Trump Wrongly Blamed for Sup-Par GOP Performance



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The Republicans had a pretty good midterm election despite what pundits are claiming. The GOP must win three of the remaining four Senate races to win control of the upper chamber — a goal well within reach as Republicans lead in Nevada and Wisconsin. And the party is within spitting distance of a House majority.

But no red wave. A combination of better-than-expected Democratic enthusiasm and underperforming Republican candidates squandered several opportunities to flip House seats and give the GOP a sizable House majority in January.

How did this happen? If you ask most of the media, the fault for the underperforming Republican Party rests with Donald Trump.

Former Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe said, “I think you have to say Donald Trump has now presided over two disastrous midterm elections.” That’s a matter of opinion. First, Trump did not “preside” over the 2022 midterms. Plouffe is getting his talking points mixed up with reality. Trump wasn’t on the ballot no matter how hard Democrats wished it were so.

Secondly, 2018 wasn’t much of a “disaster,” given that Republicans gained two Senate seats. They lost the House — just as Democrats will almost certainly lose the House in 2022.

“Given the history of presidents in power, Democrats controlling all of Washington, inflation, this should’ve been a much stronger night for Republicans,” Plouffe said. “A bunch of reasons for that. But at the top of them is Donald Trump. He’s deeply unpopular, he supported a bunch of horrible Senate candidates who may end up coughing up the football here.”

For our VIPs: The 2022 Midterms and What They Tell Us About the Future of the GOP

The fact that Trump is “unpopular” outside the Republican Party was pointed out by several pundits. This is “analysis”? Trump entered office in 2017 and his favorable numbers were almost immediately underwater. He’s never been “popular” in the media sense of the word and saying so is belaboring the obvious.

And as far as those “horrible” Senate candidates, some are winning and some are losing. That brings us to the most salient point about Trump and the Republican Party: Donald Trump was a boon to candidates in districts and regions where he was popular and he was a drag in districts and regions where he wasn’t popular.

Another popular media game last night was putting the performance of Trump-backed candidates side by side with the performance of Ron DeSantis.

Fox News:

On CNN, conservative commentator Scott Jennings offered a rather blunt analysis of the night, juxtaposing the performance of Trump-backed candidates across the country with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, R., a potential 2024 contender who romped to a landslide re-election on Tuesday.

“There’s a potential narrative out of this night that if you’re a discerning Republican voter trying to figure out the future, direction of this party, we once again learn that Trump is not a national winner for the Republicans,” the GOP pundit told the panel. “But DeSantis may be the next evolution of someone who can marry what you like about Trump but also recover some people that went away from the party during Trump.”

When it comes to Donald Trump, most strong supporters have an “accept no substitutes” policy. DeSantis has already gotten into some trouble with the MAGA world and they would be unwilling to transfer their allegiance to anyone else while Donald Trump remained a viable candidate.

It’s true that some of the candidates Trump handpicked to run — Mehmet Oz in particular — did not meet expectations. Why that’s Trump’s fault is a mystery. No one is talking about Trump guessing right about J.D. Vance in Ohio, who won by 150,000 votes. It’s the old “Get Trump” game dressed up as serious political commentary.

It still doesn’t work.

The Radical Inclusive CATHOLIC Church

Irish of a traditional bent need not apply.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Most practicing Catholics will have noticed by now that the Church under Francis has changed.  And many are not happy with the changes.

For example, Andrea Cianci, author of a new book that questions the validity of Francis’s election, says that Francis’s objective is to “demolish Catholicism.” But it’s not only Francis that traditional Catholics worry about. His plans for the dismantling of the Church are being implemented by a small army of prelates who are, in essence, Francis clones.

Right now, Francis and his supporters are utilizing the Synod on Synodality as the main engine for transforming the Church into something new and strange. Conservative critics of the synod claim that it is a “hostile takeover of the Church,” an “exercise in self-destructive behavior,” and an “open revolution.” This may seem extreme, but many of Francis’s words and actions reveal a man who is deeply hostile to the Catholic Church—a Church that he considers “rigid,” “fundamentalist,” “exclusivist,” and very much in need of opening up. Moreover, those who are running the Synod share his sentiments.

