Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Why Are So Many Young Americans Irreligious?

The secular brainwash is the first reason.


Fewer young Americans affiliate with any organized religion than ever before in American history.

This means, therefore, that the children—and certainly the grandchildren—of millions of faithful Christians have abandoned Christianity. The same holds true for Jews, but that decline began somewhat earlier. Until the 20th century, nearly all Jews were religious (which nearly always meant Orthodox). Today about 15 percent of Jews are Orthodox, while most Conservative and Reform Jews have the same values as the secular Left, and very few of their children attend synagogue.

Why have so many Jews and Christians abandoned religious commitment and even a religious identity (many Jews retained an ethnic identity, an option not available to those who abandoned Christianity, as there is no Christian ethnic identity, Christianity being a religion, not an ethnicity as well as a religion)?

Two reasons predominate: the dominant secular culture and the failure of religious Jews and Christians to explain their respective religions.

Contemporary Western countries (and countries such as Japan, whose identities are not Western, but which are culturally part of the West) are the most secular societies in recorded history.

In America, every public institution has been rendered God-free, that is, devoid of God. From the age of 5, and sometimes before that, children attend schools that make no reference to God or the Bible. Indeed, schools generally hold God and the Bible in intellectual and moral contempt. 

American children are told at school that neither God, nor the Bible, nor religion is necessary—in fact, these are held to be impediments to moral progress. For example, virtually every student is taught the secular mantra that “more people have been killed by religion—or ‘in the name of God’—than by anything else.” The implied reference is, of course, to Christians alone. (Examples of historic Islamic violence are ignored, and mention of them is deemed bigotry, and the same holds true of Native American and non-Western violence.)

This secular doctrine regarding more violence by Christians than by anyone else is intellectually dishonest and, with regard to the 20th century, patently false. 

It is intellectually dishonest insofar as it ignores the fact that prior to the Enlightenment, virtually everyone in the West was Christian. Therefore, by definition, virtually all violence was committed by Christians. Who else in the West could commit violence? The tiny number of Jews? The tiny number of atheists?

It is also intellectually dishonest in that only evils committed in the Christian world are mentioned—evils such as slavery, which were nearly all universal. But the moral achievements of the Christian world—all unique to the Christian West—are ignored. Where else were countries committed to universal human rights—i.e., equal rights for every individual of every ethnicity, race, and religion? Where else was the status of women elevated to the status of men? Where else was liberty achieved to anywhere near the extent it has been in the Western world? What other civilization figured out ways to elevate billions from poverty or to eradicate diseases?

And the charge is patently false in that the bloodiest century in history was the 20th century and nearly every one of the more than 100 million civilians—that is, noncombatants—who were murdered were killed by non-Christian, usually anti-Christian, secular regimes. Assuming your secular child or grandchild even knows about the genocides of the 20th century, ask him or her this question: “Who is responsible for the genocides of the 20th century—religious or secular regimes?”

In American life, the only national holiday with religious meaning is Christmas, and that has not only been largely secularized but, even in its secular form, has increasingly been removed from the national vocabulary. Americans are expected to say the word “Christmas” as rarely as possible. No more “Merry Christmas,” but “Happy Holidays.” Companies no longer have “Christmas parties,” but “holiday parties.” Schools no longer have “Christmas vacations” or a “Christmas break,” but “winter vacations” or a “winter break.”

Anyone who derives his moral values from the Bible is essentially forbidden from using those values to shape societal norms. You can cite Ibram X. Kendi or “White Fragility” or your heart as the source of your social values, but if you cite a biblical book, you are told that violates the alleged “separation of church and state.”

So, then, for about 60 years, the entire world outside of the home (and increasingly inside the home) of most young Americans has been secular and anti-religious. 

That the post-Christian age has been the bloodiest in history, that the French and Russian Revolutions, both fiercely anti-religious, produced bloody despotic regimes, while the pro-religion, God-based American Revolution produced the freest country in the world—both these facts are unknown to most young Americans. So, too, young people don’t know that religious Americans are happier, commit less suicide, give more charity and volunteer more time than irreligious Americans.

Swimming in a secular sea and ignorance of the disparate moral records of secular and Judeo-Christian regimes and institutions constitute one of the two reasons for the religious apathy among young Americans. The other, as I’ll chronicle in a future column, has been the failure of religious institutions to explain themselves.



