Connect with us

Everything

I finally understand ‘America First’ and it’s not so bad

Published

on

I have always struggled with President Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. Its historical links to Charles Lindbergh and anti-Semitism bothered me. A year ago, then-candidate Trump’s inability to elucidate a clear set of goals frightened me. And as president, Trump’s foreign policy gaffes and flat-out alienation of some foreign leaders is quite troubling.

In his Warsaw speech, I think we’ve finally seen the outlines of what “America First” really means, and to me, it’s not so bad.

To explain, I have to go back into history, and to the roots of our current Western globalist presuppositions.

Four fantasies

On January 6, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stood before Congress and delivered a speech that reverberates in Washington, D.C., and throughout the country, today. It was called the “Four Freedoms” speech, and in it, FDR outlined “four essential human freedoms.”

They were freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. In a speech, these concepts sound absolutely wonderful. In practice, they are impossible to achieve. That’s because of the most troubling aspect of FDR’s speech: These freedoms were not for America—they were for the whole world.

The first three freedoms were postfaced with the words “—everywhere in the world.” The freedom from fear was defined thusly: “translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.”

These “Four Freedoms” were really four globalist fantasies. Even Roosevelt know they were nothing more than rhetoric. He used them in a speech asking Congress for money to pay for armaments!

In FDR’s speech, patriotism was defined as an act of sacrifice to these world principles. Roosevelt called for more defense dollars, raised from taxes instead of war bonds. “If the Congress maintains these principles the voters, putting patriotism ahead pocketbooks, will give you their applause.”

The world has been applauding ever since. Congress, and the military, addicted to tax dollars, has used the “four freedoms” to fight five wars since World War II. America has become the human rights super-hero of the world, and has been held accountable when we fail to live up to the super-hero status.

President Barack Obama was the pinnacle and embodiment of FDR’s globalist fantasies. Obama bought every word of FDR’s vision. “The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society,” Roosevelt said.

It’s impossible.

The great, unsolvable problem of the “Four Freedoms” is that, in scope, and in the human experience, they cannot be fulfilled. In fact, the attempt to fulfill them will result in one or more of those freedoms being consumed by the others. As an example, the freedom from fear where nations are disarmed would make impossible the protection of the freedom of speech and freedom to worship. Standing against evil is a business that requires arms and force.

Roosevelt knew that once the Nazis were defeated, another great evil or threat would rise up. The UN, as wonderful an idea it was for nations to solve their differences without war, was pie-in-the-sky. Within 4 years, the UN flag would fly over hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fighting Communist Chinese. So much for “freedom from fear.”

But the West ate up the “Four Freedoms” and used it as the basis of European pluralistic society. Meanwhile, America footed the bill for 46 years of standing up to the Soviet Union. In Germany, where paying taxes is considered the highest form of patriotic duty, they still yearn for Roosevelt’s vision. They can’t stand our current president.

America First

Thursday, in Poland, citizens heard and understood a vision that marks a break from FDR and Obama. President Trump illustrated the value of American leadership in a way not seen since Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate.

After Trump’s speech, I believe I understand “America First” as Trump intended it to be understood. It’s an undoing of FDR’s four fantasies, and a restoration of America’s freedoms and our leadership among nations that value those freedoms (not try to sell them like snake-oil).

You see, the U.S. Constitution—and the Declaration of Independence that preceded it—never promised Americans FDR’s “Four Freedoms.” The Constitution barred our government from interfering with free speech and freedom of religion. It never promised that other governments would do the same.

Our founders never promised a freedom from want or fear. Those things are part of being human. Charity and comfort cease to be what they are when the recipients of those virtues claim ownership of the fruit and demand the tree. Instead of war bonds purchased by individuals as a patriotic act of sacrifice, a tax is a burden on all.

The world cannot be sold on buying a Coke and singing in harmony. Religious freedom must be defended. Freedom of expression must be defended. Most nations–even in the West–don’t offer those freedoms to the degree America does. The West has been buying FDR’s four fantasies for so long that they believe “just a little more time” and we will see it happen.

Then Brexit. Then radical Islamic terror. Then Russia destabilizing Ukraine and invading Crimea. Then Syria, then Iran, then North Korea–shall I go on?

I believe Trump sees “America First,” at least the way I see it, is to mean that we will run our country in the way that allows America to help others, but not to guarantee their own freedoms. Those freedoms are for their own citizens to purchase, not demand. The Poles who heard Trump’s speech understood this, having paid a high cost.

“Our citizens did not win freedom together, did not survive horrors together, did not face down evil together, “ Trump said, “only to lose our freedom to a lack of pride and confidence in our values.”

Our freedom. Our values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness—on these we stand. Unfortunately, speeches don’t govern, or tweet, or make deals with tyrants. But in principle, I support Trump in what he’s finally managed to elucidate to America and to the world.

