Foreign Affairs Realism, Restraint, and Freedom Conservatism Preservation of liberty at home precludes imperial adventures abroad. (By cindylindowphotography/Shutterstock) I am a veteran of three conflicts—Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I spent two weeks after September 11, 2001, at Ground Zero with the National Guard. I’ve seen bloodshed, death, and destruction firsthand.  In 2003, while studying international relations at CUNY, I mobilized to Iraq. The September 11 attacks convinced me that our interventions there and in Afghanistan were “realist” policies needed to keep America safe. American soldiers want to believe our cause is just. Since high school, my beliefs in liberty, limited and defined roles for national government, and aggressive foreign policy, especially towards countries like the USSR, defined my conservatism. War, however, changes you, mentally, physically, and even intellectually. Revisiting realism in 2018, I realized foreign interventions, meant to ensure American security by “spreading democracy” or “securing stability,” were flawed. The point hit home for me that year when my niece graduated high school, suddenly eligible to fight in a war that started when she was an infant.  My idea of realism had turned into a restrained realism, one that I believe still fits my own conservatism. Restraint’s critics, interventionists and neoconservatives derogate “restraint” as “isolationism.” That is just not true.Pundits and the foreign policy establishment recently commemorated NATO’s 75th anniversary and are still considering what the future may hold for the alliance. It’s as good a time as ever to share what a foreign policy of realism and restraint would look like in practice. To restrainers, military intervention should be a last resort, not a handy tool. Restrainers pursue trade and diplomacy, and we believe in maintaining a powerful U.S. military capable of defeating rivals and securing the global commons. These are beliefs most often espoused by libertarians and national conservatives.With these beliefs in mind, I signed the 2023 Freedom Conservative letter. Its “strong central government, dedicated to securing liberty,” truly describes my conservatism, the sweet space between libertarianism and hard conservatism I sought.As I scrutinized the paragraph on foreign policy, I realized that it could fit into the restraint paradigm. “The shining city on a hill. American foreign policy must be judged by one criterion above all: its service to the just interests of the United States. Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world, led by the United States, in which other nations uphold individual liberty and the sovereignty of their neighbors.”Core principles of restraint include acting as an example, prioritizing US interests, peace, liberty, and respect for sovereignty. Restrainers mainly question “how” America should lead, preferring leadership that sets an example in domestic and foreign conduct.President Ronald Reagan described his vision of America as a shining city on a hill: “She’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness towards home.” This vision is magnified, not diminished, when America practices restraint.  Per Machiavelli, it is impossible for nation states to follow simple moral idealism while interacting with other states. Thus, America must sometimes exercise raw power. Restraint reminds us that when we do, our example as a shining leader can dim, at least a little. Therefore, we should be scrupulously cautious in choosing to exercise such power.  Convincing other nations that we are the shining city is easier if we live our values.I’ve witnessed the damage of military intervention. I’ve been fired upon, and fired back, even while delivering humanitarian relief. I’ve seen the toll on American soldiers, treated the wounded, and carried the dead. I’ve lost comrades to the suicide epidemic raging among global war on terror veterans. While more than 7000 Americans have died in combat and supporting operations since 2001, over 30,000 post-9/11 veterans have killed themselves. The damage doesn’t end there. James Madison noted: “Of all the evils to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops every other. War is the patent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes, are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few.” Today, conservatives recognize debt, taxes, and governmental overreach as evils. War not so much. Permanent war persisted from 2001 through 2021. Residual engagements, leftover from our global war on terror, leave young American service members at risk. The debt created by our overseas interventions is enormous. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost an estimated $8 trillion, nearly a quarter of our national debt. We are still spending both blood and treasure in distant lands with no impact on real American security interests.  This year in Jordan, three American soldiers were killed in one of dozens of weekly drone, rocket, and mortar attacks on our over-deployed, over-dispersed troops in the Middle East. These were US Army reservists called to active duty to support a mission no one has explained to the US public.Here lies a central problem with interventionism: more than two decades of war have stripped the military’s ability to sustain its global footprint without depending on its reserves.  The Pentagon depends on young part-time soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to support our interventions. Why? Because they can’t convince Americans to expand the military and thus spending, and they cannot convince enough young Americans to serve; our recruiting crisis is real. Yet the foreign policy establishment insists every deployment prevents an existential threat. So, they call on police, firefighters, students, and Americans who signed up to defend our country as the force of last resort, disrupting and risking their lives.This is not the path to liberty. As a restrainer and Freedom Conservative, I see alignment and common values. Most right leaning restrainers are libertarians or national conservatives. Freedom Conservatives are emerging as restrainers as well. Not all Freedom Conservatives will accept restraint, nor will all restrainers choose Freedom Conservatism. But there is natural overlap.  