Angry Anti-Trumpers Fueled The Rising Tide Of Mamdani Authoritarianism

This is where Democrats are. They're all-in on giant government. They've embraced state power like a jealous lover.

America’s Vision Statement

America is known as a land of entrepreneurship and a country that continually reinvents itself while retaining a commitment to its Founding ideals. Are the two things distinct, as is commonly believed, or are they intrinsically related? Arthur Herman argues they’re interrelated in his new book, Founder’s Fire, which makes it a fascinating read on our current political moment.

The post America’s Vision Statement appeared first on .

'In the End I Was Right': How a Harvard Historian Helped Reagan Topple Soviet Communism

In 1949, during Stalin's reign as dictator of the Soviet Union, obituaries in the Communist-controlled newspapers stopped including the ages of those who died, "presumably for fear of revealing a declining life expectancy," Jonathan Daly writes in The Man Who Knew Russia, his new biography of Richard Pipes.

The post 'In the End I Was Right': How a Harvard Historian Helped Reagan Topple Soviet Communism appeared first on .

Longtime former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dies at age 100



Economist Alan Greenspan has died at age 100, according to his wife.

Greenspan chaired the U.S. Federal Reserve for four terms under four different presidents, beginning in the Reagan administration in 1987 and ending in 2006 under the George W. Bush administration.

'The more flexible an economy, the greater its ability to self-correct after inevitable, often unanticipated disturbances.'

Many credited his economic policies for the prosperity of the 1980s and '90s, but others blame him for the global financial crisis of 2008.

He was married to veteran NBC journalist Andrea Mitchell since 1997. Mitchell said he died Monday from complications of Parkinson's disease.

Former President Ronald Reagan called him "an economist's economist, one of the most widely respected men" in the field when he appointed Greenspan as Fed chairman.

After the financial crisis which Greenspan described as a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami," he admitted that he made a mistake in his assumptions about human nature.

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said during a 2008 congressional hearing.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," he added.

His admission has become the basis for critics of the free market capitalist theory of economics.

RELATED: The Economist gets crushed over sympathetic portrayal of dead Iranian leader

He is also credited with coining the phrase "irrational exuberance" to explain investor behavior that leads to a market bubble.

"Whether by intention or by happenstance, many, if not most, governments in recent decades have been relying more and more on the forces of the marketplace and reducing their intervention in market outcomes," Greenspan said in a 2005 speech.

"We appear to be revisiting Adam Smith's notion that the more flexible an economy, the greater its ability to self-correct after inevitable, often unanticipated disturbances," he concluded.

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.

Ronald Reagan's 1984 Memorial Day speech observing interment of unknown Vietnam service member 'healed scars,' writer says



In his essay for We Are the Mighty, Stephen Ruiz declared that President Ronald Reagan's 1984 Memorial Day speech observing the interment of an unknown Vietnam service member at Arlington National Cemetery "healed scars."

"We write no last chapters," Reagan told the crowd, Ruiz recalled. "We close no books. We put away no final memories. An end to America's involvement in Vietnam cannot come before we've achieved the fullest possible accounting of those missing in action."

'The Vietnam Unknown never heard such cheers.'

More from Ruiz's essay:

A decade after the final U.S. troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973, some service members who fought in Southeast Asia couldn’t forget the harsh treatment that fellow Americans heaped upon them. Some were spat on while others received the middle finger or were called “baby killers.” They served their country and were blamed for the United States not defeating the North Vietnamese.

Reagan realized old wounds can’t go unattended. Two years after the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., Reagan used his oratorical gifts to promote a better understanding of what Vietnam veterans endured.

The president continued a tradition from past wars and awarded the Medal of Honor to the Vietnam Unknown. That nice moment was not enough for Reagan. He reached out to military families residing in a continual, painful limbo because of a loved one MIA. Reagan told them that a grateful nation understood their plight.

"They live day and night with uncertainty, with an emptiness, with a void that we cannot fathom," Reagan said, Ruiz recalled.

The author noted that Reagan's speech added references to President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address — and that volunteers read nearly 58,000 names on the Vietnam Veterans Wall in 1982 over the course of three days.

Ruiz also noted that Reagan read from a newspaper article about a restaurant dinner former Marines shared and that a group of college students — "some of them likely still in diapers when the first U.S. troops arrived in Vietnam in 1965," Ruiz wrote — mingled with them, then applauded them as the veterans left the eatery.

Ruiz remembered that Reagan, reading from the newspaper article, quoted one former Marine's response: “The whole week, it was worth it just for that."

RELATED: Stories Behind the Stars: On a mission to honor every American who died in WWII

"The Vietnam Unknown never heard such cheers," Ruiz added in his essay. "In so many ways, wars never end for those who knew someone MIA. So many unanswered questions remain, threatening to expose a deep sense of loss always lingering just below the surface."

The author added that "in 1984, Reagan was acutely aware of that."

In his speech, the president said of the unknown soldier, "About him we may well wonder, as others have: As a child, did he play on some street in a great American city? Or did he work beside his father on a farm out in America's heartland? Did he marry? Did he have children? Did he look expectantly to return to a bride?"

In conclusion, Reagan noted, "Today, we simply say with pride, 'Thank you, dear son. May God cradle you in His loving arms.'"

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

What Trump Can Learn From Reagan About Blockading The Strait Of Hormuz

History’s winning formula is clear: Reject proportionality, embrace decisive force, and see the mullahs’ grip weaken.