Our Military Needs More Than Money - It Needs Reform

 This is part of an editorial from The New York Times editorial board: 

On paper, the war in Iran should not be much of a contest. The United States spends around $1 trillion a year on its military, more than 100 times as much as Iran. That money buys a vastly larger Air Force and Navy, as well as advanced weapons technologies that Iranian generals can only dream about.

In the war’s early days, the mismatch played out as one might expect. American forces destroyed much of the Iranian military. Now, however, the contest looks less one-sided. Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz, and its missiles and drones still threaten America’s allies in the region. While President Trump seems eager for a negotiated truce, Iran’s leaders do not. Somehow, the weaker nation is in the stronger negotiating position.

That reality exposes the vulnerabilities in the American way of war. Tactical success has not yielded victory. Mr. Trump’s recklessness in conducting the war is one reason. But the problem is bigger than any single commander in chief. The United States has left itself unprepared for modern war.

America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on ships and planes that are good at defeating competitors’ ships and planes but ineffective against cheaper, mass-produced weapons. The American economy does not have the industrial capacity to produce enough of the weapons and equipment it does need. And the country has struggled to fix these problems because of a sclerotic government and a consolidated defense industry that resists change.

Three months before Mr. Trump attacked Iran, we warned that the United States was at risk of being overmatched in the wars of the future. The last two months have shown that alarm was justified. The war in Iran, unwise as it is, should serve as a warning about the rising threats to American security and an incentive to fix them.

“Never in recorded history has a nation’s military been so quickly and effectively neutralized,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claimed on March 26. The next day, Iran launched a drone and missile attack on an American base in Saudi Arabia that wounded more than a dozen service members, destroyed a radar surveillance plane and damaged at least two refueling tankers.

The immediate debunking of Mr. Hegseth’s bombast points to the reform agenda that America’s military needs. There are four main priorities.

First, the United States needs to invest in counter-drone technologies, like those that Ukraine has developed in its war against Russia. The lack of such defenses is one reason that the vaunted U.S. Navy has been unable to prevent the closure of a vital waterway, the Strait of Hormuz.

Second, the United States needs more of its own cheap, disposable weapons like one-way attack drones and unmanned ships. Although much of the war in Ukraine has been fought by mass-produced drones, the Pentagon is pouring money into much more complex equipment, including pilotless “wingmen” that can fly alongside a piloted plane.

Third, the country needs larger and more flexible industrial capacity. Until recently, a single factory made all of America’s Tomahawk cruise missiles, and there is a constant shortage of Patriot missile interceptors. Congress should pass laws that help the private sector build up its manufacturing capacity. The Pentagon, for its part, needs to stop buying so many of its weapons from just five big weapons makers and start betting on dynamic tech companies that can quickly adapt.

Lastly, the United States needs to collaborate with other industrialized democracies. Mr. Trump’s pleas for help in reopening the Strait of Hormuz from the very allies he spurned at the start of the war is just the latest proof that America can’t go it alone. In the years ahead, keeping pace with China’s economic and military expansion will require collaborating with like-minded democracies.

All of these steps are not merely about winning the next war. They also can help prevent it — by making our enemies believe they would lose any war they start. . . .

The good news is that Congress, the administration and the Pentagon can all now see our military shortcomings. The bad news is that our adversaries can see them too. Washington can no longer just talk about reforming the military. It has to do it, or risk making the disappointments in the Iran war become a preview of far worse.

New Poll Shows Voters Want ICE Reformed

 

The charts above are from the Searchlight Institute / Tavern Research Poll -- done between January 23rd and 26th of a nationwide sample of 1,502 likely 2026 voters, with a 3.9 point margin of error.

President Biden Calls For Supreme Court Reform

The following post in The Washington Post was written by President Biden:

This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.

If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.

And that’s only the beginning.

On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.

What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is noimmunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.

Words Are Not Enough - We Need Police Reform NOW

 

The following op-ed is by Charles M. Blow in The New York Times:

The spectacle of a televised countdown to the showing of the video in which Tyre Nichols was savagely beaten by Memphis police officers doesn’t just theatricalize Black death; it is a damning indictment of American perversion.