X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- August 10

 



It's a sad day when you get to see first hand at how ridiculously dumb a network that you loved for so many years has become in just a matter of 2 years. Hallmark had a press event today, and it was extremely disappointing.

Here's tonight's news:


The Grasshopper Elite and Its Enemy

Unfortunately, those loud and troublesome pests, though few, control almost all the levers of political and state police power.


Many publications provide their writers with “style sheets,” a list of dos and don’ts with respect to things like diction, punctuation, grammar, and linguistic etiquette. My personal list of “dos” includes the Oxford comma (apples, oranges, and pears: that last comma is requisite) and, in most cases, using the singular masculine pronoun after collective nouns like “everyone” and “someone” (e.g., “Everyone likes to have his [not ‘their’] own way”). 

Style sheet prescriptions (and proscriptions) can be more elaborate, and can affect substantive as well as stylistic matters. Over the last year or so, I have noticed an innovation, at once stylistic and substantive, that has taken root throughout the regime media. It is this: whenever referring to Donald Trump and the 2020 presidential election, be sure to insert editorial comments to the effect that any concerns about the fairness of that election are “baseless” or the result of “lies.” 

I do not remember when I first noticed these little injections of partisan squid ink, but by now they are ubiquitous in the anti-Trump fraternity. Just one example: in a column Saturday about Donald Trump’s weekend rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin, the writer claimed Trump “spent much of his speech focusing on his baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election” (emphasis added). 

To the writing teachers out there, let me ask: Would that sentence have been better—less obviously partisan, hence more persuasive—had the word “baseless” been omitted?

Or how about this bit from later on in the piece: “Trump spent much of his speech touting the accomplishments of his term as president . . . and promoting the lie that the 2020 election was ‘rigged and stolen’” (again, emphasis added). What do you think? 

Or how about this: Trump was in Wisconsin “ostensibly” to stump for Tim Michels, the person Trump backs for Tuesday’s GOP gubernatorial primary, but he devoted much of his speech “focusing on his baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.”

This last sentence offers connoisseurs of cant not one but two morsels to chew on. The first is the deployment of the word “ostensibly,” meaning “apparently so” but “not really.” You might have thought Trump came to Waukesha to help his favored gubernatorial candidate. Really, though, he came to dispense “baseless” claims that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. 

I do not know whether this spreading linguistic tic is the result of a directive from on high—from editors demanding that their troops insert such adjectival props—or whether it is a more organic phenomenon, a matter of the zeitgeist pushing the adoption of these expressive ornaments and curlicues. It’s a little of both, I suspect. I don’t doubt the influence of management—and the diktats, I’d wager, come from much higher up the political food chain than any publisher’s office. But I suspect that in many, maybe most, cases, it is simply the expression of what the late Joe Sobran identified as “the Hive.” “Liberals laugh at conspiracy theories that assume that because there is a pattern there must be some central control,” Sobran observed; “but the fact that there is no central control doesn’t mean that there is no pattern.”

In any event, I think this new habit betrays the insecurity that often accompanies braggadocio. If I am right about that, then the practice might well be counterproductive. The intent, of course, is to make a mockery of Trump’s claims that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark and, by so doing, undercut not only Trump but also the suspicions of those many millions of people—more than 40 percent of Americans—who believe that the election was tainted. 

Is it working? I do not believe it is. Granted, for those who are already convinced that the 2020 election was on the up-and-up, the liberal sprinkling of words like “baseless” and “lies” into any discussion of Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election seems simply to be stating the obvious. A further point: since the people who believe, or say they believe, that the 2020 election was conducted fairly are also, most of them, regime-certified figures, the habit has the appearance of an echo chamber, instilling confidence and certitude only among those who already agree with the main proposition, viz that the election was fair, that Trump lost, and that his continued complaints are “baseless” “lies.”

But that cadre, though occupying most of the choice perches and possessing lavishly amplified megaphones in the regime propaganda machine, are sparsely represented outside the corridors of academia, the media, and Washington, Inc. Loopy Liz Cheney, intoxicated by the spectacle of her evanescent celebrity, agrees right down the line. Doubtless her father does, too, especially when wearing his cowboy hat. But for the millions upon millions of Americans who harbor doubts about the election, and a fortiori, doubts about the regime-endorsed anti-Trump caravan, the whole show is just more evidence of deep-state corruption and contempt for those Hillary Clinton memorably dismissed as “deplorables.” 

