Free Thinking

Author: Mo Dahman

  • Iran’s Strategic Dilemma: Between Survival and Retaliation

    An Analysis of Iran’s Military Capabilities, Response Options, and International Support Following Recent US Strikes

    The Impossible Choice

    Iran finds itself in an unprecedented strategic bind following devastating US strikes on its nuclear facilities. The Islamic Republic faces a classic no-win scenario: failure to respond risks domestic legitimacy and regional credibility, while significant retaliation could trigger existential conflict with the world’s most powerful military. This dilemma represents perhaps the gravest threat to regime survival since the 1979 revolution.

    Depleted Arsenal: The Numbers Tell the Story

    Iran’s military response capabilities have been severely degraded through sustained conflict. Intelligence assessments reveal the stark mathematics of attrition:

    Missile Stockpile Depletion:

    • Iran began with approximately 2,000 medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel
    • Over 700 have been fired in just two weeks of conflict
    • This represents 35% of their most strategically important arsenal consumed in a fortnight
    • At current consumption rates, Iran would exhaust its medium-range capabilities within another month

    The Short-Range Advantage: Critically, Iran’s total ballistic missile arsenal exceeds 3,000 weapons, with the majority being short-range systems that remain largely unused. These shorter-range missiles, while ineffective against Israeli targets at 1,000+ kilometers, are ideally suited for regional targets. Iran’s missile bases are already positioned within range of American installations in Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE, requiring minimal preparation for deployment. This unused short-range stockpile represents Iran’s most readily available retaliatory option and potentially their most credible threat to US interests.

    Changing Effectiveness Patterns: Paradoxically, as Iran’s stockpiles dwindle, their effectiveness has dramatically improved. Recent strikes show a 40% hit rate (10 of 25 missiles) compared to previous salvos where 80-100 missiles achieved only a handful of impacts. This suggests Iran is now deploying its highest-quality remaining missiles rather than older systems expended in earlier exchanges.

    Contributing factors include:

    • Israeli air defense degradation, with interception rates dropping from 90% to 65%
    • Depletion of Israeli interceptor stockpiles
    • Iran’s tactical learning and improved targeting strategies

    Response Options: A Spectrum of Risk

    Iran’s retaliation options exist on a spectrum from symbolic gestures to potentially suicidal escalation:

    Low-Risk Options (Face-Saving Measures)

    • Proxy Attacks: Limited strikes through remaining allied militias, though Hamas and Hezbollah capabilities are severely degraded
    • Economic Warfare: Disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz or attacks on regional energy infrastructure
    • Cyber Operations: Digital attacks on Israeli or US infrastructure
    • Diplomatic Isolation Campaigns: Leveraging international opposition to Israeli actions

    Medium-Risk Options (Regional Escalation)

    • Third-Party Targets: Strikes against US allies or interests rather than direct US military assets
    • Escalatory Missile Barrages: Larger salvos against Israeli targets to overwhelm air defenses
    • Naval Confrontation: Harassment or attacks on commercial shipping

    High-Risk Options (Potential Point of No Return)

    • Direct US Military Targets: Saturation attacks on American bases in Qatar, Bahrain, or Kuwait
    • Aircraft Carrier Strikes: Coordinated missile and drone swarms against US naval assets
    • Nuclear Threshold Activities: Resumption of weapons-grade uranium enrichment or weapon assembly

    The Geographic Advantage: US Vulnerability

    While Iran struggles to effectively target Israel at 1,000+ kilometers, US military assets present much softer targets. Major American installations lie within easy range of Iran’s abundant short-range missile arsenal:

    • Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar: 250km from Iran, hub of US Middle East operations
    • Naval Support Activity Bahrain: Home to US Fifth Fleet, under 300km from Iranian territory
    • Kuwait installations: Multiple US facilities within short-range missile reach

    This geographic reality means Iran possesses far more options against US forces than against Israel, ironically making American assets potentially more vulnerable than Israeli territory.

    Air Defense Disparities: A Critical Vulnerability

    Analysis suggests US regional air defenses may be inadequate for large-scale Iranian retaliation. While Israel operates the world’s most sophisticated multi-layered system (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow), US bases rely primarily on single-layer defense:

    Israeli System Advantages:

    • Three complementary intercept layers providing multiple engagement opportunities
    • Overlapping coverage zones designed for saturation attack scenarios
    • Combat-proven integration between systems

    US System Limitations:

    • Patriot batteries typically carry 16 ready missiles with limited reload capacity
    • THAAD systems max out at 48 interceptors per battery
    • Single-layer defense provides fewer intercept opportunities per incoming missile

    A coordinated Iranian salvo of 100 short-range missiles could potentially overwhelm current US defensive deployments, particularly given the mathematical constraints of interceptor capacity versus incoming threats.

    The Alliance Landscape: Strategic Partnerships Under Pressure

    Iran’s search for meaningful international support reveals both the potential and limits of authoritarian partnerships in crisis situations:

    Russia: A Partnership of Convenience Under Strain

    The Russia-Iran relationship represents one of the most complex geopolitical partnerships of the current era. Iran has provided crucial military support to Russia’s Ukraine campaign, supplying thousands of drones that have become central to Russian strategy. In return, Russia has shared captured Western military technology with Iran, enabling reverse-engineering of advanced systems.

    However, Russia’s support for Iran remains fundamentally constrained. Moscow maintains delicate ties with Israel, complicating any direct military support. More critically, Russia’s military resources are fully committed to Ukraine, leaving little capacity for Middle Eastern adventures. Recent intelligence suggests Russia initially viewed Israeli strikes on Iran as potentially beneficial, hoping to draw US attention away from Ukraine. While Russian Deputy Foreign Minister statements warn of “nuclear catastrophe” risks, these represent diplomatic posturing rather than security guarantees. Russia’s strategic calculation prioritizes avoiding direct confrontation with US forces over supporting Iranian retaliation.

    China: The Economic Lifeline with Strategic Limits

    China represents Iran’s most significant and consequential international partnership. The $400 billion, 25-year strategic agreement signed in 2021 encompasses economic, military, and security cooperation, making China Iran’s primary economic lifeline through heavily discounted oil purchases and massive infrastructure investments.

    Beijing’s relationship with Iran serves multiple Chinese strategic objectives: energy security, Middle Eastern influence projection, and indirectly constraining US global power. China’s strong diplomatic condemnation of Israeli strikes – explicitly supporting “Iran in safeguarding its national sovereignty” – demonstrates genuine concern for protecting their substantial investment. However, Chinese support operates within careful parameters designed to avoid direct confrontation with the United States.

    China’s most likely assistance includes economic support to prevent Iranian collapse, dual-use technology transfers, diplomatic cover in international forums, and potentially covert military technology sharing following their proven North Korea playbook. While China benefits from US military distraction in the Middle East, they will calibrate support to maintain strategic ambiguity while protecting their massive Iranian investments.

    Pakistan: Sectarian Divisions Trump Strategic Logic

    The purported Pakistani “nuclear umbrella” over Iran represents perhaps the most hollow alliance claim in contemporary geopolitics. Despite both countries facing US pressure, fundamental sectarian divisions and recent hostilities make meaningful cooperation virtually impossible.

    Pakistan’s Sunni majority population and government view Shia-dominated Iran with deep suspicion, a divide that has shaped relations since the 1980s. The countries literally exchanged missile strikes in January 2024, with Iran launching attacks into Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Pakistan’s Defense Minister has explicitly denied any new military cooperation with Tehran following recent Israeli strikes.

    More fundamentally, Pakistan’s strategic interests align against supporting Iran. Islamabad is actively pursuing improved relations with the United States, with Pakistani military leadership making high-profile visits to Washington. Pakistan even nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize while he was threatening Iran with destruction. Any Pakistani nuclear guarantee to Iran appears to be Iranian wishful thinking rather than Pakistani policy, representing desperation rather than alliance strength.

