Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” That Bible verse, found in Proverbs 14:34, is not a political slogan. It is a moral law of history. Nations rise when justice, truth, humility, courage, and reverence for God shape their public life. They decline when sin becomes normalized, truth is considered subjective, and liberty is severed from biblical virtue.

The founders of America understood this better than we realize.

After the Revolutionary War, George Washington wrote to the governors of the thirteen states and prayed that God would dispose Americans “to do justice, to love mercy,” and to imitate the charity, humility, and peaceable spirit of “the Divine Author of our blessed Religion.” Without that, Washington said, “we can never hope to be a happy nation.”[1]

In his first inaugural address, Washington acknowledged “the Invisible Hand” that had guided the United States. He warned that “the propitious smiles of Heaven” could never be expected to shine on a nation that disregarded “the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained”—referring to the Bible.[2]

John Adams made the same point in different words. He believed the Bible contained “the most perfect morality” and was the only system capable of preserving a republic.[3]

Long before Washington and Adams, a Puritan pastor named Thomas Hooker helped shape America’s political imagination. In 1633, Hooker became pastor of a congregation near Cambridge, Massachusetts, and later helped establish Hartford, Connecticut. Studying Deuteronomy 1:13, where Moses instructed Israel to choose wise and understanding leaders, Hooker concluded that civil leaders should be chosen by the people. “The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance,” he preached. “The foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people.”[4]

Those ideas created the climate that led to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, often regarded as the first written constitution in the American colonies with a democratic tone. It is one reason Connecticut is still known as the Constitution State.

Another biblical text shaped the debate over liberty and authority—Romans 13:1, which teaches that governing authorities are instituted by God. On January 30, 1750, Jonathan Mayhew preached a sermon based on this verse titled A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the High Powers. He taught that government is accountable to God. When rulers fulfill their God-given role, they deserve respect and obedience. But when they become tyrants and oppressors, they violate the purpose for which government exists.[5]

John Adams later called Mayhew’s sermon “the catechism of the Revolution.” It gave many colonists a biblical framework for understanding resistance to tyranny.

Then came prayer. In September 1774, delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress. Before beginning their work, they agreed to open in prayer and invited Jacob Duché, an Anglican pastor, to lead them. The previous evening, a frightening rumor had spread that British forces were shelling Boston. As Washington, Adams, Hancock, Henry, and others gathered in Carpenter’s Hall, Duché read the appointed Scripture reading for the day—Psalm 35: “Plead my cause, O LORD, with those who strive with me; fight against those who fight against me.”

John Adams later wrote to Abigail that he had never heard a better prayer. It seemed, he said, as though Heaven had ordained that Psalm for that morning.[6]

The American Revolution was not only fought on battlefields. It was also interpreted from pulpits. After the shots at Lexington and Concord, Pastor Jonas Clark looked to Joel 3, where God condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Seven members of his congregation had died near the church at Lexington. Their blood, he believed, testified to the seriousness of the hour. Clark reminded his people that however dark events appeared, God still ruled over nations. “An all-wise God is seated on the throne,” he said. That conviction steadied Americans through perilous days.[7]

When victory came at Yorktown, another biblical text came to the forefront. On October 20, 1781, the day after Cornwallis surrendered, chaplain Israel Evans preached to the American troops from 1 Samuel 7:12: “Hitherto the LORD has helped us.” Like Samuel raising his Ebenezer stone after victory, Evans called the army to remember that their help had come from God. America, he said, should learn her happiness as a nation from dependence on Almighty God.[8]

Winning independence was one thing. Framing a government was another. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia seemed near collapse. At that moment, Benjamin Franklin, then eighty-one, rose and asked why they had not sought the help of “the Father of Lights.”

“I have lived, sir, a long time,” Franklin said, “and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men.” He cited Psalm 127:1: “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”[9]

His motion for prayer did not formally pass, but the words hung over the convention. A few days later, Washington led delegates to a prayer service. Eventually, the Constitution emerged with its opening words: “We the People.”

James Madison later reflected that it was impossible for a thoughtful believer not to perceive in those events “a finger of that Almighty Hand.”[10]

Proverbs 14:34 contains both promise and warning: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” That truth applies to nations, but it also applies to individuals. Perhaps that is why my final story belongs not to a battlefield or convention hall, but to a deathbed. Alexander Hamilton, mortally wounded in his duel with Aaron Burr, asked for Christian counsel and communion. Presbyterian pastor John Mason spoke to him of Christ, quoting Acts 4:12: “There is salvation in no one else.”