For them, being continually bashed over the head by partisan hectoring masquerading as honest reporting is an unpleasant, and deeply unpersuasive, experience. Partly, their reaction is like Gertrude’s in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Partly, I suspect, it recalls what Burke said in Reflections on the Revolution in France: 

Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour.

Unfortunately, those loud and troublesome pests, though few, control almost all the levers of political, and state police power. They are eager to maintain that virtual monopoly. Donald Trump and the spirit he awakened challenges their control. Hence their hysteria and unremitting, importunate chink. 



The FBI Raided Trump Because He’s A Threat To The Deep State

The intelligence apparatus is targeting Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify him from running for president in 2024.


Monday evening, news broke that the FBI conducted a raid on former President Donald Trump’s personal residence, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida. The legal justification for the raid is still somewhat hazy — with some indicating that it stems from the alleged mishandling of classified information — but as Joe Biden’s support plummets, the political reason for it has never been more clear.

On July 28 in Compact Mag, Michael Anton, a former National Security Council staffer in the Trump administration, said, “The people who really run the United States of America have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again.” 

In the same piece, Anton suggested the Jan. 6 committee is laying the “groundwork for an indictment of Trump” and that the Justice Department might charge the former president with “seditious conspiracy.” 

Suppose the current administration was truly only concerned about the reclamation of classified documents, as some have suggested — why couldn’t someone simply make a phone call and arrange for a delegation of bureaucrats to go and get them? And considering that this is far from the first time the intelligence apparatus has tried to shanghai Trump and his associates, it becomes pretty obvious that this raid was a show of force. 

Indeed, the Biden administration carried out a hit on the ruling party’s most prominent political enemy. According to Trump, the raid was “unannounced.” He decried it as evidence of the “weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024.”

Anton posits that the reason “the people who really run the United States” fanatically oppose Trump has less to do with the former president and more to do with “who his followers are.” He suggests that Trump’s followers are so aggressively denied representation because they are out of step with the ideological consensus of the managerial elite who pull the strings and turn the gears of the federal government.

He writes, “Complaints about the nature of Trump are just proxies for objections to the nature of his base. It doesn’t help stabilize our already twitchy situation that those who bleat the loudest about democracy are also audibly and visibly determined to deny a real choice to half the country.”

In the current era, Trump has been the only prominent individual on the national stage to resist the neo-liberal consensus by prioritizing and empowering the American people and the American nation. 

Short of outright removing him from this plane of existence, leftists and their associates in the federal government have to use every tool at their disposal to keep Trump off of the ballot, should he choose to run for president once more. As the regime grows increasingly authoritarian, the “people who really run the United States” will continue to try and delegitimize Trump through a series of wanton political hit jobs and straight-up denying him equal protection under the law.

If Trump becomes the forty-seventh president of the United States, he will bring with him an ambition to root out the people who wronged and waylaid him and his voters, most of whom are apparatchiks of the federal bureaucracy. If he is able to reform and reshape the government by removing these entrenched figures and subsequently hands control of the government back to the public by restoring the federal balance of power, he will delegitimize the rule of faceless bureaucrats and largely invalidate the left’s stranglehold on national politics.

Therefore, Trump cannot be allowed to win, let alone run for, the presidency.



Farage, After Trump Raid People in U.K. Now Understand There Really is a Deep State

Nigel Farage gives a great interview on Steve Bannon’s War Room with his opinion of the FBI raid on the home of President Donald Trump.  Within the interview Mr. Farage outlines the shock that also shook the people in the U.K who see, many for the first time, that U.S. justice institutions really are politicalized.

One of the key takeaways from Europe is the realization that a Deep State really does exist in the United States of America. {Direct Rumble LinkWATCH:



NYC Mayor Adams Laughably Wants to Bus New Yorkers to Texas to Campaign Against Gov. Abbott


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

If anyone thought New York City Mayor Eric Adams would be an improvement over the incompetent Bill de Blasio, they’ve had a rude awakening.  After whining incessantly over Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s dark-genius plan to bus illegal immigrants to the Big Apple, Adams wants to strike back by sending a busload of New Yorkers to the Lone Star state to campaign to oust Abbott.