It was horrific, as promised, but unfortunately not singularly so. It was instead yet another data point in a long line of videos showing the torturing of Black bodies by police. It was more snuff porn with Black victims in a country becoming desensitized to the violence because of its sheer volume.

America — and the world — had the realization that police violence was a problem, and then it simply walked away before the work was done and the war was won.

After the killing of George Floyd in 2020 and the historic summer of protest that followed, police killings of American citizens didn’t decrease; they increased. What fell away were the evanescent allies, poll-chasing politicians and cooped-up Covid kids who had used the protests as an opportunity to congregate.

Even Black people’s support for the Black Lives Matter movement eventually began to fall.

And as Americans shifted to other priorities like politics and the economy, the broader public became desensitized to police killings, or it callously started to see the police killings as unfortunate but ultimately acceptable byproducts of much-needed increased policing at a time of rising crime.

To break through, a killing would have to be truly gruesome and barbaric, the circumstances around it truly ghoulish and the victim of it truly unassailable.

That case has now arrived with the death of Nichols, a Black man, after his horrific beating at the hands of five Black Memphis police officers.

Authorities moved relatively quickly to fire, arrest and aggressively charge the officers.

But instead of leaping to my feet to applaud a system working as it should, rather than as it was designed, I am stuck on the fact that there should have been federal legislation to prevent such killings.

But there wasn’t, and there isn’t, because America has once again failed Black people who were pleading for help and demanding it.

America should be ashamed. It abandoned the issue of police reform.

After Covid lockdowns eased and people were once again gathered for things other than protest, their priorities snapped back to a noninterventionist normality. Their cabin-fever racial consciousness was like some kind of delirium, an outgrowth of end-of-the-world ideations.

As the world reopened, elections approached and crime and inflation rose in tandem, interest in police reform and protecting Black lives from police violence melted away like ice cubes on a summer sidewalk.

And with it, America was taught some horrendous lessons that do more harm to the quest for equality than the protests did to promote it.

Black people were taught that for some, interest in their safety had simply been a dernier cri, that allyship could be transitory and transactional, that some people entered the fight through a turnstile and that when their interest and energy waned, they exited the same way.

Too many liberal politicians showed us that their commitment to legislation, and even language, to protect Black lives from police violence was polling dependent, not rooted in moral rectitude or core values but governed by their ideas’ public appeal. When the winds shifted, these politicians spun like a weather vane.

They ran scared of being labeled woke or supporting a “defund the police” ideology. Rather than rebrand a laudable effort to be smarter about how municipal funds are allocated with a more acceptable slogan, they did the lazy, politically expedient thing: They raced to neutralize the idea by proclaiming their direct opposition to it, not defunding the police but increasing funding to police.

Police unions also learned a lesson: that they could survive the most intense and coordinated denunciation of their practices they had ever faced and still dodge federal legislation to address the violence that happens on their watch.

Yes, states like California and New York moved quickly, while the issue was still in vogue, to rewrite some criminal codes, and a smattering of cities increased protection by doing things like strengthening “duty to intervene” policies, but national reform remained elusive.

If there are rare occasions to employ a cliché, this is one: They dodged the bullet.

If there is a silver lining in all of this, it is at present an anecdotal one. It is the seeming impact that Black women have had to disrupt the system when given power not necessarily to prevent violent excesses but at least to punish them.

The police chief who moved quickly to fire the officers in the Nichols case is a Black woman.

When Rayshard Brooks was killed in Atlanta at a drive-through, the mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, a Black woman, accepted the resignation of her police chief and decided that the officers should be fired immediately. (Unfortunately, the officers were not eventually charged in the case, sued the city and were reinstated.)

When a white Dallas police officer, Amber Guyger, walked into the apartment of Botham Shem Jean and shot him to death, Police Chief U. Reneé Hall, a Black woman, moved quickly to secure a warrant for the officer’s arrest. Guyger was convicted of murder in the case.

I don’t want to imply that a handful of cases are universally revelatory but to circle them as curiosities worthy of keeping an eye on.

Rather than pointing to a system that is evolving and becoming more humane, these examples only underscore the racialized nature of the system and how slow it has been to act in places where neither the people in power nor the accused officers were Black.

Tyre Nichols’s death isn’t only an individual tragedy; he is now a marquee victim of a predacious system that America has lost its willingness to confront. The untreated wound, still festering, bled through the gauze.

U.S. Public Wants Police Reform (But Not Defunding)

These charts are from a survey by the Gallup Poll -- done between April 24th and May 7th of a nationwide sample of 12,096 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

Electoral College Reform Could Prevent A 2024 Trump Coup

There doesn't seem to be much hope of passing legislation to protect voting rights this year. Senators Sinema and Manchin (along with 50 Republicans) killed that hope when they chose to defend the filibuster over voting rights. But some reform may be possible -- a reform of the Electoral College. This could prevent another attempt by Donald Trump to overturn voting results by misusing the Electoral College -- as he attempted to do in 2020-21.

Here are some of Greg Sargents comments about the EC reform effort in The Washington Post:

In a welcome turn of events, a new plan to “Trump proof” the 2024 election is advancing in Congress. Surprisingly, it appears to have some Republican support.

And Donald Trump is in a fury over it.

The plan in question concerns reform of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which governs how Congress counts electoral votes. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) has introduced an ECA reform bill, and a bipartisan group of senators is negotiating another version.

These seek to patch holes in the ECA that Trump relentlessly tried to exploit to overturn his 2020 loss. Which may be why Trump has issued two statements raging about these efforts. . . .

King’s proposal would clarify the vice president’s role as ceremonial, which is necessary. But that isn’t what would thwart a coup rerun, because on Jan. 6, 2025, Kamala Harris will presumably be vice president.

However, other things in the King proposal likely would thwart a future attempt.

One danger is that a single GOP governor and/or state legislature could send a fake slate of electors to Congress, defying a Democratic popular vote win, in a state set to decide the election.

A GOP-controlled House could count those sham electors. Under the current ECA, a single slate only gets tossed if both chambers vote to invalidate it. In that scenario, the Republican might win.

So the King bill would trigger a new process of judicial review if electors are appointed in defiance of a state’s previously existing procedures. When courts declare those electors invalid — and validate the winner’s electors — the King bill would require Congress to count the right ones.

“The right principle here is that once courts have spoken on who the valid electors are, Congress’s hands are tied,” Matthew Seligman, a legal scholar who specializes in the ECA, told me. “They have to count those electors.”

Another danger: A GOP-controlled House and Senate could refuse to count a state’s legitimately appointed electors. So King’s bill would raise the threshold to invalidate electors from a simple majority to an elusive three-fifths in both chambers. The bipartisan group also appears supportive of such a fix.

The differences between now and last time are crucial. In addition to pressuring Pence, Trump tried to get state legislatures to send fake electors and got dozens of congressional Republicans to object to Biden electors.

Both failed. But now, Trump is supporting many candidates for state-level offices who have pledged fealty to his 2020 lies — and likely would execute such schemes in 2024. His gubernatorial candidate in Georgia is running on an implicit promise to do just this.

If a corrupt secretary of state or governor does help send fake electors, do you doubt that a Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) would count them?

ECA reform would cut off these pathways at a time when Trump himself is telegraphing his intentions to exploit those pathways.

There Are Far Too Many Police Killings In The United States

There are far too many police killings in this country -- of people of all races. After the unjustified police murder of George Floyd, many thought that something would finally be done. That police reform would finally happen. But so far, Congress has done nothing!

That is primarily because of Republicans threatening to filibuster police reform in the Senate. The House has passed a pretty good police reform bill, but the Senate has failed to come up with a bill that Republicans would accept.

The problem is police immunity from being sued over gross misconduct. Republicans want to keep the police immunity. But real reform must include doing away with that immunity. No other profession is immune from being sued, and the police shouldn't be immune either.