Hamilton replied, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Before receiving communion from Bishop Benjamin Moore, Hamilton renounced his sins and embraced Christ his Savior. His last words to his wife were, “Remember, my Eliza, you are a Christian.”[11]

America’s hope has never rested ultimately in presidents, armies, constitutions, courts, or elections. These are not enough. The deeper question is moral and spiritual. Can a people remain free without righteousness? Can liberty endure without virtue? Can any nation disregard God’s eternal rules of order and right and still expect the smiles of Heaven?

Let me go back to my opening verse: “Righteousness exalts a nation. Sin is a reproach to any people.” No matter how advanced we may feel we are, we can never escape the truth of that ancient proverb.

Pastor Robert Morgan

Europeans are divided over whether the EU should move closer to the United States or to China, according to new polling shared exclusively with POLITICO that highlights how Donald Trump’s second presidency has upended long-standing geopolitical loyalties.

In a survey conducted in June by pollster Public First across 24 EU countries, respondents in eight countries leaned toward stronger relations with China, nine favored the U.S. and seven were effectively split between the two.

In 14 countries, the single most common response was “I don’t know” — with more people giving that answer than backing either Washington or Beijing.

The responses underscore the difficult situation facing the bloc, as political and trade tensions strain relations with the two global superpowers — its two largest trading partners.

Brussels is implementing a one-sided trade deal with the Trump administration, while it faces progressive deindustrialization driven by a surge of Chinese exports including electric vehicles.

“Europeans see distance from America as achievable and, in some countries, already the majority preference. They see reliance on China as more of a necessity, and efforts to mitigate it as wishful thinking,” said Seb Wride, head of opinion research at Public First.

“It would be poor timing for Trump’s actions to set up a choice between the U.S. and China — for many Europeans the U.S. is optional, and China essential,” he added.

What the data makes clear is that in Western Europe, the U.S. is no longer seen as a reliable ally.

Italy and Spain, for example, are in the China camp, the latter solidly so. Other heavy hitters France and Germany were uncertain, with a majority answering that they didn’t know who to choose between the two. 

Donald Trump has made his disdain of Europe’s leadership a recurring theme of his presidency. He’s insulted them, imposed unilateral tariffs on the bloc, withdrawn U.S. troops from the continent, and even threatened to annex Greenland, a Danish sovereign territory. 

Several EU leaders — from Spain’s Pedro Sánchez to Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen — have seen their popularity rise after confronting the U.S. president, underscoring how unpopular he is abroad. Even traditional allies, like Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, are moving away from him. 

The trend isn’t continent-wide: Respondents in Eastern Europe, which has long clung to the U.S. as a guarantor of the post-Cold War order, continue to see America favorably. Poland, Lithuania and Estonia, for example, are all solidly in Washington’s camp.

Beijing doesn’t offer a straightforward alternative to the historical U.S. relationship.

Roaring Chinese imports are undermining traditional European manufacturing, from chemicals to carmaking. Earlier this week, the European Commission said that it was in talks with China to try and find a more balanced trade arrangement; it wants progress on the issue by October.

The polling data suggests that EU citizens view Europe’s trade ties with China as a matter of fact, rather than choice.

Across the 24 countries in the survey, 38 percent of respondents said that, while reducing reliance on China sounded good, it was an unrealistic idea. That was the most common view in all countries except Sweden and Denmark, where similar shares thought the bloc should try to reverse the EU’s dependence on China.

Across the bloc, just 26 percent agreed that it would be both doable and desirable to do so; while another 19 percent said the bloc shouldn’t be trying to cut its reliance on China anyway.

What’s more — Europeans see China, and not the U.S., as the future. In the poll, 43 percent of respondents said they expected China to be Europe’s most important trading partner in 10 years. Just 27 percent picked the U.S.

By country, more people in 23 of the 24 countries covered said they expect China to be Europe’s top trade partner in a decade’s time. Only Lithuanians clearly favored the U.S.

By Reuters

LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) – Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that racism and intolerance had worsened in Britain over the past decade, warning it was ​damaging social cohesion and deterring people from public life.

He spoke ‌a day after a Reuters report found some Britons of colour fear a resurgence of racism linked to anti-migrant rhetoric and a political focus on crime, following recent unrest ​including protests in Southampton after the murder of Henry Nowak and rioting ​in Belfast after a stabbing attack.

Get a look at the day ahead in European and global markets with the Morning Bid Europe newsletter. Sign up here.

Facing questions in parliament, Starmer said “racism ⁠and intolerance is permeating everywhere.”

