'That ran into reality': Marco Rubio condemns 'terrible MISTAKE' made by US lawmakers decades ago



U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid out the foreign policy and economic worldview of the Trump administration in a speech in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

Rubio and others in the Trump administration were introducing the Foundry School, a national program to train Americans in manufacturing and design.

'The nation-state still does matter, nationalism is real, national borders still matter, and ... countries are going to always in act in their best interest.'

Rubio asserted that the policies of the Trump administration were just the first steps in undoing the errors of American economic policies of the last 35 years or so.

"Let me put it to you this way. I think we made a terrible mistake in this country many years ago, under people that were in charge at the time, especially at the end of the Cold War, and that was the idea that the ability to make things no longer mattered," said Rubio.

"That it didn't matter any longer where things were made. They were to be made in the most efficient place at the lowest possible cost. That meant more profits for the company, lower costs for the consumers, and that was the way the world would work," he added.

"There was this fantasy, really, that the whole world would become ... free-enterprise democracies and that everyone would look like us. That ran into reality," Rubio said, "the reality that that is not how human events have ever worked, that the nation-state still does matter, nationalism is still real, national borders still matter, and that countries are going to always act in their best interest."

He said it would take multiple administrations to undo the errors of those policies.

"The result of it is that it de-industrialized America. We lost our ability and our capacity to make things. And not just big things. Not just the kinds of big machinery and things that we normally identify with industry," Rubio continued.

"But even some of the most basic components that are necessary, that underpin economic life, especially in the 21st century," he added, "and we woke up to the reality, just a few years ago, that we are, suddenly, as a nation, dangerously dependent, dangerously dependent on other nations for all sorts of things that we need ... for our national security and our very survival as a prosperous nation-state."

He concluded, "And so now, we are involved in this endeavor across the board to try to reverse those mistakes."

RELATED: Trump SLAMS Canada with MASSIVE tariffs over rejected trade deal — they respond defiantly

Economic expert and Blaze News contributor Carol Roth responded in comments to Blaze News.

"The dollar being the global reserve currency was always about trade-offs. The U.S. received cheap government financing, cheap consumer financing, and cheap access to goods, which raised our standard of living. As Secretary of State Rubio noted, the flip side is that it hollowed out a large part of our manufacturing base, which was devastating for communities across the U.S. Ultimately, though, we transformed our economy to service-dominant and became the largest, most powerful country on the planet," she said.

"Rubio is also correct in noting that our movement away from manufacturing has created economic and national security issues by being over-reliant on other countries for important goods and components, which we should be prioritizing making within the U.S.," Roth continued. "However, there are many goods that we will likely never make again in the U.S., based on issues related to labor, laws, costs, and infrastructure. We should be focused on bringing back manufacturing specifically in areas like defense, pharmaceuticals, and other industries and sectors where dependence on other countries is particularly risky."

Rubio is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2028, but Vice President JD Vance is widely seen as the current front-runner.

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

MASSIVE PROTEST against illegal migrants OVERRUNNING tiny Spanish province: 'Enough, Ceuta won't give up!'



The residents of a tiny Spanish province in Northern Africa mounted a mass protest to call for action against the tens of thousands of illegal aliens who tried to breach the border from Morocco.

The protesters gathered at the Plaza de la Constitución under the slogan, "Enough, Ceuta won’t give up!" and waved Spanish flags while singing their national anthem, according to Reuters.

'One day it’s 500 people, the next, 70,000, and they cannot be sent back! What kind of law allows for rejection by land but not by sea ...'

Dozens of migrants perished in the waters trying to swim into Ceuta from Morocco in order to try to gain entry into Spain.

The protest was reportedly organized in part by leaders in the four main religious communities in Ceuta: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu.

Samuel Levy, a member of Ceuta's Jewish community, spoke about the protest to a local news outlet.

"There comes a point where the government’s inaction becomes overwhelming. We cannot live with this sword of Damocles hanging over us," Levy said.

Some suspect the migrants were motivated to overrun Ceuta after a Spanish Supreme Court ruling saying migrants crossing into the country by sea deserved due process before being turned back, unlike those coming by land.

Levy referred to that suspicion directly.

"One day it’s 500 people, the next, 70,000, and they cannot be sent back! What kind of law allows for rejection by land but not by sea in a country surrounded by coastline?" he added.

"We need protection. We need the agreements that were reached to be honored," said Mercedes Canca, a representative of the Catholic community.

"Morocco said that after the events of 2021, this would not happen again," she added, referring to a previous migrant invasion. "Five years have passed, and it has happened again, only this time on an extreme scale. It is unsustainable."

RELATED: Spain says 25,000 migrants have been expelled from tiny Ceuta territory — with 34 DEATHS

Levy went on to point out that the four communities lived in peace and harmony in Ceuta before the migrants overran the province.

