The biblical account of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 provides a profound archetype for the destructive power of envy—the emotional and spiritual engine behind revolutionary ideologies. The biblical warning remains as relevant in 2026 as it was in the beginning: rule over the sin crouching at the door, or it will rule over you.

Cain, a tiller of the ground, grew resentful when God accepted Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock but not Cain’s produce from the soil. Rather than examining his own heart or effort, Cain allowed jealousy to fester. God warned him: “sin is crouching at your door; its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Cain did not. He murdered his brother in the field.

The story is not primarily about material inequality or “unfair favor”; it is about the refusal to accept another’s legitimate success or divine blessing and the turn to violence and destruction that follows. Cain’s envy is the oldest recorded instance of what later became systematized in communist and socialist thought: the transformation of personal resentment into a moral justification for seizing what belongs to others.

Abel had done nothing wrong; he had simply offered his best in faith. Cain’s response was not reform or greater effort—it was elimination of the one who had more favor. This pattern repeats across history whenever movements frame achievement as illegitimate exploitation and demand redistribution through coercion.

Historical Parallels in Revolutionary Movements

The French Revolution began with Enlightenment abstractions about equality but quickly descended into the Reign of Terror, where resentment against the aristocracy justified mass executions and property confiscations. The guillotine became the instrument of “equity.”

In Russia, Bolshevik ideology explicitly weaponized class envy. Lenin and Stalin targeted “kulaks”—successful peasant farmers who had improved their lot through effort—as class enemies. Dekulakization involved confiscation, exile, and execution. The result was the Holodomor famine in Ukraine and the broader collectivization disasters that killed millions. Property was seized not because of individual crime but because its owners had achieved more.

Mao’s China followed the same script on a larger scale. Land reform campaigns executed or persecuted landlords and “rich peasants.” The Cultural Revolution mobilized youth to attack anyone perceived as having more status, education, or success. “Capitalist roaders” were purged based on resentment dressed up as revolutionary justice.

Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge took it to its logical extreme under Pol Pot: Year Zero abolished private property, money, and most distinctions of achievement, resulting in roughly a quarter of the population murdered or starved in the name of erasing “unequal” outcomes.

These were not aberrations. They flowed directly from the core Marxist premise that unequal outcomes stem from exploitation rather than differences in talent, effort, culture, family structure, or providence.

The “justification of violence and property seizure on the basis of resentment toward those who achieve more through their own effort” is not a bug of communism—it is the feature. Philosophers from Edmund Burke onward warned that abstract demands for perfect equality, untethered from tradition, law, and human nature, produce tyranny.

Biblical values provide the moral dimension: the 10th Commandment explicitly forbids coveting what belongs to your neighbor. Envy is treated as a serious sin precisely because it corrodes the soul and society.

Proven economic theory, drawing from thinkers like Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, emphasizes that wealth creation is not zero-sum. When property rights are secure and effort is rewarded, the rising tide lifts far more boats than redistribution schemes ever have.

Socialist experiments consistently produce the opposite: shared poverty, capital flight, and the empowerment of resentful elites who control the redistribution apparatus.

The Modern Example of Zohran Mamdani

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani fits this pattern with striking precision. Elected in 2025 and sworn in January 2026, Mamdani—a democratic socialist and DSA member—campaigned on and later advanced policies that explicitly invoked racial and neighborhood demographics to justify shifting tax burdens.

During his campaign, he proposed reforming New York’s property tax system to “shift the burden” from overtaxed homeowners in outer boroughs to “more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” The language was not accidental. It framed success and property ownership in predominantly white or higher-wealth areas as an inequity requiring correction through higher taxation.

When confronted on camera as mayor-elect—“So you intend to tax the white neighborhoods more?”—Mamdani deflected by claiming the reference to “whiter” neighborhoods was merely a neutral description of current geography and assessment patterns, not an expression of racial intent: “the use of the term was a description of neighborhoods, not a description of intent.” He insisted the goal was simply a “fair property tax system.” This rhetorical move—stating a racially charged policy, then retreating to colorblind language when challenged—is a classic example of the same ideological sleight of hand that allows resentment to operate under the cover of “equity.”

As mayor, Mamdani released a Preliminary Citywide Racial Equity Plan that cited stark wealth disparities (median white household wealth over $200,000 vs. under $20,000 for Black households) and attributed them primarily to “systemic racism.” This was used to justify expanded DEI initiatives, higher taxes on wealthier residents and corporations, and even proposed cuts to NYPD positions.