    North Korea: The Dangerous Wild Card

    North Korea represents Iran’s oldest, deepest, and potentially most dangerous strategic partnership. Their alliance dates to 1979 and is “buttressed by shared antipathy to the U.S. and mutual need to weather international isolation.” Unlike other relationships based on convenience, the Iran-North Korea partnership represents genuine strategic alignment between two regimes facing existential US pressure.

    The depth of this cooperation is extensive and ongoing. North Korea has provided crucial missile technology to Iran, with Iranian designs increasingly based on North Korean models. The countries share sensitive test data, with North Korean technicians directly supporting Iranian ballistic missile production capabilities. Most concerning for Western intelligence, this cooperation continues actively, with reports of Iranian long-range missile development using North Korean designs as recently as January 2025.

    North Korea’s unique position makes them Iran’s most credible potential supporter. Kim Jong Un’s regime faces maximum sanctions with nothing left to lose from additional punishment. Their deployment of troops to support Russia in Ukraine demonstrates willingness to escalate globally against US interests. Most dangerously, North Korea possesses both nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems that could potentially be shared with Iran.

    Unlike other allies operating within constraints, North Korea has every incentive to see US forces tied down in Middle Eastern conflicts, drawing attention from the Korean Peninsula. The possibility of nuclear technology transfer, while unconfirmed, represents the scenario most feared by Western intelligence agencies and the most realistic path for Iranian nuclear capability restoration.

    Regional Proxy Network: Degraded but Not Destroyed

    Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” has been severely weakened but retains residual capabilities. Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal, while degraded, still poses threats to Israeli infrastructure. Iraqi militias maintain some operational capacity, though their effectiveness has been compromised by sustained Israeli strikes. Syrian-based assets remain vulnerable to continued Israeli air operations.

    However, these proxy forces represent declining assets rather than growing capabilities. Their primary utility may be providing plausible deniability for Iranian retaliation rather than delivering strategically significant damage.

    Strategic Assessment: Limited Options, Maximum Risk

    Iran’s current predicament reflects the fundamental weakness of authoritarian alliances in crisis situations. Unlike NATO’s Article 5 guarantees or US defense partnerships, Iran’s relationships provide economic and technological support but lack credible security commitments.

    The regime faces three primary scenarios:

    Managed Retaliation: Limited strikes designed to satisfy domestic audiences while avoiding full-scale US response. This follows the 2020 Ain al-Asad precedent but risks appearing weak given the severity of nuclear facility losses.

    Escalatory Spiral: Medium-scale retaliation triggering graduated US responses, potentially leading to broader regional conflict. Iran’s geographic advantages against US bases make this scenario particularly dangerous.

    Regime Survival Mode: Acceptance of losses while focusing on domestic consolidation and covert rebuilding. This preserves the regime but severely damages regional credibility and domestic legitimacy.

    Conclusion: Between Survival and Credibility

    Iran’s strategic dilemma exemplifies the challenges facing regional powers confronting global superpowers. With depleted military capabilities, constrained alliance options, and existential regime survival stakes, Tehran faces choices that could determine not just regional balance but the Islamic Republic’s continued existence.

    The coming weeks will reveal whether Iran’s leadership prioritizes immediate regime survival over long-term regional influence. Either choice carries profound risks in a conflict where military mathematics increasingly favor Iran’s adversaries, and international support remains more theoretical than operational.

    The ultimate question remains whether Iran can find a path between the political necessity of retaliation and the strategic imperative of regime survival—or whether these conflicting demands will force choices that serve neither objective.

  • The Firewall Strategy: How a Third-Party Bloc Can Stop the Insanity in Washington

    America doesn’t need another savior. It needs a firewall.

    With each election, Americans are promised the moon. What they get is dysfunction, debt, and partisan warfare. Both parties have proven incapable of governing responsibly. But instead of dreaming of a third-party president—which is nearly impossible in our electoral system—we should focus where real change is possible: the House of Representatives.