The following is part of an op-ed by Rev. Al Sharpton at MSNBC.com:

For nearly four decades, I have stood alongside grieving families, preached at funerals, led marches against police brutality and fought on behalf of people who are voiceless. It never gets any easier when you receive that phone call about another death at the hands of law enforcement or hear the pain in the voice of a parent or grandparent who now has to bury a child or loved one because of police misconduct.

Recently, I received one such call about a 17-year-old teenager in Arkansas named Hunter Brittain. Young Hunter was unarmed and holding only a bottle of antifreeze for his car when he was shot three times by a sheriff’s deputy. I have demanded justice for countless other victims of police brutality, and we demand justice now for Hunter and his family.

Hunter was white, a fact that may surprise people familiar with the cases I have represented in the past. But in this case, as in all the cases I have taken, it isn’t just about Black or white; it’s about what’s right and wrong. We don’t just stand up for one race; we come for what is right, period. 

On June 23, Hunter’s life was cut short when a Lonoke County sheriff’s deputy fatally shot him during a traffic stop. According to his family members, he went to place a large blue plastic bottle of antifreeze behind a tire to prevent his car from rolling backward as it was having mechanical problems. It’s at that point that the officer, Michael Davis, shot the 17-year-old three times.

Conveniently, this officer didn’t have his body camera turned on, so no footage exists of the horrific shooting. The family said they are still awaiting answers and are seeking accountability for a young man who had his entire life ahead of him. . . .

It is long past time that we end qualified immunity, which shields police officers from being held personally accountable in civil lawsuits.

Ending this practice is one of the components of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House in March but has since stalled in the Senate because of Republican objections. The bill also bans chokeholds and no-knock warrants, requires the use of bodycams and so much more. This act must pass and become law so there are national standards that protect all of us from bad officers.

In the first half of 2021 alone, police have already killed 530 people, according to the research collective Mapping Police Violence. As a result, there have only been nine days this year where police did not kill someone. In 2020, 27 percent of people killed by police were Black, despite being only 13 percent of the population. It is simply unconscionable that this is the reality in the most powerful advanced nation in the world. The horrific death of young Hunter Brittain sadly shows us that no one is safe until there is true police reform and accountability. . . .

As I stated at his service, Hunter had a bottle of antifreeze, and perhaps that is the message: We must unfreeze hearts because for too long we have been frozen in our own race, our own class, our own comfort levels. He is no longer with us in the physical sense, but his spirit is calling us to get out of our frozen place and unite, stand together, march together and fight together for true justice for all.

Chauvin Was Sentenced - Now We Must Reform Policing

The sentence has been passed on Derek Chauvin for murdering George Floyd. The judge gave him a 22.5 year sentence. I understand those who think the sentence was too light. Personally, I thought the prosecution's asking for a 30 year sentence was about right. But 22.5 years in prison is NOT a "slap on the wrist". It's about 10 years above the sentence recommended by law, and is a reasonable sentence for that state.

But Chauvin's sentencing did not solve the problem with policing in America. Much more remains to be done to eliminate the systemic racism that permeates too many police departments in this country.

Here is the editorial published by the editorial board of The Washington Post:

Minneapolis Judge Peter A. Cahill on Friday sentenced former police officer Derek Chauvin to 22.5 years in prison for murdering George Floyd last May. The sentencing cannot bring back Floyd, erase the pain his killing inflicted on countless people or solve the nation’s ongoing problem with racism in policing. But it should bring a measure of satisfaction that justice was served and assure Americans that the system is not hopelessly broken. 

Yet that is not the standard to which a country premised on equality before the law should hold its criminal justice system. Policing in the United States could be more effective and less threatening to minority communities. Officers who commit wrongdoings could face more certain punishments. Floyd’s death last spring appeared to spur a reckoning on U.S. policing, but that momentum has slowed in recent months.

A case in point is the effort in Congress to pass a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. Negotiators had hoped to strike a deal by the May 25 anniversary of Floyd’s murder. Then they aimed to finish by Mr. Chauvin’s sentencing. Both deadlines have now passed. Negotiators said Thursday that they had made substantial progress. But they also admitted that finishing the talks would be difficult, and the Senate has recessed for two weeks. After lawmakers return, their attention will be on major infrastructure bills, and the window to act may close as the 2022 midterm elections approach.