In reality, the Church has been opening up ever since the pontificate of John XXIII, but much of what the Church of Francis is engaged in is not simply an opening up of the Church, but a rejection of it.  Church leaders are already in the process of rejecting the Church’s teaching on marriage, adultery, abortion, homosexuality, gender, divorce, polygamy, clerical celibacy, and women’s ordination. To the extent that they are opening the Church, they are opening it to people who dissent from Church teaching on these and other matters.

Perhaps because they realize they are already firmly in control, the “woke” prelates have become quite open about what they plan to do.  For example, the Vatican has just released a new document for the Synod on Synodality which calls for “a Church capable of radical inclusion.”

The 44-page document is entitled “Enlarge the space of your tent,” but the tent doesn’t seem to have much space for traditional Catholic beliefs and practices.  Rather it encourages dialogue with “those who, for various reasons, feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationship, such as remarried divorcees, single parents, people living in a polygamous marriage, LGBTQ people, etc.”

“Polygamous marriage?”  One wonders what’s included in “etc.”  In any event, this new inclusive model is being suggested as the model the Church should embrace.  But don’t assume that the plan is to help the “marginalized” (i.e., adulterers, LGBTQ, etc.) to conform their lives to Church teaching.  Rather, the plan is to conform the Church’s teachings to the “lived experience” of the marginalized.

“Radical inclusion” sounds vaguely Christian, but it is actually a plan for demolishing the Church—as the word “radical” implies. The word brings to mind images of the radical French Revolution, the radical Russian Revolution, and the radical Sexual Revolution. All three resulted in enormous damage to the societies involved, yet the Synod documents often speak the language of revolutionary change. Moreover, the Synod fathers seem anxious to bless the Sexual Revolution and bring it fully into the Church. “Radical” is not usually thought of as a term of praise, but that’s the way it was used by Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, the Relator General of the Synod, in a recent interview with L’Osservatore Romano. Hollerich praised Pope Francis for being “not a liberal” but a “radical.”

Most Catholics don’t keep up with recent issues of L’Osservatore Romano or with the latest Vatican document. So, relatively few are aware of the radical nature of the changes being proposed in the synods. Perhaps the most prominent synodal theme is “inclusion,” and the promise that no one is excluded. But when the Synod fathers say “no one is excluded,” it should give us pause.  Do they also mean “no sins are excluded?”  Do they mean that no repentance is required? The numerous synod documents suggest that what progressive Catholics want is an inclusive community without rules—a place where each follows his or her own inner guidance.

But workable communities that last do have rules and, in order to survive, they tend to exclude those who won’t follow the rules.  One supposes, for example, that a good number of bishops belong to a golf club.  And it’s a good bet they know and observe the rules of the club.  If a bishop drives his golf cart in a reckless way after several drinks and several warnings, he can expect to be excluded from the club.  He can claim that the club has “marginalized” him, but in reality, he has marginalized himself.

One might counter by observing that the Church is not a golf club. It follows a different—more merciful– set of rules. Cardinal Hollerich has said as much: “[The] Kingdom of God is not an exclusive club.” Rather, he says, its doors are open “to everyone without discrimination.” “This,” said Hollerich, “is simply about affirming that Christ’s message is for everyone.”

All Christians can agree that Christ’s message is for everyone. But most would want “everyone” to hear the full message of Christ, not a highly redacted version. If you read the full message of Christ on the subject of entrance into the Kingdom of God, you would not, contra Hollerich, get the impression that it’s open “to everyone without discrimination.” Not by a long shot.

Take Matthew 25:31-46—the parable about the sheep and the goats. On Judgment Day, “[The King] will separate the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.” He then invites the sheep to inherit the kingdom, but the goats are sent away “into eternal punishment.”

I don’t know about you, but that sounds discriminatory to me. And frightening as well. Thank Heaven for purgatory.

Christ also discriminates on several occasions in favor of wheat over weeds (or chaff): “Let both grow together until the harvest and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, ‘Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn’” (Mt.13:30).

In another parable, he tells his disciples: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men…sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad” (Mt. 13:47-48).

Lest there be any misunderstanding, Jesus then explains: “So it will be at the end of the age, the angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (Mt. 13 49-50).