"Ceuta is peace and concordance," he said.

The U.S. State Department issued a statement condemning the circumstances that led to the invasion.

"This unacceptable incident is the direct result of the Spanish government's deliberate efforts to enable and facilitate mass illegal migration into Europe," the agency said in a statement. "We are considering actions to defend Americans at home and abroad from this threat and stand ready to assist other European allies considering similar options."

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

Why ‘Christian nationalists’ are liberals — whether they realize it or not



Doesn’t it seem like conservatives are always trying to “out-conservative” each other? If you think of yourself as a real-deal, red-blooded conservative, rest assured there’s someone out there ready to tell you you’re not conservative enough.

And more often than not, it’s the self-proclaimed “Christian nationalists” who claim the top spot on the conservative totem pole.

If you care about preserving your people, their country, and their ethnic integrity, then you should not be a nationalist.

It’s a funny phenomenon to me, because If you actually examine it, “Christian nationalism” — and much of the conservative status hierarchy built around it — turns out to be a paradox: a supposedly conservative idea that isn’t conservative at all. And that’s not hyperbole.

Bottom up

Sure, the Christian nationalist’s pitch is that he’s the purest advocate for the normalization and institutionalization of Christianity. He’s staunch on all the “radical” positions (pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, anti-immigration, pro-Jesus), and he’ll tell you the nation needs to be Christian, that the government itself needs to reflect Christian values. He believes he’s a patriot because his beliefs as a Christian reflect the best interests of his nation. It all sounds good on paper.

But let’s forget the “Christian” part for a moment and take a look at “nationalism.”

When we think of a nation, we picture a distinct people who share a history, a culture, and, yes, even a race. Peoples have always belonged to their nations; it’s an ancient biblical concept — and an immutable one.

But nationalism is not the same thing as the “nations” it claims to speak for. Nationalism is a modern political doctrine, and once you trace where it actually came from, you find something the “Christian nationalist” won’t want to hear. It isn’t a conservative idea at all. It’s a liberal one.

Historical nationalism is the doctrine that concerned itself with the feudal peasant’s liberation from his king and church. It’s the idea that a country is governed by the masses of its native people, not the throne and altar. That’s the key distinction here. Political nationalism isn’t necessarily about preserving demographic and cultural integrity, although that is a key component. It’s about the legitimacy and authority of the people of the nation. Under a nationalist framework, the citizen is the sovereign. Authority flows from the bottom up, not the top down.

Vulgar outgrowth

History confirms it. After the French Revolution and the fall of Napoleon, Austrian Chancellor Klemens von Metternich and the Concert of Europe treated nationalism as a vulgar outgrowth of liberalism. The statesmen of the counter-revolution regarded nationalism not as a force for tradition but as one of liberalism's most dangerous offspring.

That’s because the very concept of “grassroots” legitimacy is, by definition, liberalism. The idea that the underclass of an ethnic enclave can break away from the authority of the king and bishop and carve out their own country has always been (and always will be) a liberal notion. Modern political nationalism is, in many respects, a brand of liberalism draped in a tricolor flag.

Contrast that with how people understand “nationalism” today. When people today hear the word “nationalism,” where their minds usually go to is “race and demographics.” To be a white or Christian nationalist essentially means that you want the majority of the country to be white and Christian.

So then, if we’re to perceive the spirit of the times correctly, what the conservative right really has anxieties about isn’t political nationalism as a legitimacy doctrine, but ethnic integrity. What the majority of people truly want is to preserve their people and their people’s culture, not to necessarily hold the power of kings. These two terms, nationalism and ethnic integrity, definitely overlap and intersect, but they run on separate axes.

It’s important to note this distinction, because I would argue that if you care about preserving your people, their country, and their ethnic integrity, then you should not be a nationalist.

Small and dependent

Why?

Just take a look at what political nationalism has historically accomplished (or hasn’t, for that matter). The European ethnostates of the 19th and 20th centuries were mostly the successor states of the collapsed empires of the ancien regime. Germany, Italy, the Balkan states (you can go down the list) — all these nation-states were the children of liberal nationalist movements that pried their respective populations from the grip of royal authority and carved democratic governments out of them. Freedom and independence for all, or so they say.

But what does this do in reality? It creates security problems. The glaring issue with ethnostates is that they’re no longer large land empires. They’re small and dependent. Whereas these ethnostates would have had their ethnic integrity protected were they part of a larger Christian empire, the modern ethnostate is the fragile vessel that fails to do just that. The old nation that preserved its ethnic integrity inside an empire under throne and altar is swept aside because the people pridefully believe in grassroots self-governance.