This warped belief system represents the migration of classic communist class envy into identity-based form. Instead of “bourgeoisie vs. proletariat,” it is reframed as historical “oppressor” groups (often white or Asian Americans who have achieved through effort, culture, and family stability) vs. designated victim groups—pure identity politics.

The Marxist remedy remains the same: use state power to seize or redistribute resources on the basis of group identity rather than individual conduct or neutral rules.

This tyranny violates core constitutional principles—equal protection under the law, colorblind governance, and the sanctity of private property. Conservatives rightly note that such policies are themselves divisive and unconstitutional. They ignore cultural and behavioral factors that drive outcome gaps (two-parent households, educational attainment, work ethic, time preference) in favor of perpetual grievance.

They disincentivize the very behaviors—saving, investing, maintaining property—that create wealth in the first place. New York has seen repeated cycles of high-tax, high-regulation policies driving businesses and productive residents outward; accelerating this through explicitly demographic targeting risks accelerating capital flight and fiscal strain.

The Enduring Historical Critique

From Cain’s field to the guillotine, the gulag, the killing fields, and contemporary identity-driven redistributionism, the straight line of human envy connects the dots. The impulse is the same: resentment toward those who have more—whether through divine favor, personal effort, or cultural inheritance—is elevated into a political program that justifies coercion and violence.

American constitutional philosophy counters this destructive human impulse with ordered liberty: secure property rights, rule of law applied equally, personal responsibility, and a moral framework that treats envy as a vice to be mastered rather than a credential for power.

History shows that societies built on resentment and redistribution eventually consume their own productive capacity. Societies that channel human ambition through secure rights and cultural norms that celebrate achievement rather than punish it generate unprecedented prosperity.

These are the enduring lessons that every American must rediscover in this year that we celebrate 250 years of true freedom, if we are to continue to be the greatest and most prosperous nation in the history of God’s earth.

Yes, the radicals on the Texas State Board of Education have decided that public school students in the Lone Star State should become just a little familiar with the work that arguably influenced American history and Western literature more than any other.

How dare they.

On Friday, the state education board approved a new list of mandated readings for students. The list, which was passed with a 9-5 vote and included classic works as well as the Bible, will start to be implemented in 2030.

“We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” said board member Brandon Hall, a Republican and a pastor, according to CNN. Two-thirds of Texans are Christian, and about 6% practice other religions, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, according to Pew Research Center.

Besides the oh-so-controversial 13th Chapter of First Corinthians, students will also be expected to read the Beatitudes, Psalm 23, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, two chapters from Exodus, and several chapters from the Book of Job, according to a draft circulated before the vote.

Fourth graders will have to wrestle with Luke 14:7-11, where Jesus recommends people not start by sitting in the highest-status seat. (Perhaps the school cafeteria social scenes will never be the same.) Sixth graders, in an era where adolescent mental health seems more fragile than ever, will have to cope with Matthew 6:25-34, which pushes the radical message that God will take care of people and worrying is unnecessary.

Yet, of course, there is still outrage from the expected quarters. “A mandatory public school reading list should never function as a Bible lesson,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in a statement. “Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought.”

Never mind, apparently, that American history is dominated by figures highly influenced by Christianity, from the Founding Fathers to Martin Luther King Jr. You simply can’t understand our nation’s history without some grasp of Christianity—but you can grasp our nation’s history without an understanding of Islam or atheism or Hinduism.

Gaylor’s view is also an outlier in Texas. A 2024 Texas Public Policy Foundation poll found that 64% of Texans approved of putting religious stories into the public school curriculum.

Of course, reading the Bible doesn’t mean that public school students have to assent to Christianity. In high school, when I was homeschooled and using a Catholic Great Books program, I read portions of the Quran. I was reading to try to understand where Muslims came from and how this book had shaped their history, not because I believed the Quran. Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., can do the same when it comes to reading the Bible in Texas.

Ultimately, reading the Bible will help give Texas students a deeper understanding of the ideas that form the foundation of our culture. As Julie Pickren, a Republican on the education board, told The Texas Tribune, the readings will give “important insight into the moral and philosophical traditions that have shaped Western civilization.”

A draft of the readings included classics such as William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” Anne Frank’s “Diary of a Young Girl,” and C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

“A classical approach to education, one that emphasizes the careful study of primary historical documents, plays a vital role in developing strong critical thinking skills in students,” Pickren added.

“When students engage directly with original writings, speeches, sermons, and foundational texts, they can evaluate ideas and develop a deeper understanding of the principles that have shaped the USA and Texas.”