The meaning of these parables seems clear, yet Christ tells several other parables with the same message.  In one parable, he tells of five wise maidens who, having made proper preparations, are admitted to a wedding feast; and of five foolish maidens who, having failed to make sufficient preparations, are excluded from the feast.

In another parable about a wedding feast, a guest without a wedding garment is cast out the door: “Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness…For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 22: 13-14).

Hollerich may say that the Kingdom of God is open “to everyone without discrimination,” but the Gospels seem to be saying something different.  Hollerich says, in effect, “come as you are,” but Jesus advises us to come wearing a wedding suit (i.e., in a state of grace.) Although well-acquainted with the merciful sayings of Jesus, Hollerich, and Francis seem to ignore his more judgmental warnings.

Quite obviously, the words of Jesus are an obstacle to the synodal plans of Hollerich, Francis, and others in the hierarchy.  Quite obviously, Jesus will have to go if the synodalists hope to achieve their goals.  Expect him to gradually disappear from the new radically inclusive Church.  Either that or expect him to be transformed to better fit the jolly theology of Cardinal Hollerich who tells us that “living in the footsteps of Christ means living well, it means enjoying life.”

In short, expect Jesus to be transformed into some kind of happy genderless hippie who utters woke platitudes and announces the good news that your sins aren’t really sins at all.  He just wants you to be happy doing whatever makes you feel good.

It is, of course, a formula for disaster. Canon Lawyer Rev. Gerald F. Murray calls it “a self-destructive Synod.”  He notes some of the signs of decline in the Church we have already seen under Francis: “lack of priestly vocations in the developed world; the steep decline in Mass attendance, baptisms, and Church weddings…the collapse of religious orders and the rejection of doctrinal fidelity.”

One doesn’t have to look far to find signs of doctrinal infidelity.  Here in the U.S., LGBTQ activist priest Fr. James Martin has asserted that LGBT Christians are not bound by the rule of chastity.  And in formerly Catholic Ireland, an elderly priest was recently suspended by his bishop for speaking of the sinfulness of certain sexual activities.

The priest, Fr. Sean Sheehy, said he was simply stating what was in the Gospel. But that’s the problem, isn’t it?  Fr. Murray says the Synod is “self-destructive.”  But it’s only self-destructive if the intention of the Synod is to preserve and strengthen the Church founded by Christ and revealed to Christians in the gospels.  If the intention of the Synod fathers (along with Pope Francis) is to replace the Church of Christ with a humanistic/modernist Church with all the supernatural elements purged out, then the Synod has thus far been a roaring success for them—if not for the rest of us.

It’s possible that the Synod organizers are genuinely well-intentioned.  Perhaps they think that by downplaying immorality and by convincing Catholics to “take it easy on yourself,” Catholics will shake off their burden of guilt and lead happier healthier lives.  But previous attempts at relaxing the rules while ignoring the supernatural dimension of life—such as the Sexual Revolution—eventually resulted in making life harder not easier.

Should the Synod fathers succeed in convincing Catholics that sin is not sinful, the destructive, addictive, and family-wrecking effects of sin will still be at work—both in individual lives and throughout society. The Synod leaders may succeed in bringing about a radical change in the Church, but because of their naivete about human nature, the changes will inexorably lead to widespread unhappiness and despair.

Avatar photo

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His books include Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West, What Catholics Need to Know About Islam, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad.

Biden must respond to China’s Xi with a clear strategy – Center for Security Policy

BY Bradley Thayer Director of China Policy


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The historic 20th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will have lasting implications that threaten to affect U.S. national security. The world witnessed a series of momentous events — among them, the public humiliation of Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping’s predecessor as the CCP’s leader; Xi’s securing a third term, and his rival Li Keqiang’s removal from the Politburo Standing Committee and as a member of the Central Committee. Moreover, key allies of Xi, such as Zhao Leji and Wang Huning, remain and his loyalists have been promoted, including Shanghai Party leader Li Qiang, who is notorious for the enforcement of that city’s “zero-Covid” policy. 

In total, Xi replaced more than half of the 24-member Politburo and is now firmly in control of the party. He likely will remain so as long as his health permits.