The post Realism, Restraint, and Freedom Conservatism appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Trump Is Right to Pull Out of Debates The Democrats need to get their own house in order before debates are settled. When the former President Donald Trump, the current frontrunner in November’s presidential election, said he would “absolutely” debate Vice President Kamala Harris just 48 hours after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and mere hours after Harris had the requisite number of pledged delegates to be the nominee, I was disappointed. Just as the Trump campaign sat back and let Democrats tear each other to pieces for two full weeks—a period which ended with a failed assassination attempt against Trump—I wanted the Trump team to deny the legitimacy of the Harris candidacy until after the Democratic National Convention. Democrats can feign unity and the media can astroturf enthusiasm for Harris’s campaign, but two facts remain fundamentally unchanged. First, with Nancy Pelosi playing Robespierre and the Democratic party the Jacobins they always have been, the Democrats led the incumbent president to the guillotine and took his head in the public square. Second, Harris has yet to receive a single vote to become the Democratic nominee. Suffice it to say, this is not business as usual. I feared that, by agreeing to debate Harris so quickly, Trump was helping the Democrats move on and pass off the palace coup as nothing more than hardball politics. It appears Trump and his team have come to see it that way, too. On Thursday, Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement,  Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election debate details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee. There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party—namely Barack Hussein Obama—that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone “better.” Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds. Predictably, Harris and leftists online and in the media had a field day with Trump’s statement.  “I have agreed to the previously agreed upon Sept. 10 debate. He agreed to that previously,” Harris claimed. “Now, here he is backpedaling, and I’m ready, and I think the voters deserve to see the split screen that exists in this race on a debate stage, and so I’m ready. Let’s go.”  On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Pete Buttigieg claimed, “Tough talk is this guy’s calling card. And now there’s this extraordinary show of weakness.”  “He agreed to this specific debate, on this specific network, on this specific date, and now he’s pulling out. It shows that he’s afraid,” Buttigieg added. What Mayor Pete fails to mention is that Trump agreed to the debate terms with Biden. Until they meet in Chicago next month, Democrats do not actually have a candidate for president. It is doubtful that Trump is scared to debate Harris. Lest the people forget, last time Trump was on the debate stage, he ran the incumbent Democratic president out of the race. But Trump hasn’t just beaten Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton was seen as a more talented politician in 2016 than Harris is now, and Trump sent her packing, too. For the foreseeable future, the Trump campaign’s mission ought to be to delegitimize Harris and her campaign at every turn.  The American people still have zero answers about why Biden actually left the race, nor do they have answers about what Harris’s role was in his departure. It is not Trump’s job to force the question on the debate stage—that should be handled with expediency by Republicans with subpoena powers on Capitol Hill and the few good journalists left—but he will if he must. Trump shouldn’t budge on having debates until the Harris campaign is treated like a serious presidential campaign. Sure, a Harris rally managed to fill one high school gymnasium, but other campaign hallmarks are shockingly absent. Harris has yet to hold a single press conference in her capacity as vice president or as a candidate for president since Biden’s departure. Nor has she faced a hard-hitting sitdown interview. Her campaign website does not even have a page on her website explaining her positions on the issues.  Don’t worry. We’re told the sitting vice president is currently working out where she stands on the war in Gaza. Maybe we can talk about debates after she’s figured it out. The post Trump Is Right to Pull Out of Debates appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, Report: Democrats Quietly Prepping To Anoint A NEW Nominee That’s NOT Kamala Harris – Who Will It Be?, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. (Natural News) The most powerful Democrats on the left wing of American politics are not planning to nominate Kamala Harris as the 2024 presidential nominee, the New York Post is claiming. Democrat top brass have quietly chosen someone else (Michelle Obama? Gavin Newsom? Who?) to nominate at the Democratic National Convention next month, insiders familiar with the situation say. According to … Continue reading Report: Democrats Quietly Prepping To Anoint A NEW Nominee That’s NOT Kamala Harris – Who Will It Be? ...

???????‍♂️ - Absolute insanity! And that clown world insanity continues on today!!

They want all small businesses gone. The Government are brutal as they are WEF! I feel terrible for this young woman who is just running a small business.

Big fail and also no one should be eating this poison either!

