for the Public Interest Legal Foundation report show that the private dollars were focused on adopting procedures not always consistent with Texas law and practices, such as drive-through voting and voting by mail for any reason, contrary to Texas law.

In other words, the private dollars were used in a way to pressure officials to alter existing Texas election procedures adopted by the Texas legislature.

Texas Rep. Phil King has introduced HB 2283 to solve the problem and prohibit private dollars from flowing into government election offices. The bill has sat in committee since March 15.

The private dollars appear to have made a difference. Tarrant County received $1.6 million in Zuckerberg cash. Biden’s performance improved 43% in raw votes over Hillary Clinton’s compared to Trump’s increase of 18% in raw votes. The same dynamic played out in urban areas across Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Democratic urban cores opened the floodgates to Biden votes – all through the creation of structural bias.

Austin area counties also received Zuckerberg dollars, and raw Democrat vote totals there jumped 70 and 80 percent over 2016 in counties like Hays and Williamson, according to the PILF report.

So how does this happen? The Zuckerberg dollars turned urban offices into massive turnout machines. As I wrote:

What these grants did was build structural bias into the 2020 election where structural bias matters most – in densely populated urban cores. It converted election offices in key jurisdictions with deep reservoirs of Biden votes into Formula One turnout machines. The hundreds of millions of dollars built systems, hired employees from activist groups, bought equipment and radio advertisements. It did everything that street activists could ever dream up to turn out Biden votes if only they had unlimited funding.

It is true that red counties in Texas also received grants, but those were fig leaf grants designed to insulate the Center For Technology and Civic life from accusations of bias. More importantly, those grants were smaller, sometimes only $5,000, and barely enough to make any dent in behaviors, unlike the large blue-county grants in Texas.

If the Texas election were confined only to those counties that received Zuckerberg dollars, the report notes, Biden would have won Texas by 270,000 votes. That’s the point. The private dollars created efficiencies and capacities. When a given county is majority blue to begin with, such as Harris or Travis, and you create efficiencies and capacities in the election process in those counties, you are manufacturing votes for Democrats that did not exist before the efficiencies and capacities were put in place with Zuckerberg dollars.

Some might wonder why Zuckerberg money was wasted on Texas, a state Trump was sure to win.

Two answers. First, Texas was not always a certain Trump win. The October spin in the Democrat-friendly media was that Texas was in play. Second, and more importantly, the play in Texas wasn’t about 2020. It was about flipping Texas blue in the future. And if and when that happens, it will be done by building out efficiencies and capacities in the counties in 2020 that were part of the trial run.

Now you understand why banning private money that builds in bias in Texas is so important.


Biden Admin. Wants Police to be Allowed to Seize Your Guns WITHOUT a Warrant



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Imagine that you get into a heated argument with your spouse, and the police are eventually called. You then engage with them non-confrontationally and willingly agree to submit to a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital. The doctors would determine that you’re not a danger to yourself or others; meaning, there would be no inpatient care. Yet when you return home, you find that the police had entered your residence and had seized your firearms without a warrant.

Moreover, you then ask the cops numerous times to return your guns. They refuse, however, and only relent two months later after you have an attorney contact them.

Well, you don’t have to imagine because this is exactly what happened to Rhode Islander Edward Canaglia in 2015 (you can read more details about his case here). What’s more, the Biden administration now wants police nationwide to have the power to seize your weapons without a warrant, according to Fox News Commentator Tucker Carlson.

As he stated Friday evening, referencing a lawsuit Canaglia filed against local police:

So this case is now before the Supreme Court as it should be. But here’s the remarkable thing, the Biden administration is backing the police officers who stole Edward Canaglia’s guns with no warrant. In fact, the Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to approve of this and make it a precedent. They’re asking for permission to search any home they want, without a warrant and take what they want. Any guns that Joe Biden’s police find will be confiscated in the name of “public safety.” Think about that, it’s almost beyond belief. It should be on the front page of every paper in the country, the ACLU should be fighting it, but none of that’s happening. [Video below.]

One reason this is so alarming concerns the Bidenites’ plan for securing “public safety.” As Carlson also point out, Biden is opposing Canaglia because

firearms are just that dangerous. And most dangerous of all, Joe Biden has told us, including this week, are something called “assault weapons.” Assault weapons are such a threat, Joe Biden says, [that] he’s not going to wait for the Supreme Court. He wants Congress, which his party controls, to pass a total ban on “assault weapons.” Well, that sounds familiar because we did it before — for ten years. And it didn’t work; it didn’t work for a bunch of different reasons. First, because no one can define what an “assault weapon” is. Second, because not that many people are killed by assault weapons. But Joe Biden doesn’t care. If you go to Joe Biden’s website, you’ll learn that “assault weapons” are responsible for quote, “our gun violence epidemic.” They’re “weapons of war,” and if you can get them off the streets, this country will be a much safer place. Well, that’s a total crock. And not only is it a lie, it’s an appalling lie, contradicted completely by actual evidence.

The Facts

Carlson then related that according to the FBI’s most recent data (2019), 364 homicides were committed with rifles, of any kind; this equates to approximately three to four percent of all firearms murders. I’ll add that only a small percentage of those 364 murders were committed with so-called assault rifles.

In contrast, 600 people were killed in 2019 with “personal weapons”: fists, feet, and hands. Knives and other cutting tools were used in 1,476 murders. The latter prompted Carlson to quip that maybe we need cutlery control. But don’t laugh — this is already happening in Britain.

For further perspective, note that approximately 60 percent of gun-related deaths are suicides.

Note also that insofar as “assault weapon” is something more than just a propaganda term, it once referred to a rifle with a “select fire” feature; meaning, as I heard it related years ago, such firearms could be fired semi-automatic, fully automatic, or in three-shot bursts. Yet the class of guns targeted by Uncle Sam’s rights snatchers, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, are merely semi-automatic — just as are most firearms purchased today.

For those unacquainted with weapons, this means that you pull the trigger once, and one shot is released. So, no, at issue are not “machine guns”! (Don’t get your firearm “facts” from movies — or leftists.)

This brings us to the rallying cry that people shouldn’t be allowed to have “weapons of war.” Question:

Can you name for me a firearm that wasn’t created as a “weapon of war”?

Flintlocks were used by the British army and colonial Americans as “weapons of war” (video below). Clubs and stones were also “weapons of war” at one time. As far as “weapons of war” go today, semi-automatic rifles are not U.S. military standard issue weapons.


Carlson mentioned as well that while leftists want to further restrict your Second Amendment-protected rights, they don’t even enforce gun laws already on the books in big cities such as Chicago, Washington, and Minneapolis. So do they really care about “gun deaths”?

Moreover, if you lie during a federal firearm background check, you can go to prison for five years, Carlson pointed out. But Hunter Biden did that very thing and was allowed to skate.  

Anyway, if the solution to human sin is as simple as mindless bans, why don’t we just cut to the chase and ban sin itself?

Oh, yeah, that would leave us without the Democratic Party.