Having Xi in solid control of the CCP is a bad outcome for U.S. interests and international stability. In fact, it could become a national security crisis for the West — not only because Xi is determined to attack U.S. interests. He and his predecessors have been doing so, but Xi now believes that China has the military power to do so. This places a great strain on the ability of the United States to deter his aggression.

Xi’s speech to the party did not necessarily define a new era in Sino-American relations, but it clearly exposed his and the party’s ambitions — and now Xi believes he holds the power to take bold action. In his address, Xi proclaimed that China is on its way to achieving its second centenary goal of creating a modern socialist country, implying that China can set the rules of global politics and overturn the liberal international order. His remark attacking “hegemonism” was a stalking horse for the U.S. and its allies; he explicitly targeted Taiwan.

His was an audacious address, with grave consequences for the United States. Two immediate consequences come to mind. First, the U.S. must take Xi at his word. He announced that the U.S. is an enemy of the CCP, that China can replace the U.S., and that it is determined to do so.  Of course, he has expressed this many times before — these are core principles of “Xi Jinping Thought” and what he seeks to achieve for the party — but these ambitions are now crystallized as part of the 20th Party Congress. Taking Xi at his word requires the West to end its strategies of engagement with China, which have been dominant for many decades.

The enemy has proclaimed his intentions, and this compels a unified response from the West. To start, the Biden administration needs to explain why the U.S. and its allies must achieve victory over the CCP — and how they will do so. Advancing a strategy of victory is the first step toward ensuring that the world remains free of Communist China’s tyranny. The Biden administration should enlist support from the American people and motivate those within China who are opposed to the CCP. It is essential to present the CCP with global, unified opposition.

If President Biden does not advance such a strategy, the world will lack the leadership necessary to defeat the CCP. This is precisely what has contributed to the party’s success thus far.

Second, the West must send aid to Taiwan now to deter China’s aggression. The risk of coercion against Taiwan is great — whether a maritime or aerial blockade, a limited aims strategy or total war to conquer the island, or an air and missile campaign to destroy its military and population centers — because this comes directly from Xi’s public declarations. Whether Taiwan could defend its sovereignty is an open question. The point, of course, is to deter coercive measures before they are launched. This requires having robust conventional and nuclear deterrence capability and an unalloyed commitment to Taiwan, yet both are lacking.

The zigzags of the Biden administration on whether the U.S. would defend Taiwan have sustained an ambiguity in U.S. deterrence policy that must be eliminated. A permanent, overt U.S. military presence on the island, in conjunction with forces from NATO, Australia, Japan, India, and the Philippines, could provide the conventional deterrent needed. To strengthen nuclear deterrence, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are needed. The U.S. simply has too few to address deterrent obligations from China and Russia. The Biden administration should consider moving tactical nuclear forces (B-61s) from European bases to the Indo-Pacific. Theater nuclear must be developed and deployed, and so the importance of developing the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) is essential.

The U.S. cannot depend solely on its strategic arsenal — already hard pressed — for deterrence of Russia and China, particularly in a scenario involving the defense of Taiwan. The proximity of Beijing’s conventional and sub-strategic systems invites its aggression against Taiwan. Beijing might believe it could employ tactical or theater forces to gain victory without escalation to the strategic level because of its superiority in capabilities and willpower, thinking that the balance of resolve favors it rather than Washington.

Xi’s remarks should come as no surprise, though it was novel to see the demonstration of his power within the party and the humiliation of his opponents — all proof of his ruthless ambition. Biden must respond to Xi by articulating forcefully that the West will not tolerate any aggression against the United States, its allies or its partners, and that the U.S. is determined to achieve victory over the CCP.


DELAWARE FAMILIES POLICY COUNCIL: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has endorsed nearly all of the Democrat candidates running for office in Delaware!~The Working Families Party (WFP), also a main endorser of many DE candidates, makes clear that it fully intends to “pass a suite of progressive (Leftists) reforms in 2023…”

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

It's Blatant. No more hiding just how radical the agenda really is. 
It used to be an undercurrent, a hidden agenda, but now it's out there, and it's aggressively growing and intensifying.

Only one vote held back some of the most radical and sweeping policies in Delaware this year. Just one vote. 

