by AM | Nov 22, 2023 | Aggregate
Javier Milei ran on MAGA—Make Argentina Great Again.
Milei won Argentina’s presidential election by a resounding 12-point margin on Sunday. The Chamber of Deputies member of the Liberty Advances coalition captured 56 percent of the vote; his opponent, the Peronist Minister of Economy Sergio Massa, took 44 percent.
Throughout Milei’s campaign, particularly since Milei’s surprise victory in the country’s primary in August, the corporate media has attempted to tarnish his image by casting Milei in the shadow of former President Donald Trump—just as it had done with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Italy’s Georgia Meloni. While these leaders all have considerable differences between one another and Trump—none could ever hope to fully become the 45th president of the United States in style or substance—the corporate media’s impulse to brand Milei and others as “mini-Trumps” is right, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Economic libertarians who detest Trump for his trade, immigration, and cultural protectionism sought to rebuff the Milei-Trump comparison in an effort to claim the Argentine’s victory as their own. While Trump sought tariffs, Milei seeks free trade; while Trump protected entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, Milei wants to slash Argentina’s social safety net; while Trump is tough on drugs, Milei is pro-legalization, they claimed. Yet it remains something of a mystery how Milei will govern when his term begins on December 10, given that he will be constrained by a coalition government in the legislature; Milei-loving libertarians are putting the cart before the horse.
The libertarian account of Milei’s victory also misses the forest for the trees. Political movements gain character and take shape not simply through policy, but through the lived experiences of the voters. The geopolitical environment that finds Milei ascendant has undeniably been shaped by Trump’s gravitational pull. Trump fully exposed the rot of the neoliberal order and the mediocrity of the managerial class. He relentlessly mocked the vain elites who demanded they be treated with decorum when all they had brought about was decline. “Build the wall” wasn’t just about border enforcement, it was about many voter’s experience of increasingly becoming strangers in their own land.
In an email to The American Conservative, Jose Saenz Crespo, program operations manager at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Latin American political analyst, and an Argentinian national, suggested that the Milei-Trump comparison was apt and “signifies a rejection of the status quo in Argentine politics.”
On Sunday, Milei’s movement capitalized on what Trump set in motion nearly a decade ago. In his victory speech, Milei said that a “caste” of elites have enriched themselves at the expense of the working and middle class in Argentina. “The model of decadence has come to an end, there’s no going back,” the president-elect said. Trump seems to know he deserves some credit for Milei’s win, too. In a social media post, Trump said he’s “very proud” of Milei and that Milei “will turn your country around and truly Make Argentina Great Again!”
Saenz Crespo said that Milei “represented a rupture with the decades-long decadence that Argentina has suffered in its 40 years of uninterrupted democratic [rule].” Milei, Saenz Crespo continued, is “seen as a symbol of change by many in the country who are tired of the same old politics.”
The voters’ lived experience was four decades of rule by a single governing ideology, and they were starved for change. Milei presented a way out, and they rewarded him for it. “Milei’s voter base in the 2023 elections was very diverse and cut across traditional demographics and socioeconomic lines,” Saenz Crespo told TAC. “The voters shared a common goal of seeking significant change due to political and economic dissatisfaction.”
“Milei’s party, ‘La Libertad Avanza,’ showed remarkable growth in popularity, jumping from 29.86% in the PASO elections to securing nearly 56% of votes in the runoff. This drastic increase in voter support, particularly from middle-ground voters, indicates a substantial realignment in Argentina’s political landscape,” Saenz Crespo said.
Nevertheless, Saenz Crespo told TAC that Milei faces an uphill battle with fully putting his agenda into action. “Despite winning the presidency, Milei’s party has modest representation in Congress, necessitating coalition governance,” Saenz Crespo wrote. “This coalition presidentialism involves aligning with various parties, including former president Macri’s PRO party, parts of the Radical party, and the Peronist movement, illustrating a new and complex political dynamic.”