House Democrats passed in March a sweeping policing reform bill that would create a national police misconduct database, impose new police training requirements, make it easier for federal attorneys to prosecute police abuses, and ban chokeholds and no-knock warrants. It would also curb “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine shielding police officers from civil lawsuits — and thereby discouraging people with legitimate claims against police from seeking redress. But Republicans oppose the plan, dooming its prospects in the Senate.

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), along with Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), have sought compromise on qualified immunity and on how much to enable federal prosecutors to pursue criminal civil rights cases against officers. But they have yet to complete a deal.

They must keep trying, and not by simply giving up on issues such as qualified immunity. The Supreme Court imposed this doctrine with thin grounding in statutory text. It immunizes officers from civil penalties unless they commit a “clearly established” constitutional violation, which may not include even outrageous abuses unless officers have been successfully sued for similar violations in the past. Congress should clarify that federal law is not as permissive as the courts have declared. Mr. Booker has proposed limiting qualified immunity by placing more liability on police departments, rather than individual officers, a fair compromise that would give departments and their political overseers more incentive to restrain police violence.

George Floyd has been dead a year. His killer will be in prison for two decades to come. But his legacy is still up in the air.

Ronald Greene's Death Verifies The Need For Police Reform

We are only a couple of days past the anniversary of George Floyd's murder by police, and sadly, nothing has been done on the federal level to reform police departments in the country.

In fact, more incidents of unnecessary police violence is being uncovered. 

More than a year ago, Ronald Greene died after a police chase in Louisiana. The Louisiana State Police said he died when his car struck a tree at the end of that chase. That was a lie!

Video has been recently released that shows Greene was repeatedly tased and beaten after being taken into police custody -- and that was far more likely to have been the cause of his death. In other words, it was another police murder!

At the very least, this is just one more incident showing that police reform is needed in the United States. Far too many people are killed by the police in the U.S., and far too many of them are minorities (especially Blacks).

The following editorial was written by the editorial board of The Washington Post:

RELATIVES OF Ronald Greene said authorities initially told them he died on impact after he failed to pull over for a traffic violation, was chased by Louisiana state troopers and crashed his vehicle into a tree shortly after midnight on May 10, 2019. A one-page statement later issued by police said he was taken into custody after struggling with troopers, became unresponsive and died on the way to the hospital. We now know, thanks to body-cam footage obtained by the Associated Press, that there is far more — horrifyingly more — to the story of how this 49-year-old Black man died. And once again, troubling questions are raised about the conduct, character and credibility of police that underscore the need for reform.

“Okay, okay. I’m sorry. I’m scared. Officer, I’m scared, I’m your brother, I’m scared,” Greene can be heard telling the White troopers as he is subjected to agonizing and brutalizing treatment. He was repeatedly jolted with a stun gun, wrestled to the ground, put in a chokehold, punched in the face and dragged by shackles on his ankles as he lay on the ground. He was left unattended, handcuffed and prone for several minutes — a practice that use-of-force experts deem as dangerous. According to the autopsy, he died due to “cocaine induced agitated delirium complicated by motor vehicle collision, physical struggle, inflicted head injury, and restraint.” But no manner of death was specified and, according to the AP, police withheld basic documents from the coroner. “Does not add up” was the judgment of the emergency room doctor who questioned the initial account that Greene had died on impact as result of a car crash.

The shifting stories and secrecy smack of a coverup. State police at one point argued the use of force was justified — “awful but lawful” — and did not open an administrative investigation until 474 days after Greene’s death. Troopers so far have faced limited repercussions: The officer who dragged Greene by his ankles was given a 50-hour suspension and returned to active duty. A federal investigation is now underway that could hold law enforcement accountable. The family has also filed a wrongful-death suit.

Greene’s death came a year before that of George Floyd and the release of the video footage coincided with the first anniversary of Floyd’s murder, a case that put an international spotlight on the police brutality that has long victimized Black people. It’s impossible to watch the graphic video of Greene pleading to police and not think of Floyd crying for help under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. How many other cases are there of Black people needlessly killed by police where no video exists that would undermine the official police accounts?