Several commentators have compared the recent assassination attempt on candidate and former president Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, to the attempted assassination of candidate and former president Theodore Roosevelt in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, during the 1912 presidential election campaign. Trump was shot by a 20-year-old man in his right ear while giving a speech at a campaign rally just a few days before he was scheduled to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president in Milwaukee. Roosevelt, who was running as the Progressive Party (or Bull Moose Party) candidate, was shot in the chest while acknowledging a crowd of supporters on his way to give a campaign speech in Milwaukee by a 36-year-old German-American bar owner named John Schrank. Trump’s would-be assassin was killed by a Secret Service sniper. Schrank was arrested, pleaded guilty, determined to be insane, and committed to hospitals for the criminally insane. He died in one of them in 1943. Trump’s shooting came in the wake of a multi-year campaign by Democrats, some Republicans, and the mainstream media that portrayed Trump as a lackey of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a “threat to democracy,” a would-be dictator like Julius Caesar, and a fascist who made untrue claims that the 2020 election was stolen and who, if elected in 2024, would never give up power. Schrank, after his arrest, expressed beliefs that Roosevelt would dangerously erode the Constitutional tradition by seeking a third term as president and that if Roosevelt succeeded the country would be torn apart by civil war. Schrank claimed that his reading of history and newspapers of the time, as well as a dream in which the slain President William McKinley told Schrank that it was Roosevelt who killed him, persuaded Schrank that Roosevelt had to be “put . . . out of the way.” Schrank also saw danger in Roosevelt’s repeated claims that Republican Party elites in 1912 stole the party’s presidential nomination from him. Schrank believed that Roosevelt would not hesitate to take the presidency by force if he lost the election, and would establish himself as a monarch or perpetual president. Schrank, like some of our modern-day anti-Trumpers, even compared Roosevelt to Julius Caesar. (READ MORE: The Bloodless Coup of Joe Biden Will Not Work Out Well for Democrats) Roosevelt likely survived the assassination attempt, as biographer Edmund Morris explains, because the bullet passed through Roosevelt’s overcoat, his folded speech located in his vest pocket, a thick glasses case, a suspender belt, and his shirt and undershirt. The bullet lodged against one of Roosevelt’s ribs but never struck his heart. Though Roosevelt was bleeding, he insisted on giving the prepared speech at an auditorium nearby instead of being taken to a hospital. When Roosevelt reached the podium, he pulled open his vest to expose the bloodstain on his shirt, then boldly remarked, “It takes more than that to kill a bull moose.” He delivered the speech, which lasted some 80 minutes, even as he continued to lose blood and strength. He later spent a week in a Chicago hospital, but the bullet was never removed. During and after the assassination attempt, Roosevelt demonstrated courage, perseverance, determination, and the fighting spirit that made him a legendary figure in American history. (READ MORE: Dear Academia: Biden Didn’t Save Us From ‘Trumpian Chaos’) Donald Trump survived the assassin’s bullets due to a brief shift of his head at just the right moment. One bullet grazed his ear and blood flowed down his ear and across his face. After ducking to the floor and being surrounded by Secret Service agents, Trump defiantly rose up, raised his right arm, made a fist, and yelled “Fight, fight.” As he was escorted off the stage and into a vehicle, Trump repeated that show of determination, grit, and fighting spirit by again raising his right arm, making a fist, and yelling “Fight.” It was eerily reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt was an insurgent Republican trying to recapture control of the party. When party regulars frustrated his efforts, Roosevelt formed a third party and challenged the Republican establishment, accusing them of nefarious tactics to steal the nomination from him. Roosevelt took enough votes away from incumbent William Howard Taft to enable Democrat Woodrow Wilson to be elected president. Donald Trump in 2016 was an insurgent Republican who captured control of the party and won election to the presidency thereafter. Some party regulars continued to resist Trump’s populist takeover of the GOP and hoped that after Trump’s 2020 defeat, he would simply go away and return them to party control. That didn’t happen. Trump’s capture of the GOP is now complete, as evidenced by the recently concluded national convention. If anything, the attempted assassination and Trump’s response have made him stronger. If Trump should be elected in November, his Teddy Roosevelt moment in Butler, Pennsylvania, coming in the wake of President Biden’s disastrous debate performance and its aftermath may be the moment that sealed the victory. READ MORE: Ten Days That Changed the World? The post Trump’s Teddy Roosevelt Moment appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