The constraints Milei will face when he comes into office is an important reminder for those hoping to see the return of the MAGA king. If this is the uphill battle a “mini-Trump” is facing after efforts to keep him out of office fell flat, imagine what it will be like when it’s the real thing.
by AM | Nov 22, 2023 | Aggregate
Just over a year into Elon Musk’s hostile takeover of Twitter (now X), the social media platform’s approach to regulating speech is no less arbitrary than it was when Musk assumed control in October 2022. There have, however, been real victories for free speech and for the political right more broadly. While Musk’s most loyal fans tend to ignore or downplay his failures, his critics often understate his successes.
Before assessing where he’s fallen short, it’s worth taking a moment to consider what Musk has achieved: The very fact that the head of one of the most powerful platforms in the world is vocally right-wing, and routinely promotes conservative users and ideas, is unprecedented. That was evident in watershed moments like the release of the “Twitter files,” which Musk orchestrated in coordination with independent and right-leaning journalists, illuminating the corrupt alliance between Big Tech, powerful NGOs and advocacy groups, the “disinformation” industrial complex, and the federal bureaucracy. No one with any relationship to reality believes that these revelations would have ever seen the light of day under Twitter’s ancien regime.
Musk’s use of his digital bully pulpit to boost conservative causes is no small thing. Nor are substantive reforms such as the Community Notes function, which allows users to correct or add context to others’ tweets. In a tangible way, Community Notes has disempowered the “Trust and Safety” mafia that ran things in the pre-Musk era, leveling the ideological scales by applying an egalitarian scrutiny to left and right alike. (And inviting complaints of right-wing bias from some progressives.) X has also become a powerful ally in legal battles surrounding speech. In August, the company filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an anti-“disinformation” group seeking to pressure X into more stringent censorship; in September, it sued California in response to the state’s unprecedented internet censorship law.
Still, Musk’s sporadic victories have been punctuated by a number of major disappointments. While he played a pivotal role in the anti-censorship campaign against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) earlier this year, many of his ambitious promises—including his pledge to sue the ADL and release a “giant data dump” exposing the group’s efforts to lobby for censorship—never materialized. Similarly, while X sued the CCDH in response to a report in which the group accused X of tolerating “hate speech,” the platform subsequently suspended a large number of the accounts that were flagged in said report.
Despite Musk’s laudable pledge to govern X as a “free speech absolutist,” a March 2023 study found that censorship on the platform actually increased in the first four months of his takeover. While Musk himself has criticized gender ideology, censorship of “anti-trans” ideas and speech on X—including temporary bans of high-profile conservative journalists and at least one sitting member of Congress—have persisted under his leadership. While Musk promised (and briefly delivered on) a general amnesty for accounts suspended under previous Twitter leadership, he has presided over a succession of ban waves, often with no public rationale. Earlier this month, two British right-wing activists, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, were abruptly reinstated on X without explanation, while their counterparts in the Twitter gulag remained banned. It’s difficult to escape the sense that X’s decisions on these matters are being driven by internal political maneuvering rather than any objective standard.
It’s unclear if all this is due to active capitulations on Musk’s behalf, or if it’s a reflection of his failure to consolidate control over rogue elements in X’s content moderation team. But either way, the result is a sort of schizophrenia in the day-to-day X experience. Musk’s stated goal is for X to supplant websites like Rumble as the premier free-speech platform on the internet—and ultimately, to make X the new “digital town square.” But the frustrating inconsistency of X’s content moderation makes it difficult for would-be allies to aid in advancing his cause.
Uncertain freedom is preferable to certain censorship. But uncertainty also performs a censoring function of its own: On X, the sense that users are judged and punished for arbitrary, unpredictable, and unexplained reasons has a Kafkaesque dimension—“the proceedings gradually merge into the judgment.” The incoherent enforcement of ambiguous rules hangs over the head of every user, limiting and constraining their willingness to speak freely, even if they themselves are never the subject of direct censorship.
