The gradual erosion of Americans’ willingness to take a stand on controversial issues would have continued under any other president, regardless of the presence of an “R,” “D,” or even an “L.”
Call President Trump what you like, but his indispensability to the success of our future makes him person of our young century.
In an article published on New Year’s Eve 1999, Dr. Charles Krauthammer dissented from Time Magazine’s choice of Albert Einstein as “Person of the Century” and instead suggested the only reasonable choice with Winston Churchill:
“Why? Because only Churchill carries that absolutely required criterion: indispensability. Without Churchill the world today would be unrecognizable — dark, impoverished, tortured….If Einstein hadn’t lived, the ideas he produced might have been delayed. But they would certainly have arisen without him.”
Krauthammer continues: “Take away Churchill in 1940, on the other hand, and Britain would have settled with Hitler — or worse. Nazism would have prevailed. Hitler would have achieved what no other tyrant, not even Napoleon, had ever achieved: mastery of Europe. Civilization would have descended into a darkness the likes of which it had never known.”
While our century is still young, I will venture so far as to call our man President Donald J. Trump. Krauthammer is a smart man, and he acknowledged the great scientific minds that populated the 20th century, but he understood that the entire time period was based on politics, and a seemingly endless battle against totalitarianism. Churchill was indispensable in that battle. Similarly, I strongly believe that President Trump will be indispensable in the battle to save the West from the religion of multiculturalism, radical Islam and the far-Left’s agenda of cultural Marxism.Read more →
At a recent session of Congress, Senator Toomey recounted a few tragic incidents involving known illegal aliens harming American citizens in sanctuary cities such as Philadelphia. Sen. Toomey described the case of illegal alien Enrique Perez Pilarte, who was arrested for child rape. But Philadelphia police released him when he posted bail despite a request from the federal government to hold him because of his immigration status. The same happened in the case of Ramon Aguirre-Ochoa, who had already been deported but illegally re-entered the United States. He was also arrested but released despite requests from the federal government. After his release, he raped a child.
Those who claim a moral high ground for “standing with 11 million undocumented” are not only assisting in the spread of crime and penalizing those immigrants who follow proper protocol, but, most fundamentally, fail to understand that we are a “ government of laws, and not of men.”
In ordaining the Constitution, the Founders established a federal government with few purposes. But one of these fundamental purposes of government was the provision of common defense. A pressing modern threat to this promise of common defense is the policy of sanctuary cities and their accompanying dangers. A sanctuary city refers to a municipality that protects illegal aliens from deportation or prosecution by withholding information about undocumented individuals and refusing to comply with federal immigration law. Notable sanctuary cities include Berkeley, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia. In the 115th Congress, Junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, introduced the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, which aimed to end grants from certain Economic Development Assistance Programs and the Community Development Block Grant Program to sanctuary cities. This bill would have effectively ended federal funding to sanctuary cities and forced them to follow federal law. This bill, however, has not become law. But this has not stopped Sen. Toomey from continuing his efforts for sensible immigration policy.
At a recent session of Congress, Sen. Toomey recounted a few tragic incidents involving known illegal aliens harming American citizens in sanctuary cities such as Philadelphia. Sen. Toomey described the case of illegal alien Enrique Perez Pilarte, who was arrested for child rape. But Philadelphia police released him when he posted bail despite a request from the federal government to hold him because of his immigration status. The same happened in the case of Ramon Aguirre-Ochoa, who had already been deported but illegally re-entered the United States. He was also arrested but released despite requests from the federal government. After his release, he raped a child.Read more →
First and foremost, borders are not arbitrary. A vast majority of states formed based on rough breakdowns of culture, creating a cultural identity in each nation.
History reminds us of how starvation and mass poverty are the direct results of governmental centralization. Look no further than the difference in life expectancy between East and West Germany.
The experiments we have had in global government have not been the most successful. The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II, and the United Nations has, time and again, been unable to stop human rights violations such as the genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
In the midst of his presidential campaign in the summer of 2015, Donald Trump quoted Ronald Reagan: “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation at all.” Although the modern Republican Party may have abandoned many of President Reagan’s core principles, the GOP remains largely committed to controlling the nation’s borders. This is not only the conservative position but also the sensible one. Borders delineate the jurisdiction of a nation-state. Although critics of the nation-state raise valid points, its two alternatives of either a world government or a dissolution of national government altogether are both much worse than our albeit imperfect nation-centered world.
A commonly cited argument against the nation state and its right to controlling its borders is the arbitrariness of these borders. Who put them there, one may ask? Why do we need them? Why do some foreign ruling class get to restrict my freedom movement?
First and foremost, borders are not arbitrary. A vast majority of states formed based on rough breakdowns of culture, creating a cultural identity in each nation. These values became synonymous with the nations themselves. Read more →
Although watching liberals react to him can be entertaining, this is not a sufficient reason to make a professional provocateur the figurehead of American conservatism.
His show, which is, above all else, a piece of performance art does not always advance the values of individual freedom and fiscal responsibility; often, it is only a forum to agitate and spite the Left.
Milo Yiannopolous, one of the most divisive individuals in contemporary political commentary is revered as a hero by many, condemned as a false prophet by a large faction of conservatives, and is just as frequently branded a Nazi by many on the Left. Above all else, he is a provocateur, and he admits this freely. But he is a provocateur who challenges the ideals and stereotypes that frequently dwell even in the mainstream of the conservative movement. Read more →
I believe that the government has very few roles, but one of those roles is to put the American people first.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 gives broad powers to the executive branch to determine who may and may not come to the United States.
This defense of the spirit of the executive order is not to say that its implementation was executed flawlessly.
Less than a month after being sworn in as the 45th American President, Donald Trump already has the liberal media in fits. Accusations of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and so on were not unexpected given the nature of President Trump’s fiercely raw, un-PC rhetoric, and this time it appears that the Left has fixated on President Trump’s “Muslim ban.” On the evening of January 27th, Mr. Trump signed an executive order entitled, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” In a nutshell, the order temporarily halts immigration from seven nations, in an effort to prevent the inflow of potential terrorists. The countries included in the order are Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Sudan and Libya. The ban suspended immigration for a period of 90 days, after which the President planned to consider taking other action in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security.Read more →