If Trump’s “America First” succeeds, FDR’s four globalist fantasies may finally cease to ring. And that’s not such a bad thing after all.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

What the far-Left radical socialists do not understand: They are now a small political minority

Published

on

By

What the far-Left radical socialists do not understand They are now a small political minority

Studies have shown that the far-Left radical socialists are an ever-shrinking but excessively vocal political minority.

This is one of those columns that’s been in composition for weeks, being a number of ideas that floated about in their own eco-sphere until they attained enough weight to gel together. Oddly enough, the spark was a piece on journalist Andy Ngo in Buzzfeed ‘News’. Apparently being attacked by a mob of the fascist Left that put him in hospital was the best thing for his career, never mind the neurological aftereffects.

Much like the stopped clock being right twice a day, the Far-Left media does get things correct on occasion. They have begun to label anyone not of their ilk to be on the ‘center-right’ or Conservative as in this case.

The Hidden tribes study showed this to be a stark situation for the far-Left radical socialists, with only 8% of the country self-identifying as such. These are what the study termed to be ‘Progressive’ activists [ a misnomer in itself since they want to go back to the failed ideas of socialism of the past – but we digress]. However, they do have it correct in that most who are not of their collectivist cadres are on the Pro-Liberty Right, the country’s political majority.

The political minority that is the far-Left radical socialists: The Totalitarian Ten Percent

We’ve rounded this up to 10% for generosity and alliteration to be the Totalitarian Ten Percent as an accurate and handy moniker for those who want to ‘Rule the population’. This is the ever shrinking true believers in socialism, that dismiss the stark evidence of it’s 400 years of failure as ‘not really being socialism’ or some such nonsense. Many on the Conservative-Right have eviscerated this mythology numerous times:

The study showed the rest of the population as being the opposite of the ‘Totalitarian Ten Percent’. The people in the 90% fall into the defined categories of the rational political spectrum as being on the Pro-Liberty Right moving from the political center with ‘Traditional and passive’ Liberals, those politically disengaged, moderates and Conservatives.

Studies on ‘Political correctness’ the culture and Liberty destroying scourge of our day also show a decreasing tendency for ‘concern’ on this issue. As has been the case throughout our history, we have fixed the problems that have plagued us. The issue is that while the political majority on the right has righted these wrongs. The political minority on the socialist Far-Left has taken credit for these actions and then come up with new issues no one else care about, such as the labeling of underground cable access points as ‘manholes’. The rest of us on the Pro-Liberty political majority right don’t care, we’re too busy living our lives..

The problem of the Totalitarian Ten Percent annoying everyone else.

The problem for the political majority is that Totalitarian Ten Percent holds the attention or is part of the nation’s socialist media. While their ratings and audience are shrinking at an alarming rate for them, they have an unfortunate tendency to lash out at the rest of us. Their desperation has driven them to want to burn it all down, causing havoc and chaos, so they can step in and offer their ‘solution’. These are, of course, the usual concepts of an ‘Ideal state’ born in the Socratic dialogues of Plato’s Republic from 2,400 years ago, ideas that have failed for centuries but are now supposedly ‘new’.

This is why they want the insanity of open borders, free health care for the world, gun confiscation and strict controls on the Liberty of free speech. This is their ‘Hail Mary’ play to avoid ignominious defeat of their precious cult of collectivism. Encourage as many illegal invaders from around the world, in addition to murderous criminal gang members and drugs, to stream over the border to be newly minted citizens that can vote for all kinds of goodies with other people’s money.

Their socialist national agenda is clear to all that are listening, offer free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food, free childcare, free money and anything else they can think of. To everyone and anyone willing to pay thousands to hop a flight to Brazil and cross the Southern border.

All of this ‘paid’ for by simply – and insanely – inflating the money supply.  The funds for this extreme largess eventually being other peoples’ money. Never mind that their ‘Flat Earth’ socialist ideology has never worked in 4 Centuries, or that one way or another, it will destroy the economy. That’s a feature, not a bug for them, because in their minds, when the whole thing inevitably implodes, they will run in and offer their ‘solution’. In much the same way that they are offering the same solution to Obamacare imploding.

In the case of the inspiration for writing this, the piece from Buzzfeed ‘News’ was essentially another case of the overly vocal socialist far-Left blaming the victim. The piece also expended a number of electrons describing virtually anyone not of their collectivist mindset as Conservative or on the right, hardly attributable to some media personalities who ‘rightfully’ [pardon the pun] consider themselves to be Liberal or moderate. Thus was the inspiration for this essay.

It’s time for the rational 90% to stand up for sanity.