Elections have consequences.
This election, we have some of the most radical endorsements we've ever seen:
1) Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has endorsed nearly all of the Democrat candidates running for office in Delaware!

Here are highlights of the DSA platform:

  • Implementation of "abortion on demand."
  • "Allow trans minors to access gender affirming care without parental consent."
  • "Enact a single-payer Medicare for All system that provides free queer sexual health and gender affirming healthcare..."
  • "Guarantee a job with union wages and benefits to everyone who wants one by creating millions of public sector jobs and funding massive direct investments..."
2) The Working Families Party (WFP), also a main endorser of many DE candidates, makes clear that it fully intends to "pass a suite of progressive (Leftists) reforms in 2023..."
Do you see it? The war against the family? The complete disregard for individual conscience and religious convictions? The chaos? The massive increase in government control? 
The agenda of these two groups represents an absolute war against everything that stabilizes society - family, faith, and freedom.
Almost every Democrat candidate in Delaware running for the General Assembly is a proud member of or endorsed by the DSA or the WFP, including...
  • Eric Morrison
  • Madinah Wilson-Anton
  • Larry Lambert
  • Marie Pinkney
  • Kyra Hoffner
  • Sharae Moore
  • DeShanna Neal
  • Kerri Evelyn Harris
  • Susan Clifford
  • Melissa Minor-Brown
  • Sophie Phillips
  • ...and others.
You may know who you're voting for - but what about your family and friends?

Who is endorsing the candidates in your district?

Are your friends and family informed? Encourage them to cast an informed vote today!

There are strong candidates running for office who need your vote.
Full government control of your private property ... Full scale destruction of the family unit ... Utter disregard for parental rights ... A culture of death on demand ... The erasing of women ... The attack on religious liberty ...
We'll report back to you after the election.

For Faith, Families, and Freedom,

Nandi Randolph
Policy Analyst
Delaware Family Policy Council
P.S.  Are you informed? We can help! Visit our resource page to be equipped and to know how to respond in your sphere of influence.
DFPC Resource Page
Our mailing address is:

Delaware Family Policy Council

P.O. Box 925

Seaford, DE 19973

Webinar | UNRESTRICTED WARFARE | Emperor Xi’s Colonial Build-out: The Belt and Road Gambit for Enslaving the World » Committee on the Present Danger: China


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.


Emperor Xi’s Colonial Build-out:
The Belt and Road Gambit for Enslaving the World

The fall of Brazil to Lula da Silva, a Communist former president previously convicted and incarcerated on bribery charges, ensures that the colonization by China of Latin America’s biggest country and economy began on his previous watch will move forward inexorably. Unfortunately, Brazil’s enslavement is being replicated in over 140 countries around the world under the banner of Xi Jinping’s so-called “Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).”

The extraordinary level of penetration globally of the BRI is attributable to the CCP’s tempting promises of vast investments in the targeted nation’s infrastructure and its seductive financing arrangements, often accompanied by bribes of the relevant host-country officials. As a growing number of BRI participants have learned the hard way, however, what amount to Chinese pay-day loans cannot be sustained over time, allowing Beijing to foreclose upon and seize the ports, rail or road networks, seaports, electric grids, telecommunications systems, etc. that it has constructed.

Later, if not sooner, the Chinese Communists will be able to utilize these sorts of assets not just to dominate the country in question and some or all of the region in which it is located. Even more ominously, the CCP will have the option to make use of such infrastructure to project power internationally. Should it do so, a conflict with China could readily become global in scale.

This webinar in the CPDC “Unrestricted Warfare” series examines where Emperor Xi has insinuated his Belt and Road colonial infrastructure build-out; the negative impact it is having on participating nations; the strategic implications for the national security of the United States and other freedom-loving nations; and what must be done to counter this surpassingly problematic attack-vector in the CCP’s unrestricted warfare against America.