Preach it.

In the TikTok era, where students are far more likely to spend hours watching inane reels than poring over a tome that changed the course of history, it’s critical that students be forced in school to actually engage with ideas. And by ideas, I don’t mean some emotional rant in a 30-second video, but a reasoned argument that has resonated for decades or centuries or millennia.

Students should read the Bible—and the Founding Fathers, and Shakespeare, and Plato, and so many of the thinkers that profoundly affected the course of Western civilization. Some young Americans may still decide to reject the values of their ancestors. But at least it will be done after actually having some understanding of those values and ideas’ origins, not just seeing a few social media posts talking up socialism or atheism and arguing against straw men.

Thankfully, Texas isn’t the only state to realize students need to engage more deeply with the works that influenced America. “Utah students will be required to analyze specific Bible passages referenced or ‘alluded to’ in U.S. historical documents,” in the future, thanks to legislation passed earlier this year, reported The Salt Lake Tribune.

“Oftentimes, where Texas goes, other states will follow, right? So, this is a pretty substantial move that I could imagine other states picking up and moving forward with as a possibility,” Antero Garcia, a Stanford University professor and the president of the National Council of Teachers of English, told ABC News.

Hopefully, more states and districts will follow—and provide future voters with a better understanding of the history of the country they live in.

But Wedgwood Circle, a collective of investors, patrons, and creative talent in the entertainment industry, did not. 

With the help of a $50,000 Heritage Foundation America’s 250th Innovation Prize grant, Wedgwood Circle is producing “Marblehead: The Untold Story of the Men in the Boat,” a 120-page graphic novel that brings to life the story of the Marblehead regiment—the first racially integrated unit in the American military during the American Revolution.

They were involved in several critical conflicts during the Revolutionary War, including Washington’s iconic crossing of the Delaware River.  

The regiment was responsible for many heroic acts throughout their time in the war, including when they provided Washington’s initial bodyguard when conspiracies to assassinate him arose in the early years of the war. 

The project was developed in partnership with MORE Productions and a team of experienced graphic novelists, educational consultants, publication experts, and promotional strategists to ensure broad distribution and impact.  

Mandi Hart, filmmaker and attorney who collaborated on the project through MORE Productions, told the Daily Signal in an interview at the time of the award: 

The Marbleheaders epitomized E Pluribus Unum—out of many, one. Their brotherhood was forged by necessity on the dangerous Grand Banks and solidified in combat during the grueling years of the Revolutionary War. We hope their example inspires current and future generations of Americans to pursue the same spirit of connection across distinctions. Told through rich visuals and narrative, the graphic novel aims to make this historically significant yet little-known story accessible to a wide audience of readers and to inspire interest in America’s revolutionary heritage. 

The Marblehead regiment is an inspirational tale that deserves to be told. Their courage and brotherhood show a necessary unity that, although uncommon, is desperately needed in America. 

“Creating content can be a lonely and risky exercise,” Hart said. “The opportunity to be with other recipients (upon receiving the award) allowed us to encourage one another, create a community of cause, and possibly collaborate in the future. Up to now, the Marblehead story has been largely unknown, but we look forward to sharing this amazing true story with the nation in December 2026,” which coincides with the 250th anniversary of Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. 

The project plans to have a special release, which will distribute “Marblehead” to schools, libraries, and homeschool families. 

“We will develop educational resources and activity materials that coincide with the graphic novel to increase its impact and audience engagement,” Hart continued. “We also hope to exhibit in person at a handful of librarian events, comic cons, and homeschool conferences.” 

All of which predicts an exciting future for the story of the Marbleheaders. 

Wedgwood Circle’s award-winning work joins other America’s 250th Innovation Prize recipients whose projects use education, storytelling, competition, and media to promote civic engagement, constitutional understanding, and patriotism as part of the nation’s semiquincentennial celebration.

Additional Round Two winners are:

• Harlan Institute
• Mountain States Policy Center
• The Moving Picture Institute. 
• Constituting America

Round One winners of the America’s 250th Innovation Prize:

• Creative Studio to Release Video Series for America’s 250th Anniversary 
• Faith Group Wins Innovation Prize for America’s 250th Celebration
• ‘A First of Its Kind’: Bestselling Author Crafts American Fable Collection
• Catholic Nonprofit Develops Resources to Inspire Patriotism
• Virginia Nonprofit Wins Prize to Create US History Documentaries for Nation’s 250th Anniversary

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.  

