'Genocidal language': JD Vance, Democrat strategist James Carville blast Ilhan Omar over anti-white comments



Vice President JD Vance and Democratic strategist James Carville both blasted Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) this week over her apparent racial animus. Whereas Vance characterized the Minnesota congresswoman as a "disgrace," Carville suggested she was a political liability whose supporters "are more trouble than they're worth."

Omar was asked in a February 2018 interview about President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13780 — the so-called "Muslim travel ban" that placed restrictions on entry to the U.S. by nationals from terrorist hotbeds such as Syria and Omar's native country of Somalia.

"Do you think President Trump doesn't want people like you in the country? Because he says it's not personal; it's national security," Mehdi Hasan, a liberal talking head known for his "anti-Israel agitprop," asked Omar in the interview.

'Our country should be more fearful of white men.'

"If we were really being honest about what could be masqueraded as a national security issue, we know that no one from any of these countries has ever posed a threat within this country," said Omar.

Hasan noted later in a portion of the interview that has repeatedly gone viral that "a lot of conservatives in particular would say that the rise of Islamophobia is the result not of hate but of fear — a legitimate fear, they say, of 'jihadist terrorism,' whether it's Fort Hood or San Bernardino or the recent truck attack in New York. What do you say to them?"

Omar — who previously summarized the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as "some people did something" and whose community saw dozens of young men, including the first known American Islamist suicide bomber, return to Somalia to fight for Islamic terrorist groups — appeared keen to downplay the relative threat of Islamic terrorism.

"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," said the Democratic congresswoman. "And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."

'This is blatant racism.'

An excerpt from the seven-year-old interview recently resurfaced and, with the amplification of influencer accounts like Libs of TikTok, quickly went viral.

Vice President JD Vance commented on the excerpt, which had over 17.5 million views at the time of publication, writing, "This isn't just sick; it's actually genocidal language."

"What a disgrace this person is," added Vance, who previously suggested that Ilhan Omar would be "living in a craphole" if the U.S. hadn't welcomed her.

Omar punched back, claiming she was "referring to the rise of white nationalism in an annual report issued by the Anti-Defamation League that said white supremacists were responsible for 78 percent of 'extremist-related murders.'"

"PS you should look up what 'genocidal' actually means when you're actively supporting a genocide taking place in Gaza," added Omar.

Other critics piled on, with some X users issuing reminders about Omar's past difficulty filing accurate tax returns and others calling for her deportation.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) said of Omar's comments, "This is blatant racism. Who condemns it?"

'There are people that actually agree with her.'

Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer (Minn.) said Omar "never ceases to be an embarrassment for Minnesota."

Carville similarly took aim at Omar over her comments days later at the Sir Harry Evans Investigative Journalism Summit when discussing how Democrats might "regain their mojo," emphasizing that they aren't doing her party any favors.

"Ilhan Omar says that white men are responsible for most of the deaths in the United States," Carville said Wednesday. "So let me get this straight: 69% of the people — I'm stuck on that number; I don't know — but 69% of people who're going to vote are white. Of that, [48.5%] are males. So I don't know, my rough math is 33%. Let's go out and piss off 33% of the people that vote."

"That's a smart strategy," added Carville sarcastically. "There are people that actually agree with her, and I think these — honestly — I think these people are more trouble than they're worth."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rule by the people? Not anymore in the Western world



On Friday, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency officially labeled Alternative for Germany — the country’s most popular conservative party — as a “right-wing extremist” organization. The nationalist party surged to second place in February’s federal election, winning 20.8% of the vote. This new designation grants the ruling government expanded powers to surveil Alternative for Germany leaders and supporters and sets the stage for an outright ban.

Germany has now joined a growing list of Western governments that delay elections, disqualify candidates, and ban opposition parties — all in the name of defending democracy.

Democracy has become a marketing slogan — useful for justifying war and globalist expansion, but disposable when it interferes with ruling-class priorities.

To call Germany’s relationship with authoritarianism “complicated” understates the case. The country’s historical memory fixates on Nazism as the ultimate expression of right-wing extremism and mass atrocity. But that singular focus conveniently ignores the fact that the Soviet Union, which helped defeat the Third Reich, imposed its own brutal regime across East Germany until the Berlin Wall fell.