The British leader was responding to a lawmaker ​who said he was worried that racism and the incitement of violence linked ​to it were being normalised, including by some politicians.

“We have to deal with it, because it’s tearing our societies apart,” Starmer said, adding that “it should be called out ​by every single person who is a politician at any level in ​this country.”

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Starmer recalled the 2016 death of Labour lawmaker Jo Cox, an active supporter of ‌immigration ⁠and social cohesion, who was killed by a far-right extremist days before the Brexit referendum.

He said that when reflecting recently upon her death he felt things had got worse, not better, in the intervening decade.

Tuesday’s Reuters report ​cited warnings from ​trade unions and ⁠professional bodies about rising racist abuse in workplaces and public life, alongside heightened tensions following the unrest across the ​United Kingdom.

Nigel Farage, the leader of populist party Reform ​UK, has ⁠accused British institutions of discriminating against white people, arguing they were biased by policies aimed at supporting ethnic minorities. Starmer has rejected those claims.

Addressing the tone ⁠of ​political debate, Starmer said: “That’s on us to ​fix – every single member of this house, whatever their party is and anybody who inflames it ​should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.”

Reporting by Sam Tabahriti, Editing by William Maclean

While it looks a lot like the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is running the show in Iran right now, it’s also very likely that the mullahs are still wielding a lot of influence, even from whatever rocks they are hiding under. Iran’s supposed civil government, or what’s left of it, is still talking about a possible peace deal, but the IRGC is still trying to hit shipping in the Strait of Hormuz as well as tossing whatever they have left at neighboring nations.

Now, at least one group of the 7th-century barbarians who have been in power in Iran since 1979 has surfaced, to call for the assassinations of America’s President Donald Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran’s most senior clerics have called for the assassinations of President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declaring the leaders mahdour al-dam — or deserving of death.

The 88-member Assembly of Experts issued a 10-point statement in which they said killing “the wicked prime minister of the Zionist regime” and “the criminal American president” was a religious duty that must be carried out “under any circumstances.”

The clerics — who are constitutionally tasked with choosing and supervising the supreme leader — wrote that the call for their assassinations that avenging the death of supreme leader Ali Khamenei was of “paramount” importance.

Speaking of that supreme leader, we still have no indication, no evidence that the new supreme leader is still carrying out metabolic functions. But the mullahs aren’t the only ones talking tough.

Meanwhile, Iranian newspaper Hamshahri ran a front-page story featuring Trump’s face in the crosshairs of a rifle scope with a banner headline reading “Revenge is certain.”

Now, while Iran in general has a habit of having their mouths write checks their butts can’t cash, this isn’t a warning that should be taken too lightly.

Remember, we have seen three assassination attempts against President Trump: Two during the campaign and one during his second term. These were attempts by amateurs, and yet one of them almost succeeded; the president escaped a fatal shot by a literal hair’s breadth.

Any such attempt by a nation-state, with the resources of even a failed nation-state like Iran, would be very different; the attempt would be made by trained people, well-equipped, well-prepared, almost certainly working in a team of 2-3, possibly – likely – with more than one shooter. Iran has people like that, just as we do, just as any nation-state would.

There are, right now, between 20,000 and 30,000 Iranian nationals in the country illegally, having entered, mostly, across the southern border and again, mostly, during the four years of the Biden administration’s non-enforcement of the border. If one percent of those are some kind of operative, infiltrated into the United States while the border was wide open, then that makes up 200-300 possible hostile operators.

That’s enough to cause a lot of trouble. That’s a reinforced company of infantry, more or less. This is a threat that the Secret Service, as well as PM Netanyahu’s security detail, should be taking seriously. What the mullahs don’t understand is that, should they succeed in this, and should they be able to establish that Iranian operatives successfully carried out an attack on the President of the United States, the likely outcome would be a rain of hellfire upon their country, the likes of which only the United States can deliver.

It doesn’t seem likely that would deter them from the attempt, though. These are, after all, people who see death as some kind of sick reward. We should remember that, too.

What makes a nation wealthy?  It’s not just arable lands surrounded by other lands filled with water, timber, coal, gas, oil, metals, and minerals.  It’s the farmer who knows best how to cultivate those lands in order to maximize food production.  It’s the woodsman, miner, fisherman, and oilman who can extract nature’s bounty and provide the raw materials for every kind of manufacturer. 