My hair was still dripping from a rushed shower as I clambered down the steps to ensure I didn’t miss Donald Trump’s entrance to the rally in Butler, Penn. on July 13. My husband, eagerly perched on the ottoman, was thoroughly engrossed in the live stream from Right Side Broadcasting. As we cheered along to the patriotic anthems and recounted the electric fun we had at the huge Trump rally in Butler back in 2020, we excitedly pointed out all our friends that flitted across the screen as the cameras panned. There was Emily and Joel (names changed here). It had been exactly two weeks since we were shutting down the dance floor at their wedding. There was also Laura and her soon-to-be sister-in-law, Claire. Laura had delayed her departure to her first physical therapy clinical rotation to make it to her first Trump rally. There were my former sorority sisters and their families. Wow, I didn’t know they had boarded the Trump Train! And then there was Vince, Sue, and Mark — friends we had made at CPAC and the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference; they would never miss this rally. (READ MORE: The Bloodless Coup of Joe Biden Will Not Work Out Well for Democrats) As we watched our screen, my husband and I chuckled at Trump’s delivery and mannerisms, perpetually bewildered at how critics can resist his entertainment value. But just then, the shots rang out. Our stomachs dropped as quickly as former President Trump did. I begged my typically unflappable yet hysterical husband to turn off the TV. He insisted it was his duty to see this through. I could not bear to watch whatever was unfolding — not just because of Trump but because of the friends we knew were there and possibly others that we thought might be there as well. We finally collected ourselves and prayed for Trump’s recovery, for the first responders, and for the safety of all rallygoers, our hands still trembling. Later that evening, we were haunted by imagining “what if” the shooter hadn’t missed. And we were still wondering if our friends were okay. Recall that it was not until the day after that we began hearing the names of those hit by bullets. If my husband and I were this rattled by the live stream, imagine the trauma of every witness or those who sat near Corey Comperatore, David Dutch, and James Copenhaver. Then came the week that followed. Offices Are Political. But Not When It Comes to Trump. Preparing for a work week on Sunday evening felt odd. Undeniably, the energy in the country had changed instantly. A monumental event occurred on a weekend. Social media blew up with “The Photo” of Trump’s miraculous vitality. Surely, on Monday morning, the office would be abuzz. After all, at my office, Pennsylvania is our home state and many of my peers hail from the city or county of Butler. I came to the office on Monday morning ready to “fight, fight, fight” in my most patriotic business professional attire. I was prepared to stand up for the dignity of Corey Comperatore and the baseline morality that even those who champion the Second Amendment do not deserve to die by firearm, contrary to social media’s cesspool of commentary. (READ MORE: Dear Academia: Biden Didn’t Save Us From ‘Trumpian Chaos’) And yet, the only thing more shocking than the assassination attempt itself was the silence that followed at the office. Five business days passed with zero communication about the history that had unfolded in our backyard. I sensed people intentionally avoiding asking how my weekend was and caught a manager stumbling as he pivoted from asking “How was—” to “What are you doing this coming weekend?” My office is a very liberal place. I confided my frustration to a closeted conservative colleague, and he lamented that I was the only person in his professional network who mentioned the assassination attempt at all. Perhaps this silence would be more forgivable if corporations did not make a habit of becoming political pundits. CEOs across the country had dawned their best CNN anchor impression to condemn the actions of Jan. 6. Thus, I would expect at least someone to acknowledge an assassination attempt on former President Trump and the death of a heroic community member less than an hour north up Rt. 79. After all, my colleagues and employer never hesitate to get political. LinkedIn is clogged with Pride Parade photos every June. My peers eagerly virtue-signal their superior compassion. We are now granted an official day off work for Juneteenth, but not for Good Friday. I cannot say that we resumed business as usual. The fact is that we never paused in the first place. Business carried on as if Donald Trump was not nearly assassinated and as if a husband, father, firefighter, and hero was not killed. And it wasn’t only in my woke office environment. Even my 95-year-old grandma told me that at her senior living community, “It’s like nothing even happened.” Donald J. Trump, it seemed, would not be named. At least not the dramatic attempt on his life. Why is Donald Trump the real-life Voldemort? As if his name alone is so dirty and powerful, that it cannot be uttered? The silence is offensive. It is offensive to Corey Comperatore’s family and everyone who endured the trauma of the shooting. The silence minimizes evil and gaslights the victims. The victims are the tens of thousands of rallygoers who anticipated a night of patriotism and fun but instead perilously survived an assassination attempt. (READ MORE: Before the Bullet: Was Crooks a Victim of America’s Mental Health Crisis?) His name is not Voldemort J. Trump. His name is Donald J. Trump. His fans are not monsters; they are humans. The spirituality of the world became palpable on July 13, 2024. You can feel that the battle is not flesh and blood but of the rulers and authorities of the spiritual realm. Many political issues are no longer Republican versus Democrat. They are goodness versus wickedness. Even so, I take continual comfort in Allie Beth Stuckey’s axiom: “God’s eternal plan of redemption is always going off without a hitch.” Columnist Gerard Baker urges Christians not to hyper-spiritualize Trump’s survival as a “message from God,” but it is hard not to consider the near-miss a moment of divine providence and possibly the world’s most-viewed miracle. God is not done with you or me. God is not done with Donald J. Trump. God is certainly not done with America. Let’s fight, fight, fight together. Emma Peel is a proud Grove City College alumna working in the financial services industry. Ms. Peel enjoys hiking, cooking, and hosting friends and family. When corporate America is too repugnant, she retreats to reading and writing about conservative virtues. You can find her writing at Checkpoint.org. The post Voldemort J. Trump: He Who Shall Not Be Named appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

No, Joe, Democracy is Not 'The Essence of Who We Are'