Modern Germany has seen tyranny from both the far right and the far left. Yet its national identity now orbits entirely around a rejection of right-wing politics. Anti-fascism has become something like a state religion. But when a country builds its identity on shame and self-repudiation, it risks cultural collapse. We’ve seen the same pathology infect America, where elite institutions push a national narrative defined entirely by slavery and racial guilt.

Every nation has dark chapters. A mature society learns from them. It doesn’t define itself by them forever.

While German history explains some of its deep aversion to nationalism, the trend of suppressing populist movements in the name of democracy has spread far beyond Berlin.

Brazil’s Supreme Court banned former President Jair Bolsonaro from seeking office until 2030. Romania’s Constitutional Court voided its 2024 election, citing supposed Russian influence in the rise of populist candidate Călin Georgescu. And in the United States, courts came dangerously close to removing Donald Trump from the ballot — while the president now fights legal battles over whether he can exercise executive power at all under Article II of the Constitution.

This isn’t democracy defending itself. It’s ruling elites trying to outlaw their opposition.

Western elites justify their dominance by invoking democracy and individual liberty. That wasn’t always the case. The West once called itself Christendom — a civilizational identity grounded in faith, tradition, and truth. But it abandoned that foundation in favor of secular platitudes.

The United States has waged entire wars in the name of exporting democracy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan — nations that never wanted it and were never going to keep it. These projects were doomed from the start. Yet at least they wrapped American power in the language of benevolence.

Today, even that fig leaf has disappeared.

The modern West treats democracy as a branding exercise, not a principle. Leaders like Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and Keir Starmer love lecturing the world about “liberal norms,” even as they jail political dissidents, censor speech, and turn domestic intelligence services against their own citizens. They condemn Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism while staying silent as NATO allies crush dissent at home.

Democracy has become a marketing slogan — useful for justifying war and globalist expansion, but disposable when it interferes with ruling-class priorities.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio both slammed the German government for labeling Alternative for Germany as extremist. On social media, Rubio went further, blaming Germany’s open-border policies for the Alternative for Germany rise and calling the state’s surveillance powers tyranny in disguise.

Germany’s Foreign Office issued a formal reply, insisting the decision stemmed from an “independent” and “thorough” investigation.

The claim is absurd on its face.

No government can “independently” investigate and condemn its most prominent political opposition — especially not when the accusation is “extremism,” a term that now means little more than holding views the ruling class finds inconvenient.

I’ve made no secret of my dislike of modern mass democracy. But the original concept, at least, had merit. Democracy once meant rule by the demos — the people of a particular nation, rooted in shared history, culture, and civic identity. Its legitimacy came not from procedure or process but from the bonds between citizens and their country.

Today’s ruling class has twisted that definition beyond recognition. As I’ve written before, globalist elites now use the word “democracy” to describe a system governed by unaccountable institutions they alone control. Populism, they say, is dangerous. Democracy, they insist, must be preserved. But in practice, they oppose the popular will and protect only the process they’ve captured.

Elections have become sacraments — rituals that legitimize the rule of bureaucracies, not expressions of the people’s will. The process is sacred, not the outcome. That’s why Western politicians now speak of “our sacred democracy,” which must be defended not from tyranny, but from actual democratic movements.

Western leaders still try to justify their global power by invoking freedom and liberty. But their credibility has collapsed. It’s farcical to hear men like Justin Trudeau or Keir Starmer preach about “shared Western values” while jailing political opponents and silencing dissent at home.

The moral authority of liberal democracy is crumbling. And the cause isn’t Putin or China. It’s Western leaders who’ve gutted the electoral process and replaced it with rule by managerial elites.

The Trump administration should continue to expose this hypocrisy. But it also must act. That means offering political asylum to dissidents facing persecution in places like Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Americans rightly recoil at repression in Russia. They should feel the same revulsion when it comes from our “allies” in Berlin, Ottawa, or London.

Deep State Intel Staffers Are Once Again Leaking Classified Info To Stop Trump’s Agenda
play icon

Deep State Intel Staffers Are Once Again Leaking Classified Info To Stop Trump’s Agenda

'The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed'

Dem Gov Who Suggested JD Vance Family Member Should Be Raped Reportedly Prepping 2028 Run

'Make him go through this'

JD Vance endorses brother for mayor, likely helping him advance to general election in Cincinnati



Vice President JD Vance put in a good word for his brother's mayoral bid in Cincinnati, likely helping him secure enough votes to advance to the general election in November.