Producing things requires knowledge and skill.  Competition between producers creates an incentive to innovate.  This motor of discovery — in which human ingenuity uses established knowledge and long-harnessed skills as inputs for creating new forms of knowledge and skill — generates increasing efficiencies in production.  Costs go down; prices go down; producers produce more; consumers consume more.  Economic freedom, therefore, is a wealth-generating feedback loop that benefits all of society.

A nation that can do all of these things on its own is a self-sufficient nation.  A nation that is capable of producing more than it consumes is an exporting nation.  A nation that exports more than it imports is a nation whose people become increasingly wealthy.  The rest of the world pays that nation for its way of life.  The world pays that nation simply for existing.

Anyone who says that a nation’s culture is irrelevant to a nation’s standard of living is a liar.  Productive cultures generate national wealth.  Lazy, reckless, or destructive cultures ensure lasting poverty.  There’s an adage so old and universally embraced that numerous cultures claim authorship: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.  People generally acknowledge these truths.  Whether you are a ninth-century Viking raider or a twenty-first-century welfare queen, if you cannot produce for yourself, you cannot feed yourself without taking from others.  Whether a Somali pirate or a Somali “l-e-a-r-i-n-g” center fraudster, you are dependent on theft from others because self-sufficiency is out of reach.

What might a nation do to encourage wealth creation?  Just as a good farmer cultivates the land to maximize a harvest, good national leaders cultivate social values that maximize personal production.  A culture that values knowledge, skill, and hard work encourages members of society to learn and labor in pursuit of productive innovation.  A legal system that prioritizes protections for private property and personal liberty encourages increased production and wealth creation.  A society that takes pride in building and manufacturing new things fosters a spirit of entrepreneurship.  An entrepreneurial society encourages a self-sufficient society.  A self-sufficient society produces a self-sufficient nation.  Therefore, the cultivation of virtue within society simultaneously cultivates a wealthy nation.

These aren’t difficult concepts to understand. 

Why, then, do most Western nations reject the proven path toward national wealth?  Why do Western politicians celebrate “multiculturalism” over the historically productive virtues of Western culture?  Why do Western pundits disparage knowledge, skill, and hard work as attributes of “white supremacy”?  Why do Western lawmakers make it more difficult for Western citizens to own land and personal property?  Why do Western bureaucrats churn out rules and regulations that limit what can be built and manufactured?  Why do Western governments make it difficult for small businesses to thrive?  Why do Western news media claim that only foreign migrants are willing to perform blue-collar jobs?  Why do Western bankers claim that only foreign slave laborers are capable of manufacturing critical goods?  Why do Western professors spend more time lecturing about racism and oppression than how to critically think, invent, and build new things?  Why do Western NGOs support open borders, “climate change” regulations, and economy-killing taxes?  Why do religious leaders praise the criminal and not the faithful Christian?  Why do cultural leaders encourage citizens and foreigners alike to become dependent on social welfare?  Why do pop culture leaders extol frivolous excess over hard work and discipline?  Why do Westerners celebrate gay “pride” for at least a month each year instead of encouraging all citizens to take pride in what they build, learn, and accomplish?  Why do Wall Street and the City of London work so hard to deprive the United States and the United Kingdom of economies that benefit Main Street businesses as much as multinational conglomerates?

Reading through the above questions should lead a rational person toward a reasonable conclusion: The people who currently maintain economic and political power in the West have no interest in making the nations that they ostensibly call “home” wealthy.  The United Kingdom and the European Union cannot produce wealth if their manufacturers are forced to use windmill-generated energy that has been exponentially outpowered by coal and steam for four centuries.  Germany cannot produce wealth if it subsidizes Chinese automakers while bankrupting its own with “green energy” regulations.  Canada cannot produce wealth if it refuses to use its abundant natural resources while importing most manufactured goods from Asia.  

Western nations that refuse to use hydrocarbon and nuclear energies are nations dependent on foreign powers for manufacturing.  Western nations that refuse to allow their farmers to grow crops and produce meat and dairy supplies for their home populations are nations dependent on foreign powers for food.  Western nations whose people lack the knowledge and skills to repair everything from small appliances to entire electric grids are nations dependent on foreign powers during crises.  Western nations that lack the cultural will to be self-sufficient are nations stuck in a permanent state of dependency.  If you hand out food stamps liberally and look down on people who insist on providing for their families without government assistance, then you will produce a nation of pirates and fraudsters who make, grow, and build nothing.