“Laws,” as Hayek argued, “must be general, equal, and certain.” The genius of the First Amendment lies, in part, in its realization of that standard for public discourse. Musk claims to want an approach to content moderation that allows for “maximum freedom of speech under the law.” But the law, at least in America, allows for a far greater sphere of speech than what is currently tolerated on X. The only way to overcome the biases in X’s speech regime—and to achieve the ideal of a free-speech platform—would be to actually bring X’s speech policies into alignment with the spirit of the Constitution itself.
To be explicit: What this means, among other things, is a reinstatement of the most controversial and censored voices in American politics—Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, Jared Taylor, and so on. If there were high-profile left-wingers who had yet to be reinstated, it would mean lifting their bans, too. (A number of left-wing accounts were briefly suspended in the early days of the Musk regime, but were quickly reinstated). Many self-styled free speech advocates will speak about internet censorship in broad terms, while going to great lengths to avoid saying the names of the most frequent subjects of that censorship, for fear of being accused of harboring ideological sympathy for the far-right. But that fear represents its own kind of capitulation; by implicitly accepting ideological limits to the free speech we’ll defend, we accept the very framework that enables and justifies censorship in the first place. It’s impossible to fight censorship if you refuse to specify the instances in which it occurs. Free speech belongs to all of us.
One can, of course, vehemently disagree with all of the remaining inmates of Twitter jail, but the battle for free speech in a rapidly changing digital world is bigger than any one person or ideology. Figures like Jones, Fuentes, and Taylor—as well as Milo Yiannopoulos and a number of others—just so happen to be the ones who are currently bearing the brunt of ideological censorship. If they have violated the “imminent lawless action” standard for illegal speech set by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, supporters of their censorship should make that case, preferably in a court of law. Until then, the onus is on opponents of reinstatement to explain why they oppose the animating spirit of the First Amendment.
For too long, advocates of internet censorship have been able to shroud the radicalism of their project in euphemisms and double-speak, claiming to support free speech and the Constitution while actively working to undermine both. The truth is, if constitutionally sanctioned speech is too dangerous for social media, it’s too dangerous for every other sphere of American life, too. Those who argue the former while tip-toeing around the latter should end the charade and call for repealing the First Amendment altogether. The rest of us should be fighting to ensure that its principles survive the revolutionary changes wrought by the internet.
In an important sense, X’s recent unbanning of Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins is a step in the right direction. But it also contributes to the deterioration of any kind of objective, coherent standard for speech on X. The old Twitter regime had a standard, albeit an absurdly biased, hypocritical, and unfair one; its policing of “misinformation” was grotesquely and obviously partisan, but it was in keeping with a reasonably predictable party line. We resented their ideological hostility, but we knew where they stood.
One year into the Musk era, Elon has the opportunity to lead a revolution in digital politics—not just by dismantling the old standard, but by instituting a new and better one. The world is bracing for a new war in the Middle East and a presidential election that promises to be unprecedented. Long-standing myths, dogmas, and narratives are being challenged, and new ones are vying to take their place. American civilization is beset by interlocking existential crises, from the ongoing invasion at our border to the weaponization of our governing institutions. Everything is changing, often in ways that few of us fully understand or desire. An old world is dying, and a new one struggles to be born.
Americans can muddle through all this, together, as we always have. But to do so, we must be able to speak freely. Our tradition of fierce political debate, stretching back to the first colonial taverns and newspapers, cannot survive if we accept the premise that certain political opinions are simply too odious to merit access to the new public square. In spite of the powerful opposition he faces, Musk must make good on his promise to transform X into a true free-speech platform. The stakes are nothing less than the fate of self-government in the digital age.
by AM | Nov 22, 2023 | Aggregate
Sixty years ago, the assassination of JFK violently robbed the country of its chosen future and darkened it for a generation, along with the Vietnam War and the upheaval of the Sixties. For some, grief begat laments and counterfactuals of brighter futures denied and, for others, justifications for a radicalism more poisonous than any previously witnessed in American history—one that plagues the country to this very day.