    The best path forward? A third-party or independent bloc that holds just 5 to 20 seats. Enough to deny either major party a majority. Enough to force compromise. Enough to stop the madness.

    Why the House?

    There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A party needs 218 to control it. In tight election cycles, control comes down to just a handful of seats—sometimes fewer than 10. This gives a small bloc of independents extraordinary leverage.

    A third-party movement doesn’t need to win the nation. It just needs to win strategically—in swing districts where voters are tired of being ping-ponged between extremes.

    The Core Message:

    “We’re not here to make your dreams come true in Washington. We’re here to stop the nightmares.”

    This movement is about realism, not rhetoric. It’s the political version of emergency brakes: no ideology, just sanity.

    What to Call It? The Firewall, The No BS Coalition, Project 218, The Sanity Bloc, The Shield… Whatever the name, the mission is the same: block bad laws, stop corruption, and force compromise.

    Platform: The Firewall Agenda

    1. No more bloated bills – block trillion-dollar pork packages.
    2. No more extremist riders – strip out culture war poison pills.
    3. No more debt without a plan – spending increases must be offset.
    4. Nothing passes until lawmakers get back their sanity – extremes in either direction are not allowed. The law has to represent the wishes of the public, not the 50.5% in power.
    5. Simplicity– bills cannot be 1000s of pages, the citizens need to be able to view, read and understand the law before it is passed.

    Candidate Profile:

    We don’t need more career politicians. We need:
    • Veterans
    • Entrepreneurs
    • Whistleblowers
    • Parents
    • Retired civil servants
    • People with real-life experience and no party loyalty

    Target Districts:

    Focus on:
    • Suburban swing districts with independent-leaning voters
    • Districts with recent party turnover or tight margins
    • States with growing disaffection toward both parties (PA, MI, AZ, WI, VA, NJ, CA)
    • Open seats without an incumbent advantage

    A Movement Worth Starting:

    This isn’t a fantasy. It’s math.

    If 10 candidates win House seats as a coalition, they control the balance of power. That means no Speaker is chosen without them. No bill passes without their nod. They can prevent both parties from hijacking the country with ideological overreach or fiscal recklessness.

    A third-party presidency may be out of reach. But stopping bad laws, forcing accountability, and protecting American sanity? That’s completely within our grasp.

    All it takes is a few courageous candidates—and a lot of fed-up voters.

  • Restoring America’s Future: A Blueprint for Fiscal Responsibility and Human Dignity

    Introduction:

    Solvency Is Strength

    America’s greatness is built on strength — not just military might or economic power, but the strength to honor promises, sustain stability, and shape a free and prosperous world. That strength is under siege, not from without, but from within: by the ticking clock of unsustainable federal debt.

    Politicians have been convincing us for decades that we can have our cake and eat it too because it gets them elected and they think we are that gullible. Pay less taxes, spend more for social programs, get more benefits from the government… and no one has to pay for it. We keep hearing slogans like “healthcare is our right”. Well every right to one of us comes with an obligation on another, unless we kick the can to another election cycle and pretend all is well. The day of reckoning will come, and it will be ugly. We will not know what hit us and our media and pundits will waste our time pretending they are trying to figure out what went wrong. Well it’s obvious, you can’t keep spending what you don’t have. A Ponzi scheme is destined to crash, and it’s the guys on the bottom like us who will be crushed.

    If we do not act, the cost will be devastating:

    The world will lose trust in the dollar. Our military deterrence and global influence will erode. Inflation will return — slowly or suddenly. And the programs our elderly depend on — Social Security and Medicare — will collapse under the weight of unmet promises. We will end up with 70% taxes and insane measures to try and fix the damage, but it will be too late.

    But if we act with courage, wisdom, and discipline, we can restore fiscal balance, preserve the safety net, and pass on a nation stronger than the one we inherited.

    This is not austerity.

    This is clarity.

    This is a Grand Deal — not built on giveaways and delusions of invincibility, but on truth, trust, and trade-offs.