In the wake of Floyd’s death, there have been some modest police reforms on the state and local levels, but federal legislation has stalled in the Senate over disagreement about eliminating the qualified immunity that shields police officers. “I beat the ever-living f--- out of him,” one trooper said of Ronald Greene in chatter picked up on his body-camera mic.

The system is broken, and it is time to fix it so that the people who need protection get it.

Can The GOP Be Reformed Or Is A New Party Necessary?

Rep. Liz Cheney, in her act of political courage, has shown us that not all Republicans are Trump toadies. And she's not alone.

A group of over 150 Republicans, many of them past officials of the party and the government, have gotten together to oppose Trump ownership of the current Republican Party.

Their aim is to reform the party, or start a new party -- free from the sick influence of Trump. And in a change from the current party (which has no principles except fealty to Trump), they have issued a manifesto with guiding principles.

Here, from Deseret.com, is a copy of that manifesto:

These United States, born of noble convictions and aspiring to high purpose, have been an exemplar of self-government to humankind. Thus, when in our democratic republic, forces of conspiracy, division, and despotism arise, it is the patriotic duty of citizens to act collectively in defense of liberty and justice. We, therefore, declare our intent to catalyze an American renewal, and to either reimagine a party dedicated to our founding ideals or else hasten the creation of such an alternative. We call for a rebirth of the American cause and do so in partnership and loyal competition with others committed to the preservation of our Union. With abiding belief in the value and potential of every soul and with goodwill for all, we hereby dedicate ourselves to these principles and make common cause in the flourishing of this great nation and its diverse states, communities, and citizens. 

Democracy. We seek the preservation and betterment of our democratic republic and the endurance of our self-government, free from interference and defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We support reforms that make our system more accessible, transparent, and competitive, oppose the disenfranchisement of voters, and reject populism and illiberalism, whether of the right or the left.

Founding Ideals. We reaffirm the self-evident truth that all persons are created equal and free, having the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that it is the prerogative of all to make personal decisions in accordance with their free will. We, therefore, condemn all forms of bigotry such as racism, religious intolerance, sexism, and persecution based on sexual orientation.

Constitutional Order. We uphold the Constitution as the inviolable and collective contract protecting liberty and justice for all, and honor the essential separation and balance it establishes among coequal branches of the federal government and the states.

Truth. We recognize truth and reason as essential to a free and just society, and expect our leaders, citizens, and press to seek and promote them. We oppose the employment of fear-mongering, conspiracism, and falsehoods and instead support evidence-based policymaking and honest discourse.

Rule of Law. We maintain that the impartial rule of law is essential to a free and just society to protect the rights and property of all people. No one is above the law, and our criminal justice system must treat everyone equally without discrimination based on race, status or other unrelated factors.

Ethical Government. We demand that public officials and aspiring leaders — regardless of party — act with integrity and honor, the absence of which is a harbinger for abuses of power that threaten the republic.

Pluralism. We are committed to a pluralistic society defined by its ideals and welcoming to all peoples rightfully seeking safety, opportunity, and a better life by becoming contributing members of our diverse nation. We reject the notion that America should be characterized by the races, birthplaces, religious affiliations, or partisan identities of its citizens.

Civic Responsibility. We believe that all Americans share civic responsibility, which is essential for our self-government and national success. Thriving communities are built by faithfully engaged citizens working to overcome differences with mutual respect and the bonds of civil affection. The solutions to many of America’s greatest challenges can only be found in our diverse communities.

Opportunity. We recognize open, market-based economies as consistent with our natural liberty and the optimal means of ensuring economic mobility and the allocation of scarce resources. We support sensible and limited regulation, including to ensure equal opportunity, and affirm government’s vital role in assisting vulnerable citizens, while encouraging self-reliance and ingenuity without the impediments of cronyism and corruption.

Free Speech. We reaffirm the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech and freedom of the press as essential to accountable government and the American way of life. We sustain the rights of individuals and private entities to exercise this freedom, even to express unpopular views, and condemn efforts to erode press freedom and public support for its vital role.