The sudden, violent murder of President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas convulsed the entire nation. Two aspects distinguished the event from previous assassinations.
First, news of the murder was relayed instantaneously around the world. In the new era of television, everyone knew and experienced a moment of shared universal grief at the same time.
Second, the grief was compounded by the apparent senselessness of the murder. Kennedy was the torchbearer of a new generation promising America a New Frontier; Lee Harvey Oswald, was a disturbed leftist intent on satisfying his own delusions of self-importance.
To those desperate for an explanation, the judgment rendered by journalist James Reston resonated loudly: “Somehow the worst in the nation had prevailed over the best…something in the nation itself, some strain of madness and violence.”
As posited by James Piereson, liberals, in particular, ingested this explanation, agreeing that the “real cause” of Kennedy’s murder was a perniciousness latent within America. Despite Oswald’s Marxist leanings, this perniciousness could be found in the opponents of progress, such as conservatives whose ideas were no more than “irritable mental gestures” and the racist reactionaries in “nut country.”
Indeed, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson, and other liberals moved expeditiously to give the tragedy purpose by obscuring Oswald’s radical leftism and crafting the myth of JFK as a martyr for civil rights.
According to this narrative, JFK was poised to lead the nation into a new era of race relations. Kennedy’s civil rights bill would have passed had it not been for the opposition from segregationists (within his own party). In the assassination’s aftermath, LBJ attached new urgency to the bill and championed its passage as a tribute to JFK.
Unfortunately, Johnson’s successes did not satisfy an increasingly restless segment of the civil rights movement, or a youthful cohort intoxicated by New Left heterodoxy. Dissatisfied leaders called for greater militancy and a departure from peaceful civil disobedience. Riots in numerous cities punctuated the growing frustration and, in response, Johnson appointed a commission to investigate the cause.
In 1968, the commission concluded its study and named the cause: white racism. Putatively, an America recognizing its racist past would be constructive, as it would spur Americans on to examine how to achieve a genuinely color-blind democracy.
The admission of guilt, however, did not satisfy militants; instead, they seized on the conclusion to assert that the entirety of American society was racist. Eventually radicals, black and white, declared themselves in possession of a new “consciousness”—an awareness of the “real truth”—that granted them the prerogative to condemn and, where possible, rectify such iniquities. Such consciousness amplified the collective guilt hypothesized by Reston.
According to Shelby Steele, this supposed consciousness led the African American community down a fateful path – once one realizes the entire system is racist, then one can conclude he or she will always be a victim. Furthermore, any attempt to integrate, seek advancement, or even adhere to prevailing norms would be futile, and more pointedly, would constitute faithlessness to this new consciousness.
The concurrence of black consciousness capitalizing on white guilt resulted in the former community’s trading its newfound freedom for the power to extort obligations from the latter. The latter acceded to these demands because doing so restored a measure of moral authority; by fulfilling the black community’s demands, whites could reassure themselves they were benefactors to black advancement.
In assuming this role, however, white liberals also incautiously accepted the blame for the metastasizing dysfunction within the African American community instead of holding black men and women accountable for the same transgressions they would decry in their own community.
By the mid-’70s, white guilt, black consciousness, and New Left radicalism converged in a “punitive liberalism” that aimed to eradicate the perniciousness underlying a seemingly inexhaustible list of American sins—greed, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, slavery, genocide, environmental destruction, militarism, and imperialism.
Because punitive liberals self-righteously accept collective guilt and possess an enlightened consciousness, they believe themselves justified in constructing an alternate morality and acquiring the authority to enforce it.
In terms of practical politics, punitive liberalism cultivated a network of identity-based interest groups focused on promoting and taking advantage of this sense of historical guilt. In terms of policy, punitive liberalism enacted affirmative action, environmental regulations, and welfare entitlements; abandoned longtime Cold War allies; and, campaigned for unilateral disarmament.