“I already called all my friends in Texas and told them how to cast their votes,” Adams said during a news conference on Tuesday. “And I am deeply contemplating taking a busload of New Yorkers to go to Texas and do some good old-fashioned door knocking because we have to, for the good of America, we have to get him out of office.”

Sounds pretty threatening to me, actually. But how serious is he about this cockamamie plan? To be fair, he did say it with a smile, so he may have been joking. But on Sunday, he issued this tweet claiming that Abbott has “used innocent people as political pawns to manufacture a crisis”:

Is he aware of how ridiculous this sounds? Does he own a mirror? He’s a Democrat, and the Democrat party under Joe Biden has stopped the construction of Trump’s wall, encouraged people to come to the border and enter the country fraudulently, and crippled agencies like the Border Patrol. Yet somehow this crisis is Abbott’s fault?

Perhaps Adams should ask the Biden Administration to help stem the flow of illegal immigration. Nope. As my colleague Mike Miller reports:

The New York Post asked Eric Adams if he has asked or plans to ask Biden or federal agencies to change the open-border policy and stop the endless flow of illegal border crossers from entering the country. “Shockingly,” Adams said he has no interest in doing so.

Fox News’ Bill Melugin sums up the absurdity perfectly:

But the most brutal response came from former Creative Director for Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell Anang Mittal:

Abbott welcomes the idea of New Yorkers coming to Texas, as it might give them some idea of the utter chaos the Biden Administration is presiding over at the border. His spokesman said in a statement:

We hope the Mayor of New York City will come to Texas and campaign for Beto O’ Rourke. He should stop by the Border as well to see the real humanitarian crisis President Biden has created.

Abbott is up for re-election this November, facing off against that walking political stunt machine, former Democratic congressman Beto O’Rourke. My guess is that a busload of whining New Yorkers entering the fray would be about as welcome in the Lone Star state as Gavin Newson’s campaign ads. As in, not well-received at all.

This whole back-and-forth between Abbott and Adams can sometimes be humorous, but the reality is anything but funny. Tragedy occurs every day at the overwhelmed border, and blue state governors and the White House routinely belittle red state governors who dare to fight back. Although it’s not the job of a New York City mayor to solve the border crisis, Adams certainly isn’t helping here or saying anything useful. He’s just trying to get cheap political points.




Search Warrant Or Not, Americans Have No Reason To Believe The FBI Raid On Trump’s Florida Home Was Justified

Americans do not need to defer to the court that already issued multiple falsified warrants against the former president.



After news broke Monday evening that the FBI had raided former President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach Florida home at Mar-a-Lago, the right immediately expressed outrage and warned that by targeting a former president and political opponent, the Biden Administration had crossed the Rubicon.

The left, for its contribution, highlighted the federal statute that provides that a person who “unlawfully conceals” government records shall “be disqualified from holding any office under the United States,” suggesting that the raid’s apparent focus on supposed missing classified documents may render Trump ineligible to run in 2024.

Beyond the constitutional problem with that theory — the U.S. constitution establishes the minimal qualifications to serve as president and Congress cannot expand on those — that theory of the raid merely confirms conservatives’ outrage over the DOJ’s continued interference in American’s electoral preferences.

Another theme soon emerged, bandied by those feigning a more balanced tone, that the raid was clearly justified because “a judge had to sign a warrant.” In a similar vein, another segment of politicians and pundits played the news as disconcerting but withheld judgment pending further details from Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, calling on both to promptly provide the American public an explanation of the circumstances that could justify the raid of a former president’s home.

As of publication, no explanation has been offered. But it doesn’t matter. No matter what Garland or Wray say, no matter what the FBI attested to in a search warrant application, no matter what cause a federal judge found, Americans won’t trust them and they shouldn’t.

Four fake FISA applications and the ensuing surveillance orders authorized by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court are the first reason why.

When the public learned that the Department of Justice had obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, the government and the media cartel assured Americans that the FISA court would only authorize such wiretapping if probable cause supported the surveillance. They also assured us that since Page was no longer a member of Trump’s campaign, the FISA orders did not target Trump. And the FISA application process, we were told, was robust, with multiple layers of review. Worry not, the government soothed, all was on the up and up.

But none of it was true. The FISA application process, far from being robust, consisted of rubber-stamping by FBI and DOJ officials who were, at best, willfully blind to the defects in the applications. And the agents who wrote the applications or supposedly reviewed and checked the information provided, either lied, withheld material information, included information disputed by the purported sources, or some combination of the three. In total, the Office of Inspector general found 17 significant inaccuracies or omissions and missed another one.