Nearly every developed nation-state today faces some combination of demographic decline, economic dependency, or strategic vulnerability. Italy, Ireland, Germany, etc., are struggling to reproduce. Japan and South Korea remain wealthy and technologically advanced, but they too are confronting demographic trajectories that, if left unchecked, will eventually carry profound economic and strategic consequences. Meanwhile, states like Israel remain heavily dependent on the protection and patronage of larger powers.

RELATED: America's 'melting pot' was never more than a covenient myth — here's why

Bettman/Getty Images

Empire state of mind

Meanwhile, who prospers and dictates terms to everybody else? It’s the large, multi-ethnic empires, which primarily consist of the big three: the U.S., Russia, and China. And yes, both Russia and China are multi-ethnic empires. They’re not on the same level of diversity as the U.S., but they sit on the empire side, not the ethnostate side. Although they’re Russo- and Sino-majoritarian in population, they collectively govern Tatars, Chechens, Uyghurs, Turkics, Tibetans, and Mongols, as well as projecting power in their respective spheres.

All three of the major powers are able to project the power that they project and are able to administer the aid that they administer simply because of how big they are and how much they don’t care about being an ethnostate. They care more about being power-projecting empires than being a state with a distinct culture and people.

So if you’re an American, and you’re opining for a more “nationalist” agenda for your country’s future, what you’re really asking for is a balkanization agenda. You want to divvy the country up into smaller countries, each one carved along the lines of a distinct people.

Because when you take it seriously and follow it all the way through, that’s what nationalism is: the principle that every nation, with its own history and blood, deserves its own sovereign state. If nationalism is taken seriously as that principle, then the consistent American nationalist begins to sound like a secessionist. And anyone who is naively tempted by the prospect of secession has no idea how much harder life gets in a much smaller country.

King me

But here’s where the “Christian” half of "Christian nationalism” comes into play. To actually be conservative is to reject bottom-up legitimacy. To the historic integralist tradition within Christianity, legitimacy flows downward from God through throne and altar rather than upward from the people.

Smuggling a liberal legitimacy doctrine under a Christian banner simply does not fly.

Monarchy, deemed legitimate by the Church, is integralism, which is the opposite of vulgar nationalism. I’m not going to argue here for why Christian monarchism is the correct choice over secular republicanism. The point here is to say that liberalism definitionally is the departure from Christian monarchism. If you disagree with that, then you’re unaware of your own nation’s ideological genealogy.

Tugged in two directions

So what’s left?

The Christian nationalist is not a conservative, because his legitimacy runs up from the people rather than down from throne and altar. He’s a liberal who is unaware of his liberalism.

He is not, in any coherent sense, a Christian nationalist, because the faith he invokes is universal monarchism, which would subject multiple ethnic nations to its governance in practice (and thereby securing the integrity of the ethnic enclaves). And he is not an American nationalist either, because political nationalism applied honestly to this country would dismantle it.

So what does the “conservative” American Christian ultimately want?

When you strip it all down, he is tugged in two different directions. The first option is that he wants a large polity united by the Christian faith, reflected in its traditions, customs, and laws from the top down. That option has a name. It’s called Christendom. It is the old Christian monarchical order that 19th-century nationalist revolutions did so much to dismantle. It’s the precise opposite of “We the People” populism.

The other option is that he wants sovereignty and independence for what he considers “his people,” and that would result in a weak, balkanized ethnostate.

Otherwise, you’re stuck with a diverse, secular, and liberal empire.

The irony is that many who call themselves nationalists are, without realizing it, defending a political doctrine born from the same liberal revolution they claim to oppose.

Assimilate or hit the brakes



Immigration remains one of the defining questions of American politics because it forces a nation to answer fundamental questions about itself. Who belongs, who may enter, and what obligations do newcomers assume?

America is undeniably a nation shaped by immigrants. Yet acknowledging that history does not require abandoning the principles that made immigration successful in the first place. The United States became a destination because those who came entered a constitutional republic with laws, institutions, and a distinct civic culture.

The first obligation of any immigration system is control of the border. Enforcement cannot depend upon which political party occupies the White House.

A serious immigration policy begins with a simple proposition: Immigration should strengthen the country.

America faces demographic challenges, an aging population, and increasing pressure on entitlement programs. Productive immigrants who enter legally, work, pay taxes, and contribute to economic growth can help ease those burdens.

At the same time, immigration policy exists primarily to benefit American citizens, not employers seeking cheaper labor. Large inflows of low-skill labor can place downward pressure on wages and strain public resources.

America is not simply an economy or a geographic territory. It is a constitutional nation built upon individual liberty, equal justice under law, religious freedom, private property, free speech, and limited government.