By the end of the ’70s, punitive liberal policies had sapped the vitality and ambition of Americans, supplanting the standbys of enterprise and resilience with restrictions and dependency. The ensuing stagnation only convinced punitive liberals of the need for more regulations and welfare.
The vicious cycle slowly ensnared more and more Americans, and cruelly so, just as changing global economic circumstances shifted the U.S. from an industrial economy to a knowledge-based economy.
The new “cognitive elite” emerged at the vanguard of the modern information economy, and as Charles Murray has explained, it was distinguishable from its agrarian and industrial predecessors in that it had relinquished the obligation to espouse and model the civic and moral virtues that others should emulate if the polity is to remain prosperous and whole.
Indeed, the cognitive elite, increasingly segregated in gated clusters around the country, continues to marry, raise children, earn high incomes, forsake vice, and attend church at rates far greater than the rest of the population. Meanwhile, more and more average Americans succumb to the dysfunctions once only observed in the underclass.
Unburdened by this traditional role, the cognitive elite sought to “fundamentally transform” the country, which was achievable, in part, if it ensured the enlightenment of the next generation in accordance with its ideological precepts.
While the cognitive elite is prevalent, it is not pervasive. Having failed to achieve the revolution dreamed by its New Left forerunners, punitive liberals have instead sought to capture the entire edifice of America’s educational institutions—from primary learning to post-graduate studies.
Christopher Rufo has extensively documented this undertaking whereby leftist radicals have transmuted the dogma of collective guilt and identity consciousness into a pedagogy and curriculum of critical race theory in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian premises of the American Creed.
This evolution explains how the sunny triumphalism of JFK gave way to the dour defeatism of Jimmy Carter and then the cavalier conceit and condescension of Barack Obama.
This evolution explains how the Democratic Party, home of FDR and Truman, the vanquisher of Nazism and the champion of an independent Israel, became the platform for the anti-Semitic defense of Palestinian radicalism.
This evolution explains how the academic delinquents who accused American soldiers returning from Vietnam of killing babies spawned the faux intellectual elite unapologetically declaring their support for Hamas terrorists who murdered babies.
On this day, Americans lament more than the tragic death of a young president; on this day, Americans lament the nihilism born from those who were incapable of accepting its senselessness.
by AM | Nov 21, 2023 | Aggregate
Actress Susan Sarandon went full terror apologist at a rally on Friday in New York City.
Dressed like the tired old hippy she is, she spoke to the crowd, asserting, ‘There are a lot of people afraid of being Jewish at this time and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country.’
Sarandon did not, however, provide examples of Muslims in the US being murdered, raped, and kidnapped by terrorists.
The New York Post reports that Sarandon also joined the crowd in chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” an anti-Semitic genocidal slogan that implies the decimation of Israel.
According to Fox News, Sarandon has now been dropped as a client of UTA, a major Hollywood agency, following her remarks, “A UTA spokesperson confirmed to Fox News Digital Sarandon is no longer repped by them.”
Author Asra Nomani, who was born into a Muslim family, took Sarandon to task on X for her twisted viewpoint.
“Let me give you ‘a taste’ of what it ‘feels like’ to be a Muslim in America:”
“My dad didn’t have to become a second-class indentured servant to one of the many tyrants of Muslim countries that use immigrants from India, like my family, as essential slaves. In 1975, after getting his PhD at Rutgers, he was about to go to Libya — a Muslim country — led by a Muslim, Moammar Qhadafi, to work like a servant with a PhD for a wealthy dictator…but then the phone rang one day and I picked it up…”
“My mom? Being Muslim in America meant she got to live FREE with the wind in her hair, like @AlinejadMasih fights for women in the Muslim nation of Iran to be able to enjoy.”