How does the United Kingdom survive when it produces next to nothing?  Right now it generates most of its revenue by acting as the economic middleman for most of the globe.  Even though its empire has collapsed and its navy has disappeared, the City of London’s army of bankers, consultants, and lawyers still take a nice cut of every economic transaction around the planet.  They collect insurance fees, regulatory fees, and investment fees like an absentee landlord still bilking old colonies with “rules-based” trade agreements that put money in the pockets of English lords who create nothing.  The Bank of England and the Secret Intelligence Service work together to game the international economy by stirring up regional conflicts and using insider knowledge to bet on the eventual market winners.  Britain’s central bank has ensured that the wealthiest members of society profit from market manipulation while the rest of society suffers from currency depreciation.  This is an economic model engineered to benefit a small cabal of “noble elites” while impoverishing the larger nation.

Ever since some of Britain’s nobles succeeded in convincing some of America’s nobles to erect a Federal Reserve central bank in the Bank of England’s image back in 1913, this funny money con game has drained America’s wealth, too.  Although Americans’ can-do spirit has buoyed economic liberty and growth, the parasitic structure of central banking has steadily deprived the United States of its once unparalleled self-sufficiency.  The gradual debasement of the U.S. dollar has led to the decoupling from the gold standard, the creation of a petrodollar dependent on forever-wars and foreign entanglements, the offshoring of industry and manufacturing, and international trade “deals” that make America more dependent on foreign powers while kicking back “service” fees to Wall Street and City of London bankers.

This is what globalization really produces: dependency.  

For the United States to be wealthy and strong, we must return to an American system that mines, grows, and builds everything.  Our people must embrace both personal and national self-sufficiency.  We must reject Europe’s economic suicide.

Image via Pxhere.

Related Topics: Globalism

View & Add Comments7

About the Author

J.B. Shurk

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p

Advertisement

Popular Drink That’s Silently Destroying Your Brain Cells (Don’t Eat It Daily)Healthy Living Tips

The Most Stunning Bison Whiskey Decanter We’ve SeenPeoasis

Advertisement

null

Around the web

Advertisement

The Swarm at My Hummingbird House: What Happened After I Hung ItGlosrity

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)Health Weekly

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Honey: The Greatest Enemy of Memory Loss (See How to Use It)Health Weekly

This 7-Minute Morning Protocol May Support Baseline Clarity and FocusManifestation

My Neighbor’s Garden is Always Full of Hummingbirds. Here’s Whypeoasis

Taylor Swift, 34, Takes off Makeup, Leaves Us With No WordsYour Health Agent

This New Air Cooler is All The Ragepeoasis

Cardiologists: One Teaspoon Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try It!Health Weekly

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

If You Have Diabetes, Read This Before It’s Removed!Health Weekly

Trending

Advertisement

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

While Americans Use Toxic Pans, The Japanese Are Doing This InsteadPlateful

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Most ReadLast 24hrsLast 48hrsLast 7 Days

1

‘Citizen Vigilante’ is the wake-up call Western civilization needs

Joseph Ford Cotto | July 1, 2026

2

Ukraine Rains The ‘Wrath of Man’ Upon Russia

James Zumwalt | July 1, 2026

3

A Deplorable attends the birth of DEI racism

Peter Merkl | July 1, 2026

4

The elephant in the room that is fraud

Jack Hellner | July 1, 2026

5

The economics behind Mamdani’s rent freeze fantasy

Ruel Domi | July 1, 2026

Top ContributorsLast 7 DaysLast 30 Days

J.B. Shurk

Citizen Vigilante Should Terrify Western Governments

Ron Wright

The Mar-a-Lago Raid Was About Burying the Fake Russia ICA

Silvio Canto, Jr.

The Obamacare numbers don’t add up…again

Noel S. Williams

World Cup hospitality: Lawrence, Kansas vs. Seattle

Bill Ponton

The history of white flight and gentrification

SponsoredX

After 60, Knee Health Comes Down to 1 Nutrient Most Doctors Miss

Goodbye AC and Expensive Bills: This New AC Cooler Cools The Room in Seconds

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)

In Your State, He Installed This Hummingbird House. Then They Never Left

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!

Edema? (Swollen Feet): Do This Immediately (It’s Genius)

Ad Free / Commenting Login

EmailPasswordHOMEARCHIVESCARTOONSSUBMISSIONSABOUTRSS SYNDICATIONPRIVACY POLICYCONTACTDONATE

FOLLOW US ON

© American Thinker 2026null

×

Thank you for making American Thinker part of your routine

Reader support keeps American Thinker independent and accountable only to its audience. Join now and receive 25% off membership in honor of America’s 250th anniversary.