Cory Bowman, 36, is the founder and pastor of the River Church in the West End of Cincinnati as well as a co-owner of the Kings Arms Coffee shop just up the street. He also happens to be Vance's half-brother.

'When it comes to that relationship, I've said it over and over, but I'll repeat it, he's an amazing role model of mine.'

Though a long shot, Bowman decided to make a run to unseat incumbent Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval. On Tuesday, Bowman, Pureval, and a third candidate, Brian Frank, competed against one another in the primary to secure one of the top two spots. The top two will then face off in November.

Vance took to social media to give his brother an extra boost.

"Hey Cincinnati! My brother Cory Bowman is running for mayor and is on the ballot today for the primary. He’s a good guy with a heart for serving his community. Get out there and vote for him!" Vance tweeted just before 1 p.m.

— (@)

The last-minute endorsement by the VP may have done the trick. While Pureval carried the day with 18,505 votes, more than 82% of the vote, Bowman eked out a second-place finish, gathering 2,894 votes to Frank's 1,022.

Bowman said his older brother's foray into politics, especially his inauguration into the second-highest office in the land in January, inspired him to become involved as well.

"When it comes to that relationship, I've said it over and over, but I'll repeat it, he's an amazing role model of mine," Bowman said, according to WCPO. "I look up to him as a big brother."

Still, Bowman noted that while his brother is busy tackling national and even international problems, he remains focused on local issues. "Our job isn't to copy and paste what's going on in the nation. Our job is to say, however the nation's going, what's going to be best for the city of Cincinnati?" Bowman stated, according to WVXU.

Bowman listed infrastructure issues like potholes and snow removal as well as crime and the city budget as his main concerns.

"When you see the roads, when you see the infrastructure, when you see our snow plows that are kind of not in perfect position, when you see even like our police cruisers that need to be updated ... whether it be for good intention or not, we're seeing that the priorities haven't been the streets," he explained.

Meanwhile, Pureval, who was first elected in 2021, claimed Cincinnati has improved drastically under his leadership and that he wants to help the city continue on that trajectory. "This is our moment, and I'm more determined than ever to keep building on the progress we've achieved together," he said when announcing his re-election bid.

Though mayoral and city council races in Cincinnati are technically nonpartisan, the city is overwhelmingly Democratic. All nine city council members who won in 2023 were endorsed by the Democratic Party.

While Vance and teammate President Donald Trump carried the state of Ohio comfortably over Kamala Harris and Tim Walz by nearly 600,000 votes last fall, the Democratic ticket trounced Republican opponents in Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is located, 233,000 to 172,000.

The general election in Cincinnati will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 4.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America needs prudent power, not globalist delusions



In the first major shake-up of Trump’s second term, Michael Waltz has been removed as national security adviser. The White House gave no explanation, but sources say Waltz drew fire for adding Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, to a Signal chat with other national security officials about a recent U.S. strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

But Waltz’s ouster likely runs deeper. It reflects a growing internal struggle over the direction of national security policy — a familiar pattern in American politics. From Hamilton’s Federalists to Jefferson’s Old Republicans, the fight over foreign policy priorities has shaped administrations since the founding.

Good strategy requires focus and discipline. The United States must prioritize its goals, not squander its power on open-ended crusades.

In a recent American Enterprise Institute essay, Hal Brands identified five competing foreign policy factions jockeying for influence under Trump. The two most influential camps are the “global hawks” and the “come home, America” bloc.

The Global Hawks — often dismissed as neocons — include Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They insist on maintaining U.S. primacy to preserve global security and stability. This faction champions aggressive containment of adversaries like Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. It also defends long-standing U.S. alliances, though now under pressure to renegotiate the terms.

The other faction, often called the “disengagers,” frames U.S. strategy through the lens of “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their primary goal is to avoid further entanglements in the Middle East by scaling back U.S. military involvement. They also oppose military aid to Ukraine, citing the risk of escalation with Russia. Vice President JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard stand out as leading figures in this camp.

Brands identifies three additional factions: the “Asia firsters,” the “economic nationalists,” and the “MAGA hardliners.” The most consequential alliance may be the one forming between the “come home, America” bloc and the “MAGA hardliners.” That coalition threatens to upend decades of Republican foreign policy — to the country’s detriment.

Force without strategy

Since the Vietnam War, the GOP has generally stood for national security: strong defense, reliable alliances, and a forward-leaning military posture. President Trump largely embraced that tradition during his first term. His national security strategy took a clear stance, particularly on South Asia, replacing President Obama’s unfocused approach to Afghanistan with a more coherent plan.

Yet, as H.R. McMaster notes in his memoir “At War with Ourselves,” Trump often strayed from those principles. While many of his instincts were sound, he frequently abandoned them when challenged — or simply deferred to whoever had his ear last.

Some observers see Waltz’s ouster as a sign that the “come home, America” faction is gaining influence within the White House. That remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Abandoning the traditional Republican defense posture would be a mistake.

The core issue isn’t military force itself — it’s the use of force without a coherent strategy rooted in defending U.S. interests. Too many in Washington treat national security as a tool for serving some imagined “international community.” That’s how the Obama-Biden team, and even George W. Bush, stumbled: They lacked prudence.

Prudence, as Aristotle defined it, is the political virtue essential to statesmanship. It’s the ability to match means to ends — to pursue what’s right with what works. In foreign policy, that means setting clear objectives and taking deliberate action to apply power, influence, and, when needed, force.

Return to what works

Since the 1990s, U.S. foreign policy has often shown hubris rather than prudence. Clinton, Obama, and now Biden have placed their faith in global institutions, believing U.S. power exists to uphold abstract international norms. Their goal has been to build a “global good” — a corporatist globalism detached from national interest and patriotism.

These Democratic administrations have repeatedly failed to distinguish allies from adversaries. Nowhere was this clearer than in Obama’s tilt toward Iran, which came at the expense of both Israel and Sunni Arab states. Biden has doubled down with his disgraceful treatment of Israel, undermining one of our closest allies while appeasing their enemies.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush pursued his own misguided vision — an effort to remake the Middle East in America’s liberal image through force. That project collapsed under the weight of religious conflict and tribalism in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while Washington obsessed over exporting democracy, China quietly rose — unfazed, unchecked, and happy to let us believe it would someday play by our rules.

The best way to secure America’s liberty, safety, and prosperity is to return to a strategy that resembles the one that won the Cold War — one that brought the Soviet Union to collapse and elevated the United States to unmatched global power.

Ronald Reagan summed it up in three words: peace through strength.

I call it prudent American realism. This approach blends principle with power. It recognizes that the internal nature of regimes matters. Thucydides understood this over 2,000 years ago. In “The Peloponnesian War,” he noted that both Athens and Sparta sought to promote regimes that mirrored their own values — democracies for Athens, oligarchies for Sparta.

The lesson? A nation is safer and more stable when it is surrounded by allies that share its principles and interests.

Two sides of the same coin

Prudence also demands restraint. While regime type matters, trying to spread democracy everywhere is a fool’s errand — one the Bush administration disastrously pursued after 9/11.

Resources are limited. Good strategy requires focus and discipline. The United States must prioritize its goals, not squander its power on open-ended crusades abroad.

Reagan’s foreign policy understood a timeless truth: Diplomacy and force go hand in hand. Too often, American policymakers — steeped in the fantasies of liberal internationalism — act as if diplomacy alone can achieve strategic goals. But as Frederick the Great put it, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.”

A sound U.S. strategy treats diplomacy and force as two sides of the same coin.

President Trump should follow Reagan’s lead. That means maintaining a forward defense posture with the support of reliable allies, projecting strength through presence, and defending freedom of navigation around the globe.

Strategically, the goal must be clear: Preserve the U.S. maritime alliance that defends the “rimlands” of Eurasia — a term coined by Nicholas Spykman. This system exists to contain any aspiring hegemon, whether it’s Russia or China.

This approach has served the nation well before. Trump should carry its lessons forward.

Bessent Demands Europe Scrap ‘Unfair’ Regulatory Shakedown
play icon

Bessent Demands Europe Scrap ‘Unfair’ Regulatory Shakedown

'America cannot and will not accept that'

Rand Paul’s anti-tariff crusade was doomed — and rightly so



Earlier this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a short-lived attempt to block President Trump’s new tariffs. Fortunately, in this case, he lost. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

Paul played all of the libertarian greatest hits, from calling tariffs “taxation without representation” to claiming they represent big-government tyranny. He ignored one key fact: Donald Trump ran, and won, on an explicitly pro-tariff platform. The American people voted for this.

If Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support Trump’s tariffs.