- Frank Gaffney, executive chairman of the Center for Security Policy, host of Securing America with Frank Gaffney on Real America’s Voice Network, and vice-chair for the Committee on the Present Danger: China


- Steven Mosher: President, Population Research Institute, Author, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Pandemics,” and “Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order” – Topic: “The Belt and Road Initiative: A Threat Assessment”

- Joseph Humire: Executive Director of the Center for a Secure Free Society, Former Director of Institute Relations at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Author of “Iran’s Strategic Penetration of Latin America” –Topic: “The CCP’s Colonization of Latin America”

- Dr. Stephen Blank, Ph.D.: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute; former Professor, Army War College; Author, “Light from the East: Russia’s Quest for Great Power Status in Asia” – Topic: “The CCP’s Colonization of Russia”

- Se Hoon Kim: Director of the Captive Nations Coalition for the Committee on the Present Danger: China – Topic: “The CCP’s Colonization of Asia”

- Christine Douglass-Williams: Nine-time award-winning journalist and television producer; former Director, Canadian Race Relations Foundation – Topic: “The CCP’s Colonization of Canada”

- Nathan Carson: Vice President, Chemical Dynamics, Inc., an expert on food security, fertilizer industry, and supply chain management – Topic: “The CCP’s Colonization of the United States”

Biden Gives Predictably Mixed Signals On Iran~Biden: ‘We’re Gonna Free Iran’



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Was Old Joe Biden signaling yet another expensive project for the already weary and overburdened American taxpayer? We’ve already forked over billions upon billions to free Ukraine, and now there’s another captive nation whose liberation we have to bankroll? And while we’re busy underwriting all this freeing of everyone else, who will free the citizens of the United States from this woke tyranny that is progressively (well, that’s what progressives do — progress — but they aren’t progressing toward anything good) growing more assertive and authoritarian? That’s a question for Tuesday. Meanwhile, on the Thursday before his midterm come-to-judgment, Biden was using Iran the way he used cancer in the past: as the basis for empty promises that he hoped would get him some votes. “Don’t worry, we’re gonna free Iran,” he declared, no doubt to the surprise of Iranians everywhere.

NBC News reported Friday that Biden said at a rally for Rep. Mike Levin (D-More Socialism) at MiraCosta College near San Diego, “Don’t worry, we’re gonna free Iran. They’re gonna free themselves pretty soon.”

Well, which is it, Joe? Are they going to free themselves, or is the United States going to free them? Unfortunately, the Sage of Wilmington, as gnomic as ever, wasn’t about to explain. NBC notes that the so-called president “did not expand on the comment or mention any specific actions the United States might take.” It added, however, that Biden’s handlers announced the day before Biden vowed to free Iran that the administration was going to “try to remove Iran from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women over its government’s stance on women’s rights, as well as its ongoing crackdown on the weekslong protests.”

Biden’s ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, appeared to be firmly on the side of “They’re gonna free themselves pretty soon” rather than “We’re gonna free Iran,” saying, “Change in Iran should only come from within Iran. But that does not absolve the world of the obligation to stand with the Iranian people as they protest for women, for life, and for freedom.” Sure. You mean like how Barack Obama ordered the CIA not to do anything to help the Green Movement in Iran in 2009 because he wanted to court Ayatollah Khamenei and get him to agree to a nuclear deal, the same nuclear deal that Donald Trump rightly called the worst deal that any American president had ever concluded about anything?

Much more recently, on Oct. 22, 2022, the Biden team’s Iran negotiator, Robert Malley, aroused the ire of all Iranians who want to see the end of the bloody Islamic regime in Iran when he tweeted, “Marchers in Washington and cities around the world are showing their support for the Iranian people, who continue to peacefully demonstrate for their government to respect their dignity and human rights.”

Related: That Insane Obama-Biden Iran Deal Is Getting Worse All the Time

The courageous Iranian freedom fighter Masih Alinejad tweeted the following day, “Time for @USEnvoyIran [that is, Malley] to go. By continually misrepresenting Iranian’s rejection of the Islamic Republic, he is hurting the US administration's standing among the people of Iran. As I told @JakeSullivan46 Iran’s regime which killed #MahsaAmini & dozens of teenagers is beyond reform.” It was clear, however, why Malley didn’t want to acknowledge that the Iranian protestors want to see the end of the Islamic Republic: Biden’s handlers still hope to do business with the mullahs and conclude a new nuclear deal with them. They’d rather see the regime that regularly proclaims “Death to America” in power than a group of revolutionaries who would, at least initially, be an unknown quantity.