BECOME A MEMBER — Save 25%

DONATE NOW

If you are alre

Badger

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his acting spy chief has wide permission to declassify records, including any tied to the 2020 election, even though his close ally is only at the intelligence helm for a short time.

Trump appointed Bill Pulte as acting director ​of national intelligence last month, elevating a political loyalist with no national security experience at a ‌time of war and global tensions.

Following a political backlash over his pick, Trump subsequently nominated Jay Clayton, the top U.S. attorney for Manhattan. But he then abruptly postponed Clayton’s confirmation hearing in an effort to force Congress to pass a strict voter identification bill.

“Bill’s there, just, you know, for maybe a month or two months or something,” Trump told reporters as he departed Joint Base Andrews for ‌an event ​in North Dakota. “But while he’s there, I said, ‘You can declassify whatever you ⁠want’.”

Asked if that included any records related ⁠to the 2020 election, Trump added: “I told him you could do it, it’s fair. You got to ask him.”

Trump, who won a second White House term in the 2024 election after losing in 2020, long has falsely claimed widespread fraud in U.S. elections and continued to push debunked claims ahead of November’s midterm ​contests as part of his pressure campaign to pass a strict voter identification law.

His comments come as NBC News reported that a White House task force was gathering documents related to the 2020 election with the aim ⁠of declassifying some of them.

“As the most transparent president in history, ⁠President Trump is totally committed to sharing as much information with the public as possible,” ​said a White House official who requested anonymity.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the office of ​Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton did not respond to requests for comment on Trump’s remarks.

The ODNI ‌oversees the 18-agency U.S. intelligence community that includes the premier foreign spy service, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency, the massive agency that eavesdrops on foreign communications and helps defend the United States against cyberattacks.

It was not clear when lawmakers would act on Clayton’s nomination, but Trump told reporters there would be a hearing in ⁠two weeks.

A source familiar with the situation, on condition of anonymity, said Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, was “targeting” July 15.

Pulte currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency but will also remain as ODNI until Clayton is confirmed by the Senate. ⁠Pulte has reportedly already moved to cut ‌hundreds of intelligence jobs.

Trump has said legislation known as the SAVE Act would deliver ⁠his fellow Republicans a “guaranteed” win in November as they seek to maintain their ​slim control ‌of Congress. Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Trump’s low approval ratings to ​recapture at least ⁠the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Democrats and voting-rights advocates say the measure could hinder voter registration for millions of eligible Americans.

On Tuesday, Trump in a social media post said he had met with Tina Peters, a former county elections clerk in Colorado who was convicted of illegally tampering with voting machines in pursuit of Trump’s false claims over the 2020 race.

Representatives of Peters did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Jonathan Landay; editing by ​Michelle Nichols and Bill Berkrot)

Paul Gottfried, Chronicles

USA Today recently offered readers an “in-depth” investigation of the life of Michelle Obama and her relationship with her famous husband. Forcing myself to read this bilge made me aware that one would have to turn to the Soviet press under Comrade Stalin to find anything quite so cloying. The fact that this national newspaper and others like it cannot discuss their puffed-up heroes and heroines without nauseating exaggeration has left me feeling even more depressed about American journalism than ever. Michelle’s life has been made “fuller,” USA Today assured me, because it’s been associated with a truly great man. And let’s not forget that a C-SPAN sponsored historians’ survey revealed Obama to be one of our 10 greatest presidents. Furthermore, he was edging toward the pantheon of the five greatest when his illustrious term came to an end.

Of course, Michelle is presented as great in her own right. She’s been married to a demigod for 33 years; and these two extraordinary luminaries just continue to enrich one another:

“He made me think more broadly about what I could do with this Harvard law degree besides be a lawyer. He gave me the courage,” she continued. “He was my ballast. He was like, ‘I got you.’ And however hard it’s been, the ups and downs, he’s got me.”

For his part, Barack Obama’s life is simply richer with Michelle in it, even three decades later.

“Just being with her made me better, and she still does. And that she would [give] our kids a foundation that would pay off for them,” he said. “That’s in fact what’s happened. And she grounds and anchors me.”

This is entirely typical of the intellectual depth and objectivity of that paper’s treatment of their favorite leftist couple. Quite predictably, the article about this pair goes on to relate how magnificently they have raised their two daughters. That was followed by an announcement of the “star-studded event” that took place at the opening of the Obama Library in Chicago “on the day before Juneteenth.”