Recent elections in several American communities have also highlighted another reality often ignored in immigration debates. Immigration does not merely affect labor markets or public finances. Over time, it reshapes the electorate itself.

RELATED: Mamdani’s one-word border answer said it all

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The growing political influence of Muslim candidates in some local and state elections demonstrates how demographic change eventually becomes political change. In a constitutional republic, every citizen possesses the same right to vote, participate, and seek office regardless of religion. The relevant question is not faith, but whether elected officials support equal rights, constitutional government, and the civic norms that hold a diverse nation together.

The first obligation of any immigration system is control of the border. Enforcement cannot depend upon which political party occupies the White House.

Immigration succeeds when it serves the national interest. America should welcome those who enter legally, contribute productively, respect the Constitution, and seek to become part of the American nation.

A real nation knows who is in and who is out



After decades of brutal race and gender politics from the left, conservatives began treating identity itself as toxic. That reaction is understandable after fighting a sinister ideology for years, but ignoring identity is not an option. Human beings need a firm sense of who they are and where they belong. Progressives exploited that impulse in twisted, artificial ways, but the impulse remains natural and healthy.

As the United States confronts mass immigration, the question “What is an American?” has become unavoidable on the right once again. It is a question about identity. For the first time in decades, conservatives must navigate one of the most important parts of human life.

Defining American identity will be difficult, but it begins with friction. Borders must be closed and illegal aliens deported. That part is nonnegotiable.

Identity feels dangerous because it is dangerous. From the beginning of time, identity has been something men kill and die for. People can fight over voluntary commitments, but identity largely consists of things we did not choose. We do not choose where we are born or to whom. We do not choose to be a brother, sister, son, or daughter. Even religion, though it requires voluntary practice, is usually inherited before it is chosen.

Identity is what you cannot leave behind, often because you never chose it in the first place.

That is why identity produces existential conflict. Its involuntary nature means people cannot simply opt out when the pressure rises. If someone wants to kill everyone who likes the movie “Jaws,” you can stop being a fan. If someone wants to kill everyone born English, you cannot stop being English. You have no option but to fight.

This explains why the post-World War II consensus tried to suppress as many thick identities as possible. If people lack strong attachments to heritage, tradition, nation, or religion, they are less likely to treat those attachments as matters of life and death. The impulse is understandable. No sane person wants another war of religion or world war fought over nationalism.

But the shift carries a cost. Without the boundaries of nation and religion, we drift toward open-borders globalism, which is deeply unhealthy.

A nation without identity has no coherent sense of the public good. The man whose family has lived in America since the founding has different priorities from a newly arrived immigrant hoping to move his extended family here. The Christian who wants his faith reflected in his ancestral nation has conflicting interests with the Muslim who wants his new home to implement Sharia law.

The state cannot remain neutral between these visions. It must decide which identity takes priority and which public good it will pursue. Neutrality is a lie. Identity is inescapable.

RELATED: Two-tier Britain finally has its George Floyd moment

Blaze Media Illustration

As America tries to unwind the open-borders disaster liberalism produced, the need for concrete identity becomes obvious. Illegal immigration is a massive problem, but legal immigration has also been destructive. If being American means more than obtaining paperwork, uncomfortable lines must be drawn. Identities are inherently exclusive. Some people are in, and some people are out.

That feels dangerous because it is. But we no longer have the luxury of avoidance. Turning a blind eye to these questions created the mess. We will not escape it by doing the same thing again.

Modern people like rigid categories, but identity has always had strong centers with some flexibility at the margins. A traditional biological family is the best outcome and should be preferred above alternatives, but an adopted child can still become part of a family. People know what a woman is, but progressives exploit overly rigid definitions to destroy the category. If you say a woman is someone who can bear children, they immediately point to a sterile female and ask whether she is still a woman.

The rigid category becomes the tool of deconstruction.

Identity should be understood not merely as a scientific fact or a voluntary choice, but as a situated-ness that draws us toward particular ends. Americans are born with inalienable rights, but also particular duties. Our identities as Americans, Christians, sons, brothers, or fathers should cost us something. They are not merely about rights, choices, and freedoms. They are also about limits.

There are things you cannot be when you are a father, a Christian, or an American. These categories are flexible, but they are not fluid.

Our globalist order hates borders and limits because they create friction for economies of scale. McDonald’s wants to sell the same hamburger to everyone the same way. If it must accommodate Hindus or Catholics, or close Sunday in America and Saturday in Israel, efficiency and profitability suffer. Uniformity maximizes scale. That is why governments, corporations, and NGOs work to homogenize every population on earth.

But identity should create friction. People need borders and limits. Only when we know who we are and who we are not can we chart a beneficial course for our nation.

RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit

Blaze Media Illustration

Defining American identity will be difficult, but it begins with friction. Borders must be closed and illegal aliens deported. That part is nonnegotiable. Legal immigration should be radically limited, or ended altogether, until we work through this crisis. Every tribe has had a path for outsiders to join, but the cost should be steep. If someone is granted the gracious opportunity to become American, it should require real sacrifice.

The Bible gives us a model in Ruth, who abandons her homeland and pledges, “Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” She does not cling to her former identity. She leaves her former people, her former gods, and marries into the tribe.

Becoming part of the Hebrew people involved friction. It came at great cost. That is how you know it was worth it.

To be American is to be distinct and set apart. If anyone is to have the privilege of joining that identity, it should be difficult. Only through sacrifice can a stranger prove worthy of our great nation.

Damning poll reveals what Democrats ACTUALLY think of America ahead of its 250th birthday



Patriots are just weeks away from celebrating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, marking America's semiquincentennial.

Many citizens are clearly proud of the globally transformative superpower bequeathed to them and keen to honor the contributions and sacrifices made by generations past. There are, however, a great many who alternatively look back on American history with ingratitude and down at the country as currently constituted.

'Let’s pay for one-way tickets.'

According to a new national Elon University poll conducted by YouGov between April 30 and May 4, 55% of Democratic respondents said that there is another country on Earth that they would rather live in than the United States today. Only 10% of Republicans said the same.

Overall, only 35% of respondents said in the run-up to America's 250th birthday that they would prefer to live elsewhere.

When asked which term best describes how they feel about America turning 250 years old, 68% of Republicans said they felt proud; 19% said they felt grateful; 3% said they felt conflicted; 1% said they felt frustrated; 1% said they felt disappointed; and 9% said they had no strong feelings.

When similarly asked to describe their feelings, only 18% of Democrats said they felt proud; 17% said they felt grateful; 21% said they felt conflicted; 6% said they felt frustrated; 15% said they felt disappointed; and 24% said they had no strong feelings.

Asked specifically about their pride in the country — about the veracity of the statement "I am proud to be an American" to them personally — Democrats again came across as contemptuous. Only 26% of Democratic respondents said that the statement was "very true"; 22% said it was "somewhat true"; 21% said it was neither true nor untrue; 18% said it was somewhat untrue; and 12% said it was very untrue.

RELATED: The Bill of Rights is the antidote to soft despotism

Kevin Carter/Getty Images

The Republican respondents signaled significantly greater pride in their homeland: 83% said the statement was very true; 12% said it was somewhat true; 4% said that it was neither true nor untrue; 1% said it was somewhat untrue; and zero respondents said that it was very untrue.

Whereas 85% of Republicans rated the health of American democracy as either excellent, good, or fair, Democratic respondents overwhelmingly — 64% — rated the overall health of U.S. democracy today as poor.

Democrats evidenced their low regard for the country in other answers, including to the question: "How successfully or unsuccessfully do you believe the United States is currently living up to its founding ideals?"

Fifty-four percent of Republicans said that the U.S. has very successfully or somewhat successfully lived up to its founding ideals; 20% said America has neither been successful nor unsuccessful in this regard; and 26% said it has been somewhat or very unsuccessful.

Democrats disagreed with their friends across the aisle in the extreme: 74% of Democratic respondents said the U.S. has been somewhat or very unsuccessful in living up to its founding ideals; 11% said it has been neither successful nor unsuccessful; and 14% said the country has been either very or somewhat successful in living up to its founding ideals.

"As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Americans have complex and diverse feelings about America 250," said Jason Husser, director of the Elon University Poll. "Many Americans expressed significant concern about the health of American democracy today, and the country is split on its outlook over the next 50 years."

When conservatives caught wind of this poll, many advocated for helping the Democratic majority realize their dream of living in another country.

Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, wrote, "Let’s pay for one-way tickets, anywhere in the world, for all of them. And 6 months of living expenses. But they must renounce their American citizenship. And never come back."

"Trump should launch a national program to help that 55% achieve their dreams — help them out with flights, the job search, and maybe even a few months of rent in their new home," tweeted Nathan Roberts, the co-founder of Save Heritage Indiana. "Long term, this will save our country LOTS of money."

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

Nationalism still needs the Declaration of Independence



As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, Americans will be doing a lot of celebrating. They will honor not only the fact of our independence and nationhood, but also the political thought that shaped America’s founding struggle for freedom. Special attention will be paid, of course, to our Declaration of Independence.

But some may be rather cool to celebrating the Declaration’s doctrine of universal truths, such as the equality of all human beings in their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration has become a source of controversy among some younger conservatives who came of age during the Trump era.

The New Right’s dissatisfaction with the Declaration’s universalism is an understandable — but mistaken — reaction to various political misuses of America’s founding creed in recent decades.