Recently, we’ve had a lot of discussion about racial relations, and the consensus from left to right seems constant and uniform that they’re getting much worse. 

There were two or three iconic events this last week that emphasized that pessimism. One was the Juneteenth celebration in Chicago, which commemorated the official end of slavery in the 1860s and is now our newest national holiday. 

It ended up with 39 people wounded, seven dead, semiautomatic gunfire. It was almost like a war zone. The mayor of Chicago, Mayor [Brandon] Johnson, did not comment on what was the cause of this or the pathologies that would lead people to slaughter. This was entirely 100% Black-on-Black crime, but he was talking about illiberality and discrimination against trans people when his city is under siege. 

At the same time, or prior to that, was the Karmelo Anthony murder, where Karmelo Anthony, a young Black teenager at a track meet, ventured over to the opposing side by intent, carrying a knife in his backpack, went into a tent where the entire group there was from the opposite team that he was playing, and then said he would not leave when asked 10, 12 times, and finally said, “Somebody,” he said, “push me out or try it and you’ll find out.” 

And a young man by the name of [Austin] Metcalf slightly touched him, and he stabbed him in the heart, killed him, ran away, and the result was the Black community has championed Karmelo Anthony. Not all of the Black community, but a sizable portion, and it’s gotten to the point where they believe that he was justified because the so-called white community doesn’t understand Black pride, and you don’t interfere with the space, et cetera. 

In other words, ignoring all the details that he deliberately ventured over to cause a confrontation which could have been settled peacefully if he just left. But the reaction was what was disturbing. 

And then in addition to that, there was the Caitlin Clark incident. She is, remember, the superstar of the Women’s National Basketball Association, and she came out of a fantastic college career. 

She’s very tall, kind of thin, not frail, but not muscular, but she’s a wonderful outside shooter. And somebody with that height and the ability, who’s quick, and the ability to pass has revolutionized the Women’s Basketball Association. And the result is she is gaining, not just for herself and her team, but for the entire league, enormous increases in revenue. 

Some people believe that she’s responsible for 25% in increased revenues. So all the players are getting raises. They have increased stature. They have bigger audiences. They have bigger ad opportunities. They fly not passenger class commercial anymore. It’s been a win-win. 

And yet systematically Black players, women have been trying to hurt her. 

And the most recent incident was that we had a Black player from the opposite team knock her down, and then when she tried to get up, another player may have tried to stop her, but one player took her fist and hit her in the neck or pressed her in the neck, and there were also a knee involved, and it was pretty clear that there was a deliberate attempt. 

And this is one of, according to a lot of news accounts, 10 or 12 incidents where there has been flagrant fouls issued because the players are trying to hurt her. 

So what was the commentary? The commentary was, well, the teams in the WNBA are mostly Black. They’re mostly, to be candid, lesbian, and Caitlin Clark is white and straight, and therefore, this supposedly racist audience has flocked to the WNBA to cheer her on in a divisive standard. 

There’s no evidence that that is true, but the reaction from the Black women and the majority of them, probably not so, but from a sizable minority of them, is to hurt her and damage her even though they know that that is not in their interest. 

I’m gonna talk about that a little bit later, but when you add up all of these incidents, you get the impression that something has gone wrong. 

And usually, the standard exegesis is given the traditions of slavery that have been gone for 160-plus years, Jim Crow in the South, and then this new term systematic racism, white privilege, etc., etc., then there’s a justified rage. 

But that rage and what I just outlined were way in the distant past. 

We’re talking about the present and how the Black community can flourish like every other community, given it has shocking crime statistics, shocking divorce statistics, shocking illegitimacy, single-family parenthood, etc. 

And how did we get here? How did we get to this mess? 

I think we were making pretty good progress in the ’80s and ’90s with a whole new generation of Black politicians, Black athletes, Black actors, Black everybody. 

And there was a growing sense that race was incidental, not essential to who we are. It was essential in a multiracial society. After all, we don’t want to end up like India or Indonesia or Brazil, where we’re racially obsessed, or we have caste, or we have classes. It doesn’t work in a democratic society. 

But Barack Obama came in and said he was going to heal all of us in 2009. He did just the opposite. 

Almost immediately with the Louis Henry Gates incident, the beer summit, he emphasized race. He said things that were not true, that the police systematically are more likely to shoot young Black men who are unarmed versus white men, given the incidence of who is arrested. 

Statistics do not bear that out. 

Pretty soon, affirmative action, which was a black/white solution of some 60 years to past discrimination, morphed into diversity, equity, inclusion. 