“In another ‘taste’ of being Muslim in America? My family got a pathway to citizenship. You think the Muslim dictatorship of Qatar allows a pathway to citizenship for Muslim slaves, servants or Palestinian Muslims? Hell no. The Muslim Al-Thani family just buys citizenship for Muslim soccer stars from countries in Africa to steal World Cup wins. But otherwise it treats non-Qatari Muslims like slaves. America? My family waited, took the test, studied the constitution and we are citizens — hallelujah!”
“This is a ‘taste’ of life for a Muslim family in America. Please don’t minimize the experience of Jewish Americans by sanitizing the hell that it is for Muslims living in Muslim countries and vilifying America for the life — and freedoms — she offers Muslims like my family. Go, live like a Muslim woman in a Muslim country. You will come back to America and kiss the land beneath your feet.”
Hi there @SusanSarandon, this is my mom, my dad and me on the rail trail in Morgantown, West by God Virginia. Let me tell you what it means to be Muslim in America.
First, your backstory: At an anti-Israel protest in NYC, you just said, “There are a lot of people that are… pic.twitter.com/zAyUjpTxkY
— Asra Nomani (@AsraNomani) November 20, 2023
Saradon’s X feed is filled with reposts of anti-semitic posts and support for Hamas terror apologists including former Pink Floyd bassist Roger Waters.
The Gateway Pundit reported on Waters’s anti-Semitic positions, including denying Hamas’ responsibility for the October 7 attacks. Waters also called on the Israeli government to stop the “genocide” against the Palestinian people, openly aligning himself with Hamas terrorists.
Sarandon also shared a post by political commentator Jackson Hinkle suggesting that Israel murdered its own civilians on Oct. 7.
Hinkle’s post, shared by Sarandon, read: “ISRAEL AND HAARETZ (Israeli media) have now confined [sic] that an ISRAELI HELICOPTER MURDERED ISRAELI CIVILIANS ON OCTOBER 7.”
Haaretz’s “report” suggested an Israeli police helicopter responding to the massacre at the music festival may have accidentally killed civilians.
Israel Police has disputed Haaretz’s report.
Watch:
The post Actress Susan Sarandon Dropped By Agency After Disgusting Remarks at NYC Pro-Palestine Rally: Jews ‘Are Getting a Taste of What it Feels Like to be Muslim in This Country’ (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
by AM | Nov 21, 2023 | Aggregate
Controversy is brewing at a North Dakota Air Force base after its leadership issued a warning to service members cautioning against attending a downtown rally featuring a pro-Trump speaker.
The message, shared with personnel via text, advised individuals to exercise caution downtown and highlighted the potential dangers associated with the “Dakota Patriot Rally,” which took place on November 17 at the state fairgrounds in Minot.
The warning specifically noted concerns of confrontational behavior toward military members during the event. Additionally, the message mentioned that the rally would feature a guest speaker, Tyler Bowyer from Turning Point USA, categorized as an “alt-right” organization.
Photo: Tyler Bowyer/Turning Point USA
Below is the message shared on the Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page:
“Leaders, please exercise caution if downtown this weekend. I’ve included a text from the 5SFS/CCF. Please pass along to your team and ask them to be careful and reach out for any concerns. We just got word of an event going at the fairgrounds downtown, called Dakota Patriot Rally. Its guest speaker is from an alt-right organization called Turning Point Action. Please advise your folks that if they are going to be downtown this weekend, it’s good to be cautious, as the crowds this event may attract could be confrontational to military members. Additionally please remind them that participation with groups such as Turning Point Action could jeopardize their continued service in the US military.”
Photo: Air Force amn/nco/snco/Facebook
Photo: Air Force amn/nco/snco/Facebook
Turning Point Action, in response, has expressed outrage over the base’s message. A spokesperson for the organization spoke with Fox News and criticized the base leadership for dissuading service members from associating with conservative groups. The spokesperson emphasized that Turning Point Action is a mainstream conservative group and not “alt-right.” They also highlighted Tyler Bowyer’s credentials, noting his role as COO of TPAction and his history as a political organizer.