Equally revealing of USA Today’s bias was an exploration of “Obama hate” by reporter Josh Peter on June 23. In his impassioned commentary, we are told about all the untold suffering that’s been visited upon our former First Couple because of the malice pouring out of the right. Peter is particularly outraged that a UFC fighter commented on the mannishness of Mrs. Obama, a remark that supposedly shows the irrepressible cruelty of the Obamas’ enemies. But as fate would have it, I chanced upon a very unfavorable reference to Mrs. Trump in USA Today about a week before reading this fluff piece on the Obamas, a double standard that I’ve detected in the newspaper several times before. Apparently, malice is only a factor when its target is someone whom leftist journalists are trying to protect.

Being perfectly objective about this matter, it is hard to see how Melania Trump, whom USA Today invariably treats as an empty-headed mouthpiece of her demagogic husband, is less attractive or less intelligent than Michelle. In fact, one would have to be blinded by ideology to come to that bizarre conclusion. Unlike Michelle, Melania is multilingual, physically attractive, gracious, and tactful in conversation. Michelle is often irascible, accuses her opponents invariably of racism and sexism, and (not to be too blunt about this matter) noticeably plain-looking.

As I observed a few years ago, it is hard to buy the idea that Michelle is greatly honored across media because she is an outstanding role model to young black woman. Why isn’t Candy Carson, the thoroughly accomplished wife of Ben Carson, a former cabinet official and renowned neurosurgeon, a media celebrity? In fact, it is hard to find a couple of any race who seem more impressive than the Carsons. Mrs. Carson is a gifted violinist, educator, Protestant theologian, and the head of many serious philanthropies. She also speaks intelligently on many subjects and has never played the victim card. Unlike Mrs. Obama or the former president but like her husband, Ben, Mrs. Carson grew up in poverty in Detroit and worked her way up to professional distinction, without a lift from the Chicago Democratic machine.

What makes Mrs. Carson less appealing to the media and black organizations than Michelle is her lack of leftist politics. Racial and gender grievances have been Michelle’s calling card, and that is precisely why USA Today, People magazine, and other mass publications celebrate the Obama family nonstop. She fits their political narrative. I also don’t accept the notion that the Michelle-adulation gushing from the mainstream media is attributable to her being the wife of our first black (or half-black) president. Is anyone thick enough to believe that if Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson became our second black president, that person’s wife would be showered with similar Stalinoid praise? The latest puff piece about Michelle and her heavenly family is most definitely politically motivated.

A spate of rulings from the Supreme Court couldn’t be more of a mandate if they were handed down, gift-wrapped, and sealed with a kiss by God: The mass deportation of illegal aliens is legal and imperative if there’s any hope of saving this country.

One ruling declared it within the president’s authority to interpret the word “temporary” as the opposite of “permanent” with regard to migrants who have been permitted to live within the U.S. for what is understood to be a finite period. He can order their removal. (Good!) A separate ruling, on the other hand, affirmed automatic American citizenship to babies born to migrants who have illegally entered the country. (Bad!) Yet a third ruling deemed it legal for states to count voter ballots that arrive after Election Day, thus rendering the whole concept of “Election Day” void. (Very bad!)

Taken together, if the president has expansive authority to remove illegal aliens, who otherwise might just pop out a baby immediately deemed “American” (a new Democrat voter mailing in ballots on a whim), the situation is clear. Migrants need to be sent home with haste and by any means necessary.

This country cannot survive if anyone from anywhere — China, Guatemala, India, etc. — can lock themselves inside by giving birth, securing themselves citizenship and welfare entitlements, and then vote in our corrupted elections. And yes, they’re voting. That’s not up for debate.

The Supreme Court just affirmed the possibility of a person raised for essentially his whole life in Communist China becoming president of the United States. It’s criminal.

And so, the Trump administration, and every administration that succeeds it, should recognize the only way forward is to severely restrict all forms of immigration: Ban the entry of pregnant women, reduce the duration of legal residency to less than nine months, and, of course, deport as many foreigners as possible.

By extension, our primary target for removal should no longer be “the worst criminals.” It should be women. All of them. There’s not a moment too soon. If they’re actively giving birth, hurl them into Mexico. Or, if they’re not so lucky, Canada.

That’s the position the court has put us in with this series of rulings. Mass deportations or bust.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Traitors: The Democrat Party’s Collapse into Anti-American Filth.”

“This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to insert birthright citizenship into Americans’ Constitution.

He continued in plain language to show how the decision endorses birth tourism, which would automatically grant full citizenship to foreign adults who have never lived a full day in the United States:

The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results. While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.

The Court’s interpretation also has national-security implications… Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent.