The reality is that tariffs are the form of taxation most compatible with small government. That’s why America’s founders — and every president on Mount Rushmore — supported them.

How tariffs promote small government

Tariffs shrink the power of government in three ways. First, they reduce foreign demand for U.S. debt, limiting borrowing. Second, they promote full employment, reducing welfare dependency. Third, they protect American businesses from foreign state interference.

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total, adjusted for inflation, approaches $25 trillion. In 2023 alone, the trade deficit in goods and services neared $920 billion.

We didn't pay for that deficit with domestic production. Instead, we sold off assets — real estate, stocks, and bonds. China and its trading partners ship us goods, then buy up our future in return.

That includes our debt. Foreign demand for Treasury bonds has exploded because countries like China must recycle their trade surpluses somewhere. This artificial demand makes it easier — and cheaper — for Washington to borrow without raising yields.

Foreign entities now hold $8.5 trillion in U.S. public debt, about 29% of the total. The explosion started in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, and our deficits soared.

The result? Washington spends recklessly. And the cost of servicing that debt — over $300 billion in interest payments to foreign creditors — bleeds out the economy. That’s roughly equal to our annual trade deficit with China.

Higher tariffs would shrink the trade deficit and lower foreign demand for American debt. That would limit Washington’s access to cheap credit — exactly what fiscal conservatives should want.

Long term, if tariffs replaced the income tax as the government’s primary revenue source, federal borrowing would face a hard cap. Unlike the income tax, tariffs are avoidable. If rates rise too high, people buy domestic. That reality places a natural limit on tax revenue and borrowing capacity.

In short: Tariffs enforce fiscal restraint.

Tariffs favor work over welfare

Since 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs — along with the service jobs that depended on them.

Offshoring gutted labor’s bargaining power. When employers can threaten to send jobs to China, wages stagnate. Productivity no longer guarantees compensation. Workers take what they can get, or they’re replaced.

This “race to the bottom” helped erode middle-class wages and drive up welfare dependency. Over 10 million Americans now qualify as chronically unemployed, with many dropped from the labor force entirely.

As I explain in my book “Reshore,” mass job loss carries political consequences. Unemployed citizens are more likely to vote for higher taxes, expanded social programs, and even socialist policies. Poverty breeds dependency — and dependency fuels government growth.

Even if you buy the libertarian argument that tariffs “distort” markets, the result still favors liberty. The jobs tariffs protect are real. They preserve dignity, reduce welfare rolls, and shrink government.

Work is cheaper — and better — than welfare.

Good fences make good neighbors

Paul argues that tariffs let government “pick winners and losers.” He wants the market to decide.

Well, sure. That would make sense — if America competed on equal footing. But we don’t. Chinese businesses don’t operate under free market conditions. They’re backed by the Chinese Communist Party, which props them up with subsidies, below-market financing, land-use preferences, and outright theft — up to $600 billion per year in American intellectual property.

U.S. small businesses can’t compete with state-sponsored enterprises. That’s why entire American industries, towns, and families have disappeared.

Tariffs serve as economic fences. They shield American firms from foreign governments — not just foreign competitors. That protection restores actual market competition inside the United States, where private companies can go head-to-head without facing a communist superstate.

And economic competition isn't just about firms. It happens at every level: workers vying for jobs, companies for customers, nations for global influence. Globalism collapses these layers into a single, rigged marketplace where the biggest government wins — and right now, that’s Beijing.

Tariffs restore order by separating national economies enough to maintain fair play. They enhance domestic competition while preserving international boundaries. Most importantly, they keep the CCP — the world’s largest and most authoritarian government — from dominating American markets.

If Rand Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support President Trump’s tariffs.

‘Cost A Lot Of People Their Jobs’: JD Vance Slams Biden Admin For Deciding Products Would No Longer Be Made In America

'Decided that America would no longer be a manufacturing power'

The next American revolution is happening — will you be part of it?



These are remarks adapted from the closing keynote at the Heritage Foundation’s Annual Leadership Conference, which took place earlier in April in Naples, Florida.

Conservatives have been given a generational opportunity — a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift our country’s trajectory back toward people and values that Washington has for too long left behind. The five values that Ronald Reagan espoused when he won the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1980 are “family, work, neighborhood, peace, and freedom.” More than any time since Reagan, those values are making a comeback. “Rejoice in hope,” St. Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans. How could we not?

This is our moment to truly shape America’s future.