There is no conflict between the Declaration’s universal principles and the New Right’s America First nationalism.

The older generation of conservatives who grew up admiring Ronald Reagan love to boast about America’s defense of universal truths. The New Right has argued that this rhetorical approach has not served the conservative political movement or the country well.

The Reaganite message, so powerful in the late 20th century, proved unable to keep winning national elections in the 21st. As a result, conservatives ceded political power to a Democratic Party and a left wing increasingly committed to an alarming agenda of social and cultural transformation.

The old-guard conservatives could not beat the Obama coalition. Moreover, their excessive preoccupation with America’s commitment to universal moral principles harmed the nation’s interests — and the interests of many Americans, especially those of the working class — in areas such as immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

In response, the New Right developed its now well-known message of American nationalism in the wake of Trump’s victory in 2016. They have embraced an “America First” agenda that places the social and economic well-being of its citizens at the center of national policy.

This stands in sharp contrast to the older conservatism, which tended to approach immigration, trade, and foreign policy in light of the country’s universal moral commitments as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The New Right’s recalibration proved politically successful: witness President Trump’s electoral victories in 2016 and 2024. But such success breeds criticism, and many on the left and among the older conservative establishment have condemned the new nationalism as a betrayal of the Declaration’s universal principles. Such criticism has, no doubt, deepened the New Right’s skepticism of the Declaration.

What are we to make of all this?

The New Right is correct to reject superficial and politically unhelpful misappropriations of the Declaration. Its members are justified in repudiating suggestions that America is just a political “idea” with no particular and concrete interests. And they are correct to dismiss claims that the Declaration’s universal principles require us to embrace immigration, trade, and foreign policies at odds with the well-being of our own citizens.

RELATED: Polarization may be the cure — and the clarity — America needs

Elen11/Getty Images

It would be a terrible mistake, however, for the New Right to go farther and reject the Declaration itself.

Such rejection is, in the first place, unnecessary. Contrary to the self-serving hectoring from the left and the old-guard conservatives, there is no conflict between the Declaration’s universal principles and the New Right’s America First nationalism. Those principles do not require the open-borders moralism preached by globalists of all stripes.

The Declaration asserts the great and universal truth that all human beings are equal in their natural rights. However, it nowhere asserts that everyone has a natural right to enter a political community of which he is not already a member, much less a natural right to become a citizen of that community.

The founders and subsequent generations of Americans regulated immigration according to the nation’s needs and interests rather than a fanciful moral obligation to accept all who want to come here.

Nor does the Declaration rule out an America First trade policy. Its philosophical framework was influenced by John Locke, in particular his claim that all human beings have a natural right to “life, liberty, and property.” None of these rights, however, entails a right to engage in trade across national borders.

Indeed, Locke’s Second Treatise makes clear that government, once established by the consent of the governed, would regulate foreign trade in the nation’s interests. The founders reflected this understanding in the Constitution by vesting Congress with the power to regulate foreign commerce.

Finally, nothing in the Declaration requires the U.S. government to promote democracy abroad or undermine tyrannies in foreign lands.

The Declaration famously teaches that a people can appeal to the right of revolution when their government is determined to destroy their individual rights and subject them to despotism. That right, however, must be exercised with “prudence” by the people living under a tyrannical government — not by the people of another nation.

Nothing in the Declaration indicates that America or any nation has a right — much less a duty — to liberate other nations from their tyrannical regimes and to impose on such peoples all the costs of a revolution that cannot be certain of success.

RELATED: The timeless truths behind the Declaration of Independence

Art Images/Getty Images

The Declaration teaches that America’s foreign policy needs to be guided by our reasonable and just interests, the star by which founding-era statesmen such as Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison steered the ship of state.

Indeed, the Declaration itself affirms a kind of nationalism. Before turning to the political theory in its famous second paragraph, it teaches that peoples or nations are not mere artificial contrivances but instead exist in contemplation of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

They have a right to a “separate and equal station” among the other “powers of the earth.” In other words, every people has a right to control its own political fate. Read as a whole, the Declaration is as much an affirmation of the sovereignty of nations as of the rights of individuals.

There is, then, no reason for the proponents of America First nationalism to reject the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, to do so would be a grave mistake. However abused or misunderstood, those principles are a foundational and vital element of America’s political identity.

It is no part of the duty or interest of any movement of the political right — or of any movement governed by sobriety and caution, not to mention gratitude for what one has inherited — to reconstruct the identity of one’s own nation.