    The Moral and Strategic Foundation

    1. The Federal Government Must Remain Solvent to Survive

    The federal government has a constitutional purpose:

    – National defense.

    – Foreign diplomacy.

    – Upholding individual rights.

    – Protecting commerce and borders.

    It provides the framework for us to operate freely, innovate, produce and pursue our happiness.

    Everything else — including many welfare programs — is optional. The dollar’s value, our military dominance, and global leadership depend on one thing: a stable, solvent government. Without solvency, nothing else survives.

    2. We Must Honor Promises to Those Who Paid Their Dues

    Social Security and Medicare are not handouts. They are contracts. Millions of Americans paid into these programs for decades, trusting their government to honor its end of the bargain.

    Defaulting on those promises — whether by inflation, collapse, or stealth cuts — would be a national betrayal.

    We must keep our commitments — fully and with dignity — to every person who earned their benefits under the law.

    The Blueprint: Reform Rooted in Truth

    We must prioritize, not abandon. We must preserve, not expand.

    Here’s what that looks like — step by step, each measure grounded in reason and moral clarity.

    I. Raise the Retirement Age to 73 — Fast

    The hard truth: Social Security and Medicare were designed in a different world.

    When these programs were launched:

    – Social Security (1935): Full retirement at age 65… Life expectancy at age 65? 77 years That’s 12 years of expected benefits.

    – Today (2025): Life expectancy at 65 is 84.5 years That’s 20 years of expected benefits — nearly double the original cost.

    We are paying for a 12-year promise with 20 years of spending.

    No math can sustain that.

    And here’s the better news: 65 is no longer old.

    Medical advances mean people in their 60s and early 70s are often at their healthiest, sharpest, most productive stage of life. They have earned valuable experience and still healthy and powerful enough to use it.

    Raising the retirement age to 73, immediately and fully, reflects:

    Longer life, Better health and Stronger economic participation.

    This is not a burden. This is liberation from outdated assumptions.

    II. Increase Payroll Taxes by 4% (2% Employer + 2% Employee)

    This is simple math: if we want to preserve Social Security and Medicare, everyone must contribute a little more.

    Today’s payroll tax is 12.4% (split evenly).

    Raising it to 16.4%:

    – Aligns us with other developed countries.

    – Closes up to 80% of the Social Security funding gap.

    – Does so without touching promised benefits.

    It’s not punitive. It’s honest. And it’s better than robbing our children with invisible debt.

    III. Enforce an Estate Tax on Large Fortunes — No Loopholes

    The estate tax was created to prevent dynastic wealth from escaping all taxation. But today, it’s a shadow of itself:

    Only 0.1% of estates pay it! Trusts, GRATs, and shell structures let billionaires escape billions in tax.

    Whenever money changes hands in our society, it is taxed, and everyone seems to be fine with that… except when inherited from billionaires everyone complains. Our country was built on individual merit, not family lineages of lords and kings.

    I propose:

    40% tax on estates > $5 million Close all loopholes (trusts, GRATs, valuation gimmicks)

    Estimated revenue: $75–100 billion/year

    This isn’t about punishing wealth — it’s about keeping the tax code honest.

    IV. Cap Medicare Spending After Age 85

    The most heartbreaking and unsustainable spending in America happens in hospitals, in the final months of life:

    One-third of all Medicare spending is in the last year of life Often to extend agony, not life.

    I propose:

    A generous annual cap of $35,000/person after age 85 still allows excellent care, but stops heroic, painful, and ineffective spending.

    We aren’t choosing death. We’re choosing dignity — and using those resources to save thousands more lives where medicine can truly help.

    V. Return Medicaid to the States

    Medicaid was not part of the original social contract. It was created in 1965, and expanded far beyond its purpose:

    Over $600 billion/year in federal spending to fund free healthcare for able-bodied adults, non-working recipients, and addiction cycles with no accountability.

    I propose two pathways:

    Option A: Reform Medicaid

    – Enforce work requirements for all able-bodied adults under 73.