Later the public learned that in the process of renewing the Page FISA application, attorney Kevin Clinesmith lied and altered an email to hide Page’s work with the CIA and to allow the surveillance to continue. Eventually, the DOJ admitted there was no probable cause to surveil Page.

Americans would also learn later that notwithstanding the claims that the wiretapping of Page did not reach Trump’s team, that the surveillance did indeed sweep up campaign communications and later conversations between Page and Trump advisors.

Equally damned was the FISA Court which approved the four warrants based on double and triple hearsay of unknown and unverified sources and based on media reporting: Even if every word in the applications were true, the lack of verifiable sources rendered the applications insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish probable cause. Yet, the FISA Court issued not one, but four surveillance orders, none of which were legally justified.

The DOJ, FBI, and the courts likewise proved themselves untrustworthy in the case against Michael Flynn, a Lieutenant General who served this country with bravery and honor for decades. The FBI opened an investigation into Flynn shortly after receiving false information from Stefan Halper that implausibly claimed Flynn left Cambridge with a young woman with Russian roots. Then, after FBI agents decided to close the investigation against Flynn as unfounded, the 7th Floor intervened, and a kill shot was taken against Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s later extracted a plea from Flynn for purportedly lying about a conversation he had during the transition period, by threatening his son. Then, after an independent investigation of the Flynn case revealed there was no basis to charge Flynn, a federal court refused to dismiss the charges — again proving that the courts provide no check on a corrupted FBI.

This synopsis barely scratches the surface of the duplicity and lies advanced by the FBI and the DOJ to destroy a Lieutenant General and a CIA source, all to “get Trump.” And the courts tolerated the abuse.

So, no, Americans do not need to wait for Garland or Wray to explain the basis for the raid; and we do not need to defer to the court that issued the warrant. The same deep state willing to lie and connive to destroy a presidential campaign and the president will be willing to do so again to destroy a former president and potential future presidential candidate.

The lesson has been learned. The question now is what to do, besides dismantling FBI Headquarters.



'Inflation Act' Would Make IRS Workforce Larger Than the Pentagon, State Dept., FBI, and Border Patrol—Combined


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

The “Inflation Reduction Act,” which as we’ve pointed out is unlikely to tame inflation, contains $80 billion in funding for the Internal Revenue Service to hire a staggering 87,000 new agents to slog through the financial affairs of Americans. The allocation is a 600 percent increase over the agency’s 2021 budget of $12.6 billion.

The bill cleared the Senate Sunday and now heads to the House, where it’s expected to pass. It would more than double the agency’s current staffing, bringing it up eventually to 165,000 people. That’s more than the population of Tempe, Arizona.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that the new hires will make the IRS workforce larger than the combined number of employees of the Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and Border Patrol. They write:

That [the Inflation Reduction Act] would make the IRS one of the largest federal agencies. The Pentagon houses roughly 27,000 employees, according to the Defense Department, while a human resources fact sheet says the State Department employs just over 77,243 staff. The FBI employs approximately 35,000 people, according to the agency’s website, and Customs and Border Protection says it employs 19,536 Border Patrol agents.

Eighty-seven thousand—in addition to the 78,000 already employed by the agency—is a truly staggering number. People often have criticized the draconian policies of this administration—especially with the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago in the news—but siccing that many new agents on our own people takes it to a whole new level. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz apparently agrees:

RedState’s Nick Arama wrote the following during Sunday’s “Vote-A-Rama” leading up to the passage of this behemoth bill in the Senate:

But as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) explained, perhaps few things in the bill are as bad as the lie the Democrats are trying to sell about the hiring of 87,000 more IRS agents, acting as though it’s only going to go after “billionaires” to make them pay their fair share. We should be scaling back the IRS–not building it up. If we were spending money on anything, it should be border agents.

Arama is right, it won’t just be billionaires and corporations that will be targeted. The Free Beacon explains:

The majority of new revenue from IRS audits and scrutiny will come from those making less than $200,000 a year, according to a study from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. The committee found that just 4 to 9 percent of money raised will come from those making more than $500,000, contrary to Democrats’ claims that new IRS agents are necessary to target millionaires and billionaires who hide income.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham put it in to perspective at a press conference Tuesday:

If you think the federal government is out of control now, God help us when you get 87,000 new IRS agents who are looking under every rock and stone to get money out of your pocket.