But this should be our rallying cry, not a victory lap.

Because the left’s counter-fight is coming, and our response will determine whether last November was the high-water mark of the new conservative movement or simply the first triumph in America’s greatest comeback — whether we squander this moment in history, or whether we seize it.

Conservatives have the opportunity, the mandate, and the plans to rise to the occasion. The only question is whether, in these turbulent days, we have the vision to put those plans into action and the grit to see them through despite doubts and adversity.

Mandates from the past

When I think about how the conservative movement should respond to this moment, I look for lessons from our past. And lately, I’ve found myself thinking a lot about one of my heroes from the founding era: Patrick Henry.

Two hundred and fifty years ago last month, Henry stood up at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, and delivered one of the great speeches in American history. Everyone remembers its most famous line: “Give me liberty or give me death.” That one always hits home.

But another sequence in that speech resonates even more specifically with us now. Henry’s speech was not just a call to revolution. In his mind, the colonies had already passed that point. “The war is actually begun,” he said, whether Americans realized it or not. He was calling for the courage to see it through — to push past fear in the face of a powerful adversary.

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak,” Henry said, “unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?”

The question still resonates: When shall we be stronger?

Six months from now, when the left throws everything it has in Virginia and New Jersey, or 18 months from now, when we head into the midterms, shall we gather strength while sitting on our hands? Will we stand by as our president weathers a hurricane of criticism? Shall we watch quietly as our majorities in Congress sidestep the most critical issues facing our country? Will we pass by the working families who wait for Washington to deliver them from a woke culture, a weaponized government, and a rigged economy?

Of course not. We have worked too long and too hard to squander this opportunity. Now is the moment conservatives can enact permanent policy change, not just half-a-loaf compromises: rebuild our economy, our military, and our local communities to answer the challenges of the coming generation.

This is our moment — not just to win elections or temporary 51-49 majorities — but to truly shape the future. This is our generation’s shot to secure a new birth of freedom. To write a new chapter in the American story — one that begins with courage and ends with victory.

The left is regrouping

But as extraordinary as this moment is, it will be just as fleeting. If we do not seize it now, it will slip through our fingers and won’t come back for a long time. And what comes next would be worse than anything we have yet endured.

The left hasn’t changed. Leftists may rewrite their talking points, but the writing on their hearts is the same. They’re still elitists who disdain the Constitution, globalists who scorn national sovereignty, and woke theocrats who reject religious liberty, parental rights, moral truth, and scientific fact.

They are already regrouping, re-funding, and reasserting their power. Their victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race was not a fluke. They still control the media and elite institutions, and they are going to weaponize both for as long as they can.

That is why conservatives cannot sit back. We must stay in the fight — and open new fronts in it.

Will we rise up?

Two hundred and fifty years later, Americans still face Patrick Henry’s question: When shall we be stronger?

At the Heritage Foundation, we have an answer.

We’ll be stronger every time we stand on principle — and for America and Americans. When we act with the urgency and courage this moment demands, when we realize the future is ours to win or to squander, when we understand that neither the left, China, media, nor any other adversary can defeat us, our only downfall is our own timidity and complacency.

Just consider: What do we think the other side wants us to be doing right now? What do Planned Parenthood, the teachers’ unions, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and MSNBC want us to do right now?

Nothing. They want us complacent, fat, and happy — just like good establishment Republicans. They want us to think the last six months are all we need and all we can hope for. They want us basking in the success of 2024, eating popcorn, and watching Fox News while they storm the field.

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint them.

The Heritage Foundation is not sitting this one out. Donald Trump and JD Vance are not sitting this fight out. And I know you won’t either.

We can’t. The moment is too important. The stakes are too high. Last November’s historic victory was only the beginning. The next chapter in America’s history is ours to write. Whether we fight or not will be our generation’s story — what our children and grandchildren learn about us.

A time to act

I can’t help but think that if Patrick Henry were alive today, he would look at President Trump and his entire administration and be convinced that the American dream is still possible to revitalize. And that dream isn’t just about an idea, as noble as that idea is. It’s about a real place — where you were born and are likely to be buried. It’s a place our children and grandchildren and generations after us — God willing — will be born and buried.

This providential moment we’ve been given to save this republic and revitalize America gives honor to all those who came before us — wherever they were from — who, in their last moments, were as grateful as you and I are to call ourselves Americans.