There are obvious problems with a small political minority of ‘neo Bolsheviks’ wanting to run everyone’s life, beginning with their complete hypocrisy [what else is new] in making demands for democracy. But then again, these are people who disdain Liberty while pretending to be ‘Liberal’ or want to go back to failed ancient ideas while being ‘progressive’. Of course, Leftists have explained that apparently ‘Liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are imaginary constructs – along with the concept of money. Illustrating just how far they have gone in losing the plot.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left would like to run everyone’s life for various reasons, social justice, global cooling, or just because they somehow are more intelligent than the rest of us [Just as them]. We of the rational 90% would just like to be ‘left’ alone, we do not care about their ever changing sensibilities over language. We do not care about their repetition of the dangers of global cooling, global warming, Climate change, climate emergency, climate crisis, or whatever it is this week. We don’t care that someone else is making a dollar more than us, the economy is humming along nicely.

Were they truly interested in democracy, Liberty or Progress, the far-Left radical socialists would advocate what works in the real world: Economic freedom. The fact that they want to impose by force a system that has never worked by undemocratic means to the detriment of Liberty should tell us everything we need to know about why they should be rejected and opposed at every turn.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Published

on

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted to kill a resolution to pursue impeachment against President Trump. The vote followed a resolution to condemn Trump following his tweets that enraged the left. The House got to vote on impeachment and this time 95 members all voted against killing the resolution, all 95 members in this 322-95 vote were Democrats. Not among them was Justin Amash who actually called for impeachment back in May in a 13 tweet thread.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.” Justin Amash May 20th

If you recall these tweet came weeks before he decided to name a single of the several instances of impeachable activity, instead reverting to vague tweets about the nature of impeachment. Yet since May 18th, it has become increasingly obvious Justin Amash has no intentions on following through on his calls to impeachment. As a Representative in the US Congress, he has the power only 435 people in the country have. If he feels that it is his duty to pursue impeachment, which is a view he pontificated on Twitter, then anything short of bringing forward impeachment on the specific charges he eventually laid out is grandstanding. With so few Congressmen having read the Mueller Report, his words, Democrats would defer to him on this issue if he would only do what he said he would do. But Justin Amash was only grandstanding on impeachment. Otherwise why would he have voted to kill a resolution on pursuing impeachment, the very thing he called for?

What has Justin Amash done since May 18th?

He voted for a resolution condemning Trump, but the real answer is, he’s taken some time to brand himself. After support in his own district plummeted, on July 4th, he declared his independence from the Republican Party in an op ed in the Washington Post. Seeing as Independence Day is about America’s history not a day for politicians to politicize for their own endgame, this is perhaps the most egotistical way do just that. Maybe doing it on 9/11 is worse. As he all but comes out of the closet on a 2020 Libertarian or Independent Presidential Run, Justin Amash looks to rebrand Libertarianism, removing the populism Rand Paul embraced. Daniel McCarthy at Spectator wrote a really good piece on Amash illustrating this point.

What Ron Paul did was to counteract neoconservatism in the Republican party with libertarianism and populism. Populism proved to be more potent, but libertarianism itself contributed important elements to populism, including an articulate anti-interventionist foreign policy and a sense of class warfare as about power, not just wealth. Amash was never comfortable with populism, but libertarianism without it has no market at all. The Washington Post and the NeverTrump neocons share Amash’s animosity toward Trump and the populist right, but they share even fewer of his professed principles than Trump does. Ron Paul won despite losing; Amash teaches libertarians simply how to lose by losing.

In not even fighting for the very thing he parted from the Republicans over, Trump, he has already lost. His district has likely turned on him and his best political prospect is being a below average 3rd party candidate. All he’s left with politically are his principles which his grandstanding calls into question.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Two weeks after Benghazi attack, Ilhan Omar Tweeted ‘Allahu Akbar’

Published

on

Two weeks after Benghazi attack Ilhan Omar Tweeted Allahu Akbar

This is old news, of course, but bears repeating at this time. Representative Ilhan Omar has been doing everything she can over the last couple of weeks to paint herself as the victim of bigotry and someone who loves our country. And while there’s definitely some substance to the notion that crowds of Republicans shouldn’t be chanting “send her back,” it’s also understandable why so many Americans are opposed to her presence on Capitol Hill.

Even if we dismiss reports that she married her brother, called for CBP to be eliminated, said this is “not going to be the country of white people,” referred to 9/11 as “some people did something,” and is regularly praised by former KKK leader David Duke, it’s difficult to dismiss her reaction to the Benghazi attacks that took the lives of four American heroes in 2012.

I’m not going to dignify her Tweet with an opinion. She’s the one who needs to explain it. But despite her celebration, life isn’t good for the four men who lost there’s in Benghazi. Remember this, folks, as Democrats embrace her wholeheartedly.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending