Here’s What Trump Means By Calling For ‘Peace Through Strength’
Peace through strength, defined by 'hard-nosed realism' over the 'utopian idealism' of a bygone era, is poised to yield both a popular and durable American defense policy.Peace through strength, defined by 'hard-nosed realism' over the 'utopian idealism' of a bygone era, is poised to yield both a popular and durable American defense policy.Trump v. Slaughter exposes who really fears democracy
In the recently argued Trump v. Slaughter case, most of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to affirm what should be obvious: The president has a constitutional right under Article II to dismiss federal employees in the executive branch when it suits him.
That conclusion strikes many of us as self-evident. Executive-branch employees work under the president, who alone among them is chosen in a nationwide election. Bureaucrats are not. Why, then, should the chief executive’s subordinates be insulated from his control?
When the Roberts Court overturned Roe in 2022 and returned the issue to the states, many voters responded with fury. The electorate did not welcome responsibility. It resented it.
A vocal minority on the court appears to reject that premise. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor warned that allowing a president — implicitly a Republican one — to control executive personnel would unleash political chaos. Jackson suggested Trump “would be free to fire all the scientists, the doctors, the economists, and PhDs” working for the federal government. Sotomayor went further, claiming the administration was “asking to destroy the structure of government.”
David Harsanyi, in a perceptive commentary, identified what animates this view: “fourth-branch blues.” The administrative state now exercises power that rivals or exceeds that of the constitutional branches. As Harsanyi noted, nothing in the founders’ design envisioned “a sprawling autonomous administrative state empowered to create its own rules, investigate citizens, adjudicate guilt, impose fines, and destroy lives.”
Yet defenders of this system frame presidential oversight as a threat to “democracy.” Democrats, who present themselves as democracy’s guardians, warn that allowing agency officials to answer to the elected president places the nation in peril. The argument recalls their reaction to the Dobbs case, when the court returned abortion policy to voters and was accused of “undermining democracy” by doing so.
RELATED:This Supreme Court case could reverse a century of bureaucratic overreach
On that point, Harsanyi and I agree. Judicial and bureaucratic overreach distort constitutional government. The harder question is whether voters object.
From what I can tell, most do not. Many Americans seem content to trade constitutional self-government for managerial rule, provided the system delivers benefits and protects their expressive preferences. The populist right may bristle at this arrangement, but a leftist administrative state that claims to speak for “the people” may reflect the electorate’s will.
Recent elections reinforce that suspicion. Voters showed little interest in reclaiming authority from courts or bureaucracies. They appeared far more interested in government largesse and symbolic rights than in the burdens of republican self-rule.
Consider abortion. Roe v. Wade rested on shaky legal ground, yet large segments of the public enthusiastically embraced it for nearly 50 years. When the Roberts Court overturned Roe in 2022 and returned the issue to the states, many voters responded with fury. States enacted expansive abortion laws, and Democrats benefited from unusually high turnout. The electorate did not welcome responsibility. It resented it.
This reaction should not surprise anyone familiar with history. In 1811, Spaniards rejected the liberal constitution imposed by French occupiers, crying “abajo el liberalismo” — down with liberalism. They did not want abstract rights. They wanted familiar authority.
At least half of today’s American electorate appears similarly disposed. Many prefer guided democracy administered by judges and managers to the uncertainties of self-government. Their votes signal approval for continued rule by the administrative state. Republicans may slow this process at the margins, but Democrats expand it openly, and voters just empowered them to do so.
RELATED:Stop letting courts and consultants shrink Trump’s signature promise
I anticipated this outcome decades ago. In “After Liberalism” (1999), I argued that democracy as a universal ideal tends to produce expanded managerial control with popular consent. Nineteenth-century fears that mass suffrage would yield chaos proved unfounded. Instead the extension of the franchise coincided with more centralized, remote, and less accountable government.
As populations lost shared traditions and common authority, governance shifted away from democratic participation and toward expert administration. The state grew less personal, less local, and less answerable, even as it claimed to act in the people’s name.
Equally significant has been the administrative state’s success in presenting itself as the custodian of an invented “science of government.” According to this view, administrators form an enlightened elite, morally and intellectually superior to the unwashed masses. Justice Jackson’s warnings reflect this assumption.
I would like to believe, as Harsanyi suggests, that Americans find such attitudes insulting. I am no longer sure they do. Many seem pleased to be managed. They want judges and bureaucrats to make decisions for them.
That preference should trouble anyone who still cares about constitutional government.
Ballots by Prime: Democracy’s dangerous next-day delivery
When 250 state ballots arrive in your Amazon order, faith in election security gets harder to defend. Yet that’s exactly what happened to a woman in Newburgh, Maine, who opened her package of household items to find five bundles of 50 official Maine referendum ballots.
Adding to the irony, the ballots were for Question 1 — a measure asking voters whether to tighten absentee ballot rules and require photo ID. The woman did the right thing and called authorities. But what if she hadn’t?
How can citizens trust the vote when ballots appear as shipping mistakes?
Now under investigation, the bizarre mix-up raises urgent questions. Who had access to the ballots? Were chain-of-custody rules violated? How many more ballots might be “out for delivery”?
For years, skeptics of election fraud have claimed concerns about ballot integrity are overblown. Yet events like this prove the opposite: The system is riddled with vulnerabilities. When official ballots wind up in an Amazon box, the process is beyond merely “flawed” — it’s broken.
Election officials and lawmakers must confront an uncomfortable truth: The safeguards meant to protect our democracy aren’t working. Anyone arguing against stronger voter ID laws should look to Newburgh. How can citizens trust the vote when ballots appear as shipping mistakes?
This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a test of whether Americans still believe their votes matter. A democracy depends on a transparent, verifiable process — from printing to counting. When that chain breaks, confidence collapses.
Newburgh should be a wake-up call. Every ballot must be tracked, every voter verified, every election beyond reproach. Reassurances and press conferences won’t cut it. Citizens deserve a voting system that’s airtight, accountable, and secure. Anything less insults the republic.
Commonsense reforms aren’t complicated. Require a government-issued photo ID to vote — the same standard used to board a plane, buy a beer, or enter a federal building. For mail-in ballots, require proof of identity both when requesting and returning a ballot. Without that, the system leaks from every seam.
RELATED:Honor system? More like fraud system
When ballots get rerouted into cardboard boxes unnoticed, the integrity of democracy itself comes into question. It signals a culture that prizes convenience over vigilance, treating ballots like junk mail instead of sacred instruments of self-government.
Democracy doesn’t collapse in secret; it erodes in daylight while people look away. That’s why reform must be bold, not bureaucratic. States need top-to-bottom reviews of how ballots are printed, stored, distributed, and tracked — and consequences for failures.
If democracy is worth defending, ballots are worth protecting. Anything less, and we’ve already surrendered what makes the vote sacred.
Civics isn’t a class; it’s the backbone of the republic we fight for
I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.
Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.
We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.
Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.
Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.
Taking up the torch
The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.
Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.
Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.
We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.
Start small and local
In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.
How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.
Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.
RELATED: America’s rights come from God — not from Tim Kaine’s government
We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.
Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.
Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Democrats crying wolf about a ‘threat to democracy’ backfires
Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) have long been attempting to scare voters into casting a ballot their way by regurgitating the line that President Donald Trump is a “threat to democracy.”
However, while, like many Democrats, Schumer has claimed that Trump has created a “constitutional crisis,” the left is the side asking to change the Constitution to get what it wants.
A recent article from the New York Times is titled “Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the court,” with the subtitle “Why the left can’t win without a new Constitution.”
“They want a new constitution,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales laughs on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.” “Now abolish the Senate and the electoral college. Pack the court because nothing else will work. But trust us, bro, we love democracy, except when we don’t.”
“We’ve got to get rid of democracy to save democracy,” she continues.
“They can’t win fairly. And when they can’t win fairly — which we do; we just did — they want to, like, ‘You know what? I’m taking my ball, and I’m going home. We’re going to rip up the Constitution, and we’re going to rewrite the rules in our favor, and then we’re just going to call it democracy,’” she mocks, “because words have no meaning when the left uses them.”
However, the left’s “anti-democracy democracy” strategy doesn’t seem to be working.
Another article from the New York Times is titled “The Democratic Party Faces a Voter Registration Crisis,” with the subtitle “The party is bleeding support beyond the ballot box, a new analysis shows.”
“Why would anyone not want to vote for these crazy lunatics?” Gonzales jokes. “I don’t know. But between 2020 to 2024, in the 30 states that keep track of voter registration, Democrats lost ground against Republicans.”
“Maybe they left their party, but I think their party left them. They can’t call themselves Democrats anymore because to call yourself a Democrat would mean that you stand with chopping off body parts of, you know, healthy children, healthy body parts,” she continues.
“Being a part of that party these days means that you then have to be like, ‘Yeah, it’s totally fine. In fact, I love it,’” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Leftists Admit They Can’t Win Without Rewriting The Constitution
In his new book, Osita Nwanevu, a contributing editor at The New Republic, offers the same ideas the left has been repeating for years now.Democracy promotion is dead: Good riddance
What passes for intellectual heft at the Atlantic is any criticism of President Donald Trump. In the Atlantic’s pages and its digital fare, you can read the now-discredited musings of David Frum, who helped bring us the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the inane foreign policy arguments of Max Boot; the interventionist prescriptions of Anne Applebaum; and now, the democracy promotion of political science professor Brian Klaas, who, in a recent article, blames President Trump for killing “American democracy promotion.”
If Klaas is correct, that is one more reason that Americans need to thank President Trump.
Klaas’ first priority is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights.
One would have thought that the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq would have humbled our nation’s democracy promoters — but they haven’t. One would have thought that the failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter would have humbled those who wish to make “human rights” the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy — but it didn’t. One would have thought that the chaos facilitated by the so-called “Arab Spring” would engender prudence and introspection among the democracy promoters — but it is not so.
Professor Klaas wants the world to become democratic and for U.S. foreign policy to lead the effort in bringing the globe to the promised land.
Rewriting history
The Trump administration, Klaas writes, has “turn[ed] against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion.”
Perhaps Klaas has never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy based solely on the nation’s interests. Or perhaps he missed John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address, in which he cautioned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and reminded his listeners that America is the well-wisher of freedom to all but the champion only of her own.
Perhaps Klaas believes that Wilsonianism is a “long-standing” American tradition, but in reality, it is mostly limited to starry-eyed liberal internationalists and neoconservatives.
Klaas mentions the “democracy boom” under President Bill Clinton, which was nothing more than a temporary consequence of America’s victory in the Cold War. Yet Klaas thinks it was the beginning of “shifting international norms” where freedom and democracy triumphed in “the ideological battle against rival models of governance” and “had become an inexorable force.”
Here, Klaas is likely referring to Francis Fukuyama’s discredited theory of the “end of history.” We have since discovered, however, that history didn’t die and that democracy is fragile, especially in places and among civilizations that have little democratic experience.
Fukuyama was wrong, but Samuel Huntington was right when he wrote about the coming “clash of civilizations.” One wonders if Klaas has read Huntington or Toynbee — or Spengler for that matter. Or, even more recently, Robert Kaplan’s “The Tragic Mind.”
Authoritarianism disguised as ‘democratic’
Klaas criticizes Trump for praising dictators, but President Woodrow Wilson praised Lenin and President Franklin Roosevelt praised Stalin. Klaas says that Trump is indifferent to democracy and human rights. No, Trump simply refuses to make them the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, which is a “long-standing” tradition that stretches back long before Wilson to our founding fathers.
However, neither Wilson nor FDR wanted America to right every wrong in the world, as Klaas does. Klaas wants his “human rights” and democracy agenda “backed by weapons.” He laments that authoritarian regimes no longer need to fear the “condemnation” and the “bombs” of the American president.
Klaas’ leftism is revealed when he condemns the United States for helping to replace Mossaddegh with the pro-American shah of Iran, overthrowing the Marxist regime of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, helping to overthrow Allende in Chile, and cozying up to other authoritarian regimes.
RELATED: Vance makes one thing abundantly clear ahead of Trump's big ceasefire meeting with Putin
The professor also might want to read Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards” to learn that sometimes doing these things is in America’s national interests. Klaas’ leftism jumps off the page when he refers to the illegal aliens removed by the Trump administration — many with criminal records — as “foreign pilgrims.”