An America indifferent to the universal principles of the Declaration would no longer be the America we have all been blessed to inherit — and that we all have an obligation to preserve.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

Trump-endorsed 'fighter' Viktor Orbán in deep trouble with Hungarian election just days away



Viktor Orbán has served as Hungarian prime minister for 16 consecutive years, advancing an unapologetically Christian, nationalist, "migrant-free, pro-family" agenda that he told President Donald Trump in November had kept his country "a special island of difference in a liberal ocean in Europe."

Hungary under Orbán's leadership has, for instance, banned LGBT propaganda targeting children; banned homosexual couples from adopting kids; opposed Ukraine's proposed admission to the European Union; refused to implement the EU's radical migration policies; built a barrier to keep out border-jumpers; drove bums out of public spaces; fought political interference by big-pocketed leftists like George Soros; and implemented various pro-natalist measures including tax exemptions for mothers.

'A leader who will fight to preserve those things while also building a better future.'

For the first time in over a decade, Orbán — praised by conservatives and maligned by liberals on both sides of the Atlantic and recently threatened by Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelenskyy — now faces the real possibility of an ouster in a country European parliamentarians like to pretend isn't a democracy.

In Hungary's national election on April 12, voters get to choose who will fill the 199 seats of the National Assembly and, by extension, whether to grant Orbán another term.

RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit

Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

Politico's aggregate of recent polling data shows the prime minister's Fidesz party lagging considerably behind the Tisza party, 49% to 39%. Several polls suggest, however, that there remain a great many undecided voters going into the weekend.

Polymarket presently puts the odds of Tisza winning at 77%.

Peter Magyar, the centrist leader of Tisza, is a former Fidesz member and government official. His party's manifesto reportedly advocates for a more pro-EU, pro-NATO approach and commits to expediting Hungary's embrace of the euro as its official currency.

Trump implored Hungarians on Tuesday to continue supporting Orbán, noting on Truth Social, "Highly Respected Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, is a truly strong and powerful Leader, with a proven track record of delivering phenomenal results. He fights tirelessly for, and loves, his Great Country and People, just like I do for the United States of America."

"Viktor works hard to Protect Hungary, Grow the Economy, Create Jobs, Promote Trade, Stop Illegal Immigration, and Ensure LAW AND ORDER! Relations between Hungary and the United States have reached new heights of cooperation and spectacular achievement under my Administration, thanks largely to Prime Minister Orbán," continued the president.

"He is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — VIKTOR ORBÁN WILL NEVER LET THE GREAT PEOPLE OF HUNGARY DOWN."

Vice President JD Vance similarly threw his weight behind Orbán, characterizing the prime minister during a rally in Budapest on Wednesday as a "leader who feels real pride in this place, in its history, in its culture, and in its way of life; a leader who will fight to preserve those things while also building a better future."

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

Team USA and Team Canada to face off AGAIN — this time at already controversial World Baseball Classic



Team USA is set for another rivalry game against Team Canada, this time on Friday night in the World Baseball Classic, after significant controversy has already rattled American fans.

The matchup comes after the Americans were almost eliminated from the tournament, which would have been under the most embarrassing circumstances.

'This man belongs nowhere near Team USA in the future.'

Before the American side lost to Italy 8-6 on Tuesday, Team USA manager Mark DeRosa sparked headlines by appearing not to know the rules of the World Baseball Classic.

During an interview with the MLB Network's "Hot Stove," DeRosa said his team's "ticket" was already "punched to the quarterfinals."

However, that was not true. If Mexico had won its next game against Italy while scoring fewer than five runs in nine innings, Team USA would have been eliminated.

While there is no telling if DeRosa's alleged lack of knowledge around tournament rules affected his coaching strategy during the team's loss to the Italians, the team's tournament future was out of their hands when Italy played Mexico on Wednesday.

Luckily for the Americans — and DeRosa — the Italians clubbed their way to a 9-1 win, ensuring that Team USA would advance.

RELATED: NBA turns Atlanta Hawks strip-club night on its head: 'Canceling ... is the right decision'

DeRosa told reporters after the Tuesday loss that he had simply misspoken and was not unaware of the way teams are ranked in the standings.

"Yeah, I misspoke. I was on 'Hot Stove' with a couple buddies today and completely misread the calculations," DeRosa claimed. "We knew that Mexico was going to play Italy and then running all the numbers with, if we lost tonight, with the runs allowed and runs scored and outs. So I just misspoke."

Fans did not exactly believe DeRosa, with one New York Yankees fan saying he couldn't "fathom" how unbelievable it was that the Team USA manager "made the lineup today not knowing how the tournament works."

Another fan on X wrote, "This man belongs nowhere near Team USA in the future."

"This might be the biggest instance of coaching malpractice in the history of international USA sports," another viewer said in reaction to DeRosa's original comments.