    – Require drug testing and compliance after 1 year of addiction treatment.

    – Add a copayment structure like ALL other insurance: paying ZERO out of pocket encourages extremely unnecessary utilization. If covered individuals had to come up with some money to get care (no matter now much it is), it would stop them from seeking expensive unnecessary care.

    Estimated savings: $85–100 billion/year

    Option B: Return Medicaid to States

    Let communities decide how to care for the vulnerable. Remove all federal funding obligations. Local communities and states know best how to care for their vulnerable, and they have to do it with fiscal discipline as they cannot print and borrow unlimited money like the federal government.

    Estimated long-term savings: $15 trillion.

    The federal government should prioritize its constitutional duties — and leave social support decisions to the states and their voters.

    The Result: Deficit Elimination, National Renewal

    Below is the federal deficit trajectory under each reform scenario — individually and in full combination.

    Conclusion: A New American Contract

    We are not proposing austerity.

    We are not cutting benefits for the elderly.

    We are not abandoning the vulnerable.

    We are:

    – Keeping promises to those who paid their dues.

    – Asking the able to contribute.

    – Choosing dignity at the end of life.

    – Returning community care to communities.

    – Preserving American solvency for our children.

    This is how we restore trust, prosperity, and unity.

    This is how we become worthy of our past — and ready for the future.

    Share this. Debate it. Advance it.

    Let the next chapter of the American story be one of renewed courage, moral clarity, and fiscal strength.

  • Strategic America First Reform

    I. Immigration and National Identity

    America’s immigration system must be overhauled to serve the national interest, not global sentiment or corporate demand for cheap labor. I support a sharp reduction in legal immigration under current rules and a transition to a merit-based system that prioritizes:

    – Young, skilled immigrants with high English proficiency and cultural compatibility.
    – Individuals who are, or can quickly become, self-sufficient, contributing members of society.
    – Immigrants thoroughly vetted and background-checked for security and integrity.

    Birthright citizenship should be severely restricted. It is currently abused by individuals with no loyalty to the U.S. and used to gain the benefits of citizenship without adopting the responsibilities or values of the nation. Citizenship must require deeper roots—such as long-term residency of the parents and cultural assimilation of the child.

    Illegal immigration should be met with swift deportation without prolonged due process. Illegal entry is a criminal act, and those who break our laws should not benefit from legal protections under them. Rapid enforcement also acts as a critical deterrent.

    A physical border barrier is essential, due to the sheer geographical scale of our southern border. The military should be empowered to support border enforcement as part of its role in defending national sovereignty.

    Cultural assimilation is non-negotiable. A cohesive society cannot exist when multiculturalism promotes parallel identities. Diversity without unity fragments communities, weakens social trust, and poses dangers in national crises. We must reaffirm American cultural identity as the cornerstone of immigration and social policy.

    II. Foreign Policy and Global Engagement

    American foreign policy must be dictated solely by national interest. We are not the world’s police, and our resources must be used to protect and advance our own position globally.

    – Ukraine is a European issue. While its conflict with Russia is tragic, it does not directly impact core U.S. interests. Europe must shoulder this burden.
    – Israel remains an ally but should no longer enjoy a blank-check policy. We must collaborate when our interests align, not out of obligation or emotional loyalty. They solve problems they often create. We are not supposed to be the generous benefactor of a one-sided relationship.
    – Taiwan is non-negotiable. It is critical to our national security and economic survival. Taiwan’s semiconductor industry powers both our military and civilian infrastructure. Losing access would cripple our capabilities and give China an insurmountable edge.

    NATO must be reformed. It should only include partners who:
    – Align with our national interests.
    – Can materially contribute to their own defense.
    – Offer strategic geographic value for bases or global reach.

    We should not withdraw from the world, but our interventions must be based on vital interests—not abstract moral obligations or international pressure. Sovereignty and respect for internal governance of other nations must be upheld, unless our own interests are directly threatened.