Some of those “foreign pilgrims” raped and killed Americans. But Klaas’ first priority is not America or its citizens; it is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights. He is anti-Trump precisely because Trump’s foreign policy is America First. Let’s hope Klaas’ style of democracy promotion is dead.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
Democrats ‘defend democracy’ by ditching it
Texas Democrats have once again fled the state — not in the face of danger or persecution, but to block a vote they know they’ll lose.
This time, they’re trying to derail a redistricting plan that would likely establish five more Republican districts. Rather than face the debate, they bolted. Gov. Greg Abbott responded by ordering the Texas Rangers to investigate the absent legislators for potential violations of state law, including bribery.
Voters should recognize that these performative walkouts have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. They’re tantrums — undemocratic and unaccountable.
This isn’t a new tactic for Democrats in Texas. In 2003, they fled to a motel in Ardmore, Oklahoma, to block another redistricting vote. Eleven Senate Democrats later fled to New Mexico in a failed attempt to stop the plan. In 2021, Democrats once again abandoned their posts — this time flying to Washington, D.C. — to obstruct a bill that tightened mail-in voting rules and curbed 2020-era voting expansions in Harris County. That bill passed too.
Now they’re repeating the act, claiming to “defend democracy” from Republican gerrymandering while retreating to safe blue havens like Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. One Democrat compared the new redistricting map to the Holocaust (she later apologized). Others predictably called the plan “racist.” Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries flew to Austin for “closed-door meetings,” and California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul pledged to pursue their own gerrymanders back home.
The hypocrisy is as plain as it is tedious.
As journalist Matt Kittle noted in the Federalist, this brand of protest isn’t just ineffective — it’s absurd. Wisconsin Democrats tried something similar in 2011, fleeing to Illinois to block a bill that curbed public-sector union power. Then-Gov. Scott Walker and Republicans passed it anyway using a procedural maneuver to overcome the quorum requirement.
Kittle also pointed out the irony: The Democrats’ sanctuary states — Illinois, New York, California — are among the most gerrymandered in the country. Yet those states don’t seem to trouble the “defenders of democracy.”
It’s easy to see why Texas Democrats like Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Al Green want to preserve a system that favors them. What’s harder to see is what they hope to gain from this stunt. They have no leverage. Their absence ensures failure. Even as political theater, it’s weak and self-defeating. It makes them look unserious and incapable of governing.
Rep. Salman Bhojani, one of the Texas Democrats who fled, may not return at all — he reportedly needs to leave the country for a “family medical emergency.” His constituents in Euless should ask: Who’s representing them now?
But most won’t ask. Most don’t even know who Bhojani is. And that’s the deeper problem.
Too many state legislators are anonymous placeholders. They win office by running with a “D” or “R” next to their names. They stay in office because they’ve been there before. Their constituents rarely track their votes or positions — many wouldn’t even recognize their representative if they saw them on TV.
Bhojani faced no opponent in his last election. Apart from donors and staffers, almost no one in Euless likely knows who he is — until now that he’s left the country and quite likely his job.
RELATED: The cold civil war is real — and only one side is fighting to win
So what kind of democracy is this?
If lawmakers go unchallenged, remain largely unknown, and face no accountability for skipping out on their duties, can we really call this democratic representation? And if redistricting efforts aim to align political boundaries more closely with population centers — rather than carve out safe enclaves for party operatives — might that not restore some of the lost accountability?
At present, most lawmakers serve parties and donors, not voters. The party ensures they run unopposed or draws the district to guarantee victory. The campaign is just a formality. Once elected, they vote the party line and maybe dabble in social media branding.
Right now, this is more a problem for Democrats than Republicans. But that could easily flip. Voters of all stripes should recognize that these performative walkouts have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. They’re tantrums — undemocratic and unaccountable.
Republicans in Washington and across red states should follow Texas’ lead: Call the bluff, pass the bills, and begin the work of restoring actual representative government. That’s what voters want — left, right, and center.
KBJ Keeps Showing America Why She Doesn’t Belong On SCOTUS
The more Jackson opens her mouth and pens unhinged opinions, the more clear it becomes she has no business being on SCOTUS.Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com