RELATED: Charles Barkley defends Team USA White House visit — but says Trump needs to stop doing one thing

Photo by Al Bello/Getty Images

With those hijinks now in the rearview mirror, Team USA will play Team Canada Friday night in the quarterfinals at 8 p.m. ET in Daikin Park in Houston. The game marks the latest in an ongoing and inflamed rivalry between the two nations, which exploded during the Olympics in the men's and women's ice hockey events.

The United States beat Canada for the gold medal in both categories, which subsequently caused rage when the men's hockey team received a phone call from President Trump that contained a joke at the expense of the women's team.

Canadian media melted down and repeatedly questioned American players who play for Canadian teams about the phone call, asking them to apologize.

South Korea will begin the quarterfinals against the Dominican Republic at 6:30 p.m. ET on Friday from LoanDepot Park in Miami. On Saturday, Puerto Rico plays Italy at 3 p.m. ET in Houston, then Venezuela plays Japan at 9 p.m. ET in Miami.

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

'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease



Democrats, the liberal media, and activist outfits have concern-mongered for years about the imagined threat posed by "Christian nationalism," a catchall term used to describe their ideological foes who also happen to be Christian in a nation almost entirely founded by Christians and where today over six in 10 adults are Christian.

CNN appears keen to revive the left's moral panic on-theme ahead of the midterm elections with an hour-long documentary titled "The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

'If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks.'

Newly released teaser videos and a corresponding press release hint at the documentary's apparent political purpose: to instill fear in viewers over a supposed movement that host Pamela Brown claims is "working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools, and in government" — a movement that Brown reckons is supercharged and unified in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination.

The network noted in its overview for the documentary, which airs Sunday, that:

Brown examines the growing influence of Christian nationalism, an ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values. Through immersive reporting and on-the-ground access, the episode explores how a movement once largely confined to the margins of white evangelical culture has gained new visibility and political power.

Brown apparently believes she gleaned generalizable insights into "Christian nationalism" by chatting with critics and kicking around Christian communities linked to Pastor Doug Wilson, a theologian credited by the Wall Street Journal months ago with leading the rise of "Christian nationalism" under President Donald Trump.

"We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm," said Brown. "No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment."

RELATED: Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

In one preview, Matthew Taylor — a specialist in "Muslim-Christian dialogue" who wrote a book sounding the alarm about imagined Christian threats to democracy — tells Brown that Kirk's memorial service "was one of the most potent examples of this shift in our culture that we're experiencing right now, where a large segment of American Christians are being activated by these ideas, radicalized by these ideas that say that they are the persecuted ones and that they need to stand up for Christians' rights."

Despite his intimation to the contrary, the ideas Taylor figures for radicalizing are based in fact. Christians, persecuted around the globe, are frequently targeted in the U.S., where radicals have not only sought to legislatively curb religious liberties but attacked churches and the faithful.

Brown, referencing a clip in which Taylor suggests that Christians take Trump for an "anointed figure" because he survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, said that "this is just one example of why Christian nationalists are having such a moment right now."

While some viewers might suspect that these alleged "Christian nationalists" are simply followers of Christ who also vigorously support their nation, definitions and criteria vary.

Brown defines "Christian nationalism" as "an ideology rooted in the belief that our country was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws and institutions should reflect Christian values."

The CNN host appears to be casting a big net granted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that six in 10 American adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation.

The Public Religion Research Institute, a group that has in recent years characterized Christian nationalism as "a major threat to the health of our democracy," has a slightly less vague understanding and can supposedly deduce if someone is a Christian nationalist on their responses to the following five statements:

  • "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation."
  • "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values."
  • "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore."
  • "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American."
  • "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

In the wild, "Christian nationalist" appears in many cases to be a term externally applied, not chosen.

Vice President JD Vance, for instance, doesn't check all of the PPRI's boxes, having indicated that Americans don't have to be Christian but that "Christianity is America's creed." Nevertheless, he is frequently branded as a "Christian nationalist."

Despite stating in 2024 that "Christian Nationalism" is "a boogeyman they've invested to silence you," and having made a point of noting months before his murder that he had never described himself as a Christian nationalist, Kirk is branded as such in Brown's CNN documentary.

Patriotic Christians were quick to lambaste Brown and CNN over the documentary and the timing of its release.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts noted that "it's no accident that Pamela chose the first week of Lent to release this. The world saw one of the most prominent voices on the Right martyred by a radical leftist, with his death celebrated by the Left at large — but it’s conservative Christians you need to worry about."

"This is pure bigotry from an increasingly anti-Christian, anti-American Left that tolerates all kinds of dogmas influencing people’s politics — except those of conservative Christians," added Roberts.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, stated, "If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks. Killing Charlie and the 'this is what you get' messaging from the media was pretty radicalizing too."

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