My colleague Sister Toldjah wrote Monday about Democrats laughably claiming that audits are no big deal. Ask anyone who’s ever been audited, and they will tell you it’s hell even if the Feds eventually find you did nothing wrong. “Our biggest worry in this is that the burden for these audits will land on Walmart shoppers,” Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said Tuesday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

In a recent letter to the Senate, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig claimed the new resources are “absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans.” I trust him, don’t you? The IRS would never do anything wrong, would they? Well, except for maybe targeting conservative groups as they did under Obama.

More and more bad news is sure to come out as this bill gets continued scrutiny. This insanely massive explosion of the IRS workforce, though, is already bad enough.




Democrats only do what benefits them

The Democrats must believe the benefits of the FBI raiding Trump’s home must far outweigh the damage it will cause.

I admit I didn’t know what to think when I saw the news that the FBI served a search warrant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, mostly because I know that Democrats are willing to go to any extreme so long as it benefits them politically.

These are the same people who are spending tens of millions of dollars to interfere with the Republican primaries in the hope of securing Republican candidates that the Democrats can more easily defeat in November.

Nothing is off the table so long as it benefits the Democrat Party.

Knowing that’s the case, I asked myself what possible benefits could the Democrats gain from such an unprecedented and highly political action like sending the FBI into Mar-a-Lago.

As far as I can see, there are a few.

First, is it possible the Democrats hope that going to such an extreme might force Trump to prematurely announce his 2024 campaign?

We all know Trump tends to react rather than act. Admit it. You know he does.

Are Democrats hoping that Trump will be driven into such a rage over the FBI searching his home that he decides to react with a little “well oh yeah?!” by officially announcing he is running again?

I think that might be a good possibility.

Let’s be frank. Trump making his candidacy official before November would suck all the oxygen out of the room, hamstring the Republican Party’s midterm momentum, and turn the focus of the November election away from the Democrat Party’s failures and onto Donald Trump.

And that benefits the Democrats in the midterms.

This idiotic raid is also going to fire up the Democrat base.

Democrat voter enthusiasm for the midterm elections is nowhere near as vibrant as it is among Republicans. The Democrat Party had hoped the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be enough to fire up its base. But polling reveals that the Roe decision alone isn’t doing nearly enough, mostly because the Roe decision is also firing up Republican voters.

But staging an evening FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago is bound to get the anti-Trump ResistanceLOL in the Democrat base so fired up that they’re at risk of self-immolating. Those guys have been fantasizing about this for nearly six years. Trust me. They’re near orgasmic right about now.

A fired-up base benefits the Democrats.

It also doesn’t hurt that the media will now turn all their time and attention to Donald Trump while ignoring the fact that Congress is adding more spending and taxes on a citizenry already being crushed by the Biden economy.

The economic news coupled with a deeply unpopular Joe Biden is killing the Democrats. So getting the media to focus on Trump benefits them.

What remains to be seen, however, is if the Democrat Party can manage to avoid pushing too hard and too far.

But that ship may have already sailed. Let’s be honest, executing a search of Trump’s home is, in itself, pushing too hard and too far.

It certainly doesn’t help matters that the DOJ and FBI are already plagued by accusations of political partisanship.

Between the RussiaGate “investigation,” the prosecutorial overreach against January 6 detainees, and the so-called “Whitmer kidnapping” plot, not to mention targeting parents protesting school boards as “domestic terrorists” while doing nothing to stop pro-abortion crazies from targeting Supreme Court Justices’ homes, these guys don’t have a whole hell of a lot of credibility left.

At this point, it is impossible not to see what happened yesterday as politically-motivated persecution.

Given that, the Democrats must believe the benefits of such a politically-motivated move far outweigh the damage it is bound to cause.

So what do we do with it all?

Well, the key here is not to fall into the trap. Because trust me on this, it is a trap.

Hopefully, Donald Trump can resist his need to always react when goaded. Heaven forbid he hand the Democrats exactly what they want by walking directly into their trap.

And I admit, much of the nervousness I’m feeling right now stems from my suspicion that Trump is incapable of resisting.

Democrats only do what benefits them