“We should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy,” he wrote.

Many children are born to foreign parents who are “subject to a foreign power,” which should make their children ineligible for citizenship, Alito noted:

A great many persons who are born here to illegal immigrant parents fail this [subject to foreign power] test because at birth they are automatically made nationals of their parents’ native country and, as a result, incur duties to that country. This means that they are “subject to a foreign power” and are thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is illustrated by the laws of countries on the list of those from which the greatest number of illegal immigrants come. Mexico is at the top of that list, and under Mexico’s constitution, the child of a Mexican parent can become a Mexican national at birth and acquires certain duties to the government. See Political Constitution of the United Mexican States… Among these are the obligation to receive military training and to join the National Guard.

Alito explained his views:

Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

Respecting this interpretation would not require uprooting the millions of children who were born here to mothers who entered or remained in this country illegally. Those children are not responsible for their parents’ violation of our immigration laws, and their plight is the result of a long period during which a coterie of actors — Executive Branch officials, States and cities, and a variety of private groups — sent the message to would-be immigrants that our dissenting immigration laws should not be taken too seriously.

Alito’s dissent echoed the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued that the court’s majority’s imposition is a “political project” built on medieval feudal laws from pre-modern Europe. Alito similarly wrote:

United States citizenship is precious. Anyone who has attended a ceremony where citizens are naturalized can see that message on the faces of those who take the citizenship oath. Before saddling the Nation with a medieval rule, we had better be certain the Constitution requires it.

…

This theory of monarchical power and the status of the people provided the foundation on which the rule of birthright subjecthood stood. Just as a person automatically acquires at birth all that is entailed by the relationship between parent and child, a person born within the King’s dominion automatically became the King’s subject.

…

The Court does not confront these problems because it pays little attention to the constitutional text. Instead of performing its own textual analysis, the Court leans on precedent that glosses the text.

Recent U.S. governments have allowed mass illegal migration and abuse of the birthright citizenship clause by refusing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, Alito said, adding:

Congress’s failure to act, the Executive Branch’s enforcement policies and frequent opposition to state solutions, and some jurisdictions’ policies have resulted in a massive increase in the number of illegal immigrants living in this country… Between July 2023 and March 2024, the overall foreign-born population of the United States increased from 48.5 million to 51.6 million — “an unprecedented increase of 3 million immigrants in nine months. Much of this growth was driven by the admission of unauthorized immigrants with temporary deportation protections.”

As a result of the events of the past 50 years, the United States now has a huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents. The Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment makes all the members of this latter group citizens.

“The Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country,” Alito wrote, adding, “In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”

Breitbart

In an interview with FOX News host Laura Ingraham, Vice President J.D. Vance said communism is the result of the Democratic Party being run by universities and professors.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: You’ve been following what’s going on with the Democrat party and the rise of socialism. The president calls it communism and says this is this is really the biggest threat to the country now, an internal threat, and you’ve seen what happens when the base of the party, a party, turns on its establishment beginning with the Tea Party in 2009, ultimately resulting in President Trump’s election twice. So my question to you is are these DSA types really in your estimation going to dominate the entire party?

VICE PRESIDENT J.D. VANCE: I unfortunately fear that’s the direction the Democrats are headed, and it is communism, Laura. This is not, you know, this is not raising taxes a little bit, however much we might disagree with that. This is abolishing the police.

This is let criminals run amok in your cities. This is flood your country with low-wage third-world immigrants, and importantly it’s confiscating wealth, not because we want to make anybody’s life better, but purely out of resentment, out of an attack on the people who have that wealth to begin with. It really is something we haven’t seen in the United States of America in the history of our politics, and Laura, I think that it actually is a consequence of the fact that the Democrat party has become run by the universities and by the professors.

This is not working-class Union Democrats. This is not socially conservative people who just want a fair shake at life. This is fundamentally a view that the United States is an evil country that must be dismantled from the ground and then built back up.

That’s communism at its core, and you see more and more momentum in that direction from the Democrat Party. Frankly, Laura, I would love it if Democrats were willing, you know, not that they are going to agree with Republicans all the time, but if they were willing to work with us on lowering housing prices, on lowering gas prices, on actually making the lives of American citizens better, you know, we could have some real bipartisan compromise. That’s not what they’re talking about.

They’re talking about abolishing the police and letting criminals rule our cities. That is a fundamental transformation of the Democrat Party. It’s very bad for our country.

It’s bad for Democrats, and it just drives home why we have to keep these people from getting close to power.