    The United States must aggressively decouple from China, even if it causes short-term economic pain. China plans 50 years ahead; we plan in quarters and election cycles. This asymmetry is lethal. Strategic industries and manufacturing must be restored domestically. Delay will only compound our vulnerability.

    III. Economic Policy and Industrial Strategy

    I support strategic protectionism, not as dogma, but as a tool for national security and self-reliance.

    – Tariffs and less visible tools (e.g. regulatory barriers) must be deployed against powerful rivals and in critical sectors like heavy manufacturing, electronics, and pharmaceuticals.
    – I support reshoring production through pressure and incentive alike. America once had the best industrial base in the world. It can again—but only if government policy aggressively backs this transition.
    – Free market capitalism remains my preferred model—but it must operate within the context of national loyalty. When our corporations pursue profit globally at the cost of national resilience, it is no longer capitalism—it is exploitation.
    – The federal government must act as a strategic guardrail, ensuring that the pursuit of private profit does not come at the expense of national security, economic independence, or the working class.

    We are a vast, resource-rich country. While not every nation can afford economic independence, America can—and must—pursue it in strategic sectors. Trade is welcome, but it must be smart trade, not blind globalization.

    IV. Cultural, Educational, and Social Issues

    Gender ideology is a dangerous social experiment. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and the cultural shift toward celebrating it as an identity—especially among children—is deeply misguided. Indulging these delusions, rather than treating them, is not supported by long-term evidence or common sense. It introduces instability, confuses children, and undermines the foundation of biological and social norms.

    – Homosexuality is a personal choice and should remain free from coercion or persecution.
    – Gender, however, is not a choice. Reality is not optional. We must stop treating subjective feelings as objective truths that others must obey.

    DEI initiatives are misguided attempts to enforce equal outcomes, which are historically impossible and inherently unjust. Merit, not identity, must guide opportunities.

    Critical Race Theory has evolved from a legal theory into a dogma. Inequities have always existed, and always will. What matters is equal opportunity, not artificially equal group results. I believe in individual merit, not statistical parity.

    Public institutions that undermine national cohesion should be defunded or shut down. No society should fund the ideologies that seek to divide or dismantle it.

    Religious values—broadly defined—have held human societies together for millennia. America is not a religious state, but it should not be anti-religion either. General moral frameworks rooted in religious traditions can strengthen civic life. Rituals, however, should remain personal.

    Gun rights must be preserved. Disarming the law-abiding will only empower criminals, who will acquire weapons illegally as they do elsewhere. The right to self-defense must remain sacred.

    School choice is essential. The public school system has failed in both quality and accountability. Families need alternatives, and competition is the only force that can drive real reform.

    Freedom of speech is foundational. It must be preserved absolutely. While no one is obligated to listen, mass disinformation campaigns by major media outlets that lead to tangible harm must be addressed—legally, if necessary.

    V. Governance, Reform, and Federal Power

    The modern federal bureaucracy has morphed into an unaccountable fourth branch of government. These unelected agencies issue regulations with the force of law, shield themselves from public scrutiny, and create their own insular cultures and agendas.

    – Many agency employees are unmotivated, unaccountable, and unqualified for private sector competition. They stay in place because they are nearly impossible to remove and benefit from inertia and lack of oversight.
    – These institutions do not exist to serve citizens—they exist to serve themselves, grow their budgets, and justify their continued existence by magnifying problems.

    Reform must be systemic and sweeping. We must:
    – Cut powers of regulatory agencies.
    – Increase executive accountability.
    – Reduce the size and scope of the federal workforce.
    – End the culture of impunity that defines the “deep state.”

    The 2020 election should no longer be a political centerpiece. While fraud may be possible, it is not provable, and we gain nothing from dwelling on it. The focus must shift forward—to building a future, not litigating the past.

    Decentralization is essential. Internal affairs—education, healthcare, policing—should return to the states. Federal financial involvement must end. When states must live with the consequences of their policies, better models will rise, and citizens can vote with their feet or voices. This competitive federalism will produce smarter governance and real accountability.