No doubt fully aware that the Biden administration has what Facebook might term a “complicated” relationship with the Islamic Republic, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi responded acidly to Biden’s confusing remarks, saying, “Iran was freed 43 years ago and is determined not to fall into your captivity.” Biden’s “we’re gonna free Iran/they’re gonna free themselves” statement, Raisi said, was “probably due to the absent-mindedness that he suffers from.” Coming from a man who won the nickname “The Butcher,” “absent-mindedness” was an unexpectedly gentle turn of phrase.

Given the Biden administration’s previous solicitude for the mullahs, granting them concession after concession to obtain a new nuke deal, it’s unlikely that “we’re gonna free Iran.” Ultimately that deal foundered on the Iranians’ continual demands, as well as the bad optics of making a deal with the mullahs while their own people are rising up against them. If the Islamic regime survives this uprising, however, the deal will certainly reappear, which will make it abundantly clear that when the garrulous old liar in the White House said “we’re gonna free Iran,” he meant “we’re not gonna free Iran.”

White House Warns Election Results May Not Be Known for “Days”

White House Warns Election Results May Not Be Known for “Days”



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Echoing political pundits’ midterm election predictions, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced at Monday’s press briefing that “we may not know all the winners of elections for a few days.” 

There are a number of close races in several states whose results will determine which party controls Congress, and counting the votes may just end up taking days. Key states such as Pennsylvania already are warning it could take days to count every ballot.

“It takes time to count all legitimate ballots in a legal and orderly manner. That’s how this is supposed to work,” Jean-Pierre told reporters at the White House. “You heard the president say this last night,” she said. 

Jean-Pierre held firm with reporters, adding, “as you all know — because you guys have covered this these past couple of years — in 2020, it took two weeks to call every state. In modern elections, more and more ballots are being cast in early voting and also by mail.  And many states don’t start counting those ballots until after the ballots — after — pardon me — after the polls close on November 8th.”

Nathan Gonzales, who publishes the nonpartisan newsletter Inside Elections, told Fox, “When it comes to knowing the results, we should move away from talking about Election Day and think instead about election week,”

But not giving Americans quick and accurate results adds to a lack of trust in the election process, as The Epoch Times reported: “Some politicians, including former President Jimmy Carter in a 2005 report and other critics have said that delayed vote-counting efforts undermine Americans’ confidence in their elections and raise the risk of fraud.”

Responding to potential election result delays in Pennsylvania, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted, “Why is it only Democrat blue cities that take ‘days’ to count their votes? The rest of the country manages to get it done on election night.”

With President Biden’s approval rating sitting at an abysmal 39 percent, Republicans appear poised to retake the House. The race to control the Senate is highly competitive, and a few key races will likely determine which party wins the majority. Historically, the party of the president loses seats during midterm elections.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is likely to become the next House speaker, after four years of Democratic control and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the helm. McCarthy said Republicans will win “at least enough to win the majority,” and that “anywhere over 20 [seats] is a red wave.”

Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agrees, stating that he is seeing the “building of a real tsunami because it goes from coast to coast. It goes from Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, all the way across to Washington State, Nevada, and Arizona. He added, “You’re seeing race after race where the Republicans are gaining ground, or are actually pulling ahead and moving out.”

In an attempt to use fear as a campaign tool while knowing there is a widely predicted “red wave” coming to sweep away Biden’s control of congress, Jean-Pierre took the opportunity at Monday’s press briefing to make a final push with Biden’s failed political campaign rhetoric. She proclaimed, “You’ve all heard the President warning that the stakes for middle-class families, when it comes to the choice between the vision he and congressional Democrats share for the middle class and the extreme inflation-worsening agenda of congressional Republicans, could not be higher.” She continued, “Independent economists are warning that Republicans in Congress want to worsen inflation with deficit-exploding tax giveaways for the rich and big corporations.”

Those comments are falling on deaf ears as American voters have suffered through nearly 22 months of a Democrat-controlled government filled with failed policies and broken promises. And election results may take a few days to shine a light on which direction the country will take. 

But whatever happens this week, and for however long it takes to finalize the election results, know that Biden and his brain trust have been exposed, and their woke vision for America will deservedly reap the results of voters’ angst toward their failed socialist agenda.