The spokesperson’s statement called for a congressional hearing and investigation into the matter, arguing that such warnings are unjustified and harm the relationship between the military and conservative organizations.
“How dare they dissuade servicemen and women from affiliating with conservative groups and leaders,” the spokesperson told Fox News. “This should set off alarm bells throughout North Dakota and DC, that something is terribly wrong at the Minot Air Force base. This also warrants an immediate congressional hearing and investigation, and whoever is responsible should be held accountable. It’s exactly this type of poison that has caused the Air Force to miss its recruiting goal for the first time in decades.”
Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, released the following statement:
The DoD has declared WAR on conservatives. Congress should immediately investigate this absurd, unhinged threat.
On the condition of anonymity, I have now heard directly from servicemen at this Air Force base who have confirmed these texts are real.
Their firsthand accounts reveal that while the base is made up mostly of conservatives, all leadership that has been promoted under Joe Biden now skews FAR LEFT.
All white, Christian conservatives are marginalized. DEI and CRT are pumped into everything the commanders at the base do. All promotions and awards are given to those who buy into ideological based trainings.
They also tell me conservatives are leaving the military in droves, recruiting is abysmal and instead of changing directions, the leadership is doubling down.
Joe Biden and the far-left are actively undermining our military readiness and America’s national security.
Kirk added, “So on the same day we find out that the Air Force threatened airmen with expulsion from the military if they participate in an event with Turning Point the Pentagon asks for $114 million to spend on “diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility” in the next year. Defund!!”
Several lawmakers are now threatening to subpoena the US Air Force and demand explanations.
Rep. Matt Gaetz wrote on X, “Whoever thought sending this message out was a good idea is definitely gonna be answering questions under oath in the Armed Services Committee.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna responded to Gaetz’s warning, saying, “[US Air Force] see you in DC!”
.@usairforce see you in DC! https://t.co/orlTL7yUp4
— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) November 21, 2023
Rep. Jim Banks is now demanding answers from the US Air Force.
“The Biden DoD has declared war on its political enemies. I am demanding answers from the Air Force about this partisan weaponization of our military!!” Banks wrote.
“Participation with groups such as Turning Point Action could jeopardize their continued service in the US military.”
The Biden DoD has declared war on its political enemies.
I am demanding answers from the Air Force about this partisan weaponization of our military!!…
— Jim Banks (@RepJimBanks) November 21, 2023
Rep. Mark Green wrote, “If true, this is a serious violation of DOD policy. When out of uniform and off-base, our servicemembers have the constitutional right to attend political events.”
Senator Kevin Cramer released the following statement:
“First of all, if somebody disguised as a ‘leader’ at Minot Air Force Base actually put out this hyper partisan left wing political message, they need to rescind it immediately. They need to apologize for it profusely and then they need to encourage the airmen at Minot Air Force Base who are inclined to attend a conservative, traditional American values rally to do exactly that and bring a friend. Then that leader, the so-called leader needs to be removed from their position.
“Unfortunately, these left wing political messages are way too common in our military these days, and that needs to be stopped. We need to get our military focused on what they’re supposed to be doing, and that is their own mission. They all have a collective mission and individual missions. At Minot, they just happen to carry the heavy burden, responsibility, and great honor of having two of the three legs of the nuclear triad. In other words, they are as responsible, if not more responsible than anybody in the world for deterring our enemies: the enemies of freedom, the enemies of America, and the enemies of America’s allies. We need them to get focused on that and get off of the DEI woke nonsense that’s infiltrated our military, and now infiltrated North Dakota. Let’s get to the mission.”
The post North Dakota Air Force Base Warns Airmen Against Attending Pro-Trump ‘Tyler Bowyer’ Rally of Turning Point USA or Risk ‘Jeopardizing’ Military Career appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