Conservation. We consider vital our shared stewardship of America’s resources — natural, environmental, and financial. We accept responsibility to conserve for ourselves and future generations these public assets, and to protect them from both natural and man-made harms.

Common Defense & Welfare. We uphold that government is instituted by the people to secure those essential, collective goods that individuals cannot attain for themselves, particularly providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. We, therefore, support policies that further public safety, health, and defense as required for enduring national sovereignty and prosperity.

Leadership. Having thrived in the abundance of a choice land, we believe that these United States must work in conjunction with friends and allies to advance worthy interests abroad and to promote freedom by example and with the judicious application of power.

Andrew Sagor; Anthony Scaramucci; Arne Carlson; Barbara Comstock; Bill Weld; Bob Inglis; Bob Worsley; Bob Yudin; Bobbie G. Kilberg; Bruce Maloch; Bryan Jones; C.J. Diegel; Chad Mayes; Charles Djou; Charles R. Jeter; Charles R. Work; Charlie Dent; Chip Felkel; Christine Todd Whitman; Christopher T. Bayley; Christopher J. Gagin; Chris Vance; Claudine Schneider; Cole Wist; Connie Morella; Daniel Barkhuff; David Almacy; David Billings; David Durenberger; David Meeks; Davy Carter; Denver Riggleman; Dick Zimmer; Dov S. Zakheim; Edward T. Tobin III; Eileen Padberg; Eli Lehrer; Eliot A. Cohen; Elizabeth Neumann; Emil Frankel; Evan McMullin; Gabriel Schoenfeld; Gene Kussart; George Conway; Glenn J. Schatz; Gregory Wilson; H. Bryan Cunningham; Hannah Kummer; Heath Mayo; Jack Weinstein; Jacob Perry; James Kunder; James Leach; James W. Peppe; Jeff Timmer; Jeffrey N. Shane; Jennifer Horn; Jerid J. Miller; Jim Glassman; Jim Greenwood; Jim Hendren; Jim Kolbe; Joe Hunter; Joe Walsh; Joel F. Brenner; Joel Searby; John Bellinger; John Fluharty; John Kingston; John LeBoutillier; John M. Mitnick; John Negroponte; Jonathan C. Rose; Josh Venable; Julie Meier Wright; Justin L. Kurth; Karen A. Johnson; Karen Kirksey; Kathy Varga; Kristopher Purcell; Laura Holmes Jost; Lucy M. Caldwell; Lynn A. Schmidt; Marilee Cunningham; Mark Sanford; Mark Weatherford; Marty Linsky; Mary E. Peters; Matthew S. Sarelson; Matt Walton; Max Boot; Michael L. Belitzky; Michael Burchstead; Michael Chertoff; Michael Hayden; Michael Steele; Michelle Udall; Mickey Edwards; Mike Bober; Mike Madrid; Mike Murphy; Miles Taylor; Mindy Finn; Molly McKew; Mona Charen; Murray Dickman; Nate Bell; Neal J. Simon; Olivia Troye; Paul Rosenzweig; Paul C. Jost; Paul Mitchell; Peter McCloskey; Peter Smith; R.J. Lyman; Rachel Hoff; Randy Brockway; Reed Howard; Reid Ribble; Richard W. Painter; Rick Lazio; Rina Shah; Robert F. Orr; Robert Patricelli; Robert Shanks; Rod Chandler; Sam Reid; Scott Rigell; Shellie Bressler; Shermichael Singleton; Sophia Nelson; Soren Dayton; Stanley A. Twardy Jr.; Steve Bartlett; Steve Carey; Stuart Gerson; Susan Del Percio; T. Greg Doucette; Tara Setmayer; Tatyana V. Bolton; Ted Roosevelt; Thomas Hill; Thomas E. Petri; Tim Boyle; Tom Campbell; Tom Coleman; Tom Ridge; Trevor Potter; Valerie Smith Boyd; Wayne Gilchrest; William J. Kilberg; William F.B. O’Reilly.