And under Obama, he had this vision that anybody who was not white… Of course, he was half white, but he never identified as white. 

He always identified sort of like the one-drop rule of the old Confederacy. If you had one drop of non-white blood, then you were non-white. 

But he identified as non-white, but he said that 30% of the country, that was the basis of DEI, these would be immigrants from India, immigrants from Mexico, people from China, Japan, had a sort of updated Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition, and they had legitimate grievances for past sins against the 70 or 65% white population. 

So in all of these cases, the universities and the political system and the bureaucracies institutionalized that anger and that binary. 

It comes out of Marxist ideology that there is no middle, no middle class. There are oppressed, oppressors, victimized, victimizers. 

But this was new because they substituted race for class. 

This is not sustainable because we are now in the seventh decade of the civil rights movement. 

We’ve had about $25 trillion invested in Great Society programs. We’ve had set-asides. We’ve had affirmative action. We’ve had theme houses, separate graduations, separate dorms, separate safe spaces. 

We’ve had a whole litany, and what’s happening now is there is an identifiable weariness, fatigue with all of this. 

It’s not just from so-called white people. It’s  not from racists. It’s from the Black middle class, and you can see the Black middle class is getting very angry because they are more prone to encounter Black youth, and they are the victims disproportionately of Black crime compared to other minority groups. 

And there’s conservatives in the Black community who are now looking at what Tom Sowell, Shelby Steele, Glenn Loury have warned us for years, and that is during the worst moments of segregation, the Black community had created paradigms of success, nuclear families, fathers present in the household, strict discipline for the children, like all other communities. 

And that was sort of wiped out or at least crippled during the Great Society where the government replaced the parents. 

So where are we now? 

If Black politicians of the left continue to not look at what’s causing these shootouts or this racism from Black people, then they’re only gonna further alienate the majority of Black people who want truth and they want change within the Black community. But more importantly, they’re gonna alienate 70% of the population who does not agree with them. 

Hispanics, Chinese Americans, Asian Americans, white Americans do not believe that society forces Black people to shoot each other or to commit crimes at higher rates than other communities. 

That solution has to come from the Black community, and it’s not any longer a result of historic transgressions or injustice more than a century and a half ago. 

That’s not the answer. The answer is here and now, and it’s a self-help, self-discipline within the Black community, and calls for such reform are coming from the Black community. 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

But in this week’s ruling in Watson v. RNC, that reliable majority flipped on its head with Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberals by holding that, despite plain language in federal law dictating one clear federal election day, states are free to hold federal elections that go days, weeks, or even months into an overtime period for absentee and mail ballot collection.

Now, it’s up to the 14 states that allow for post-Election Day ballot receipt to inject confidence in Election Day by reaffirming—as required by federal law—that Election Day does not somehow mean “Election Week” or even “Election Month.”

In a 5-4 decision that saw Barrett siding with the likes of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court upheld a Mississippi law that allowed for ballots that were only postmarked by Election Day, but received by election officials days later, to be counted in the regularly tabulated totals for an election.

In arriving at this conclusion, the court followed contorted logic that an election could be deemed to be concluded despite states being permitted to actively collect—and solicit the receipt of—new absentee ballots.

And it summarily discounted the fact that, since first-class mail may be recalled, a voter’s choice is not final until that ballot gets delivered to the election official, meaning that for voters who vote by mail, that choice isn’t finalized until the mail is actually delivered.

O.J. Simpson famously published a book called “If I Did It,” in which he explained that while he didn’t kill his wife, he laid out the way in which he would have done it. In his dissent, Justice Alito didn’t need to refer to such hypotheticals to show how someone could undermine—even steal—an election, he instead cited five very real, very recent instances in which absentee ballot fraud resulted in a new election, including one in which “Georgia courts had voided an election after finding ‘widespread’ absentee-ballot fraud involving vote buying, vote selling, multiple voting, felon voting, and deceased-person voting.”

Many states also permit harvested absentee ballots or even ballots without a postmark altogether to be delivered after Election Day. However, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion simply ignored the policy arguments that a mandated stop time for ballot receipt would prevent fraud and restore confidence in the elections. Instead, they said that those arguments are better directed at state legislatures.

On that point, we agree: States could and should take any number of actions that would bolster confidence in the election process, including implementing photo voter ID, implementing proof of citizenship requirements on voter registration, commonsense safeguards in the casting and counting of ballots, as well as transparency in the procedures by which federal agencies and regular citizens can meaningfully audit those processes.

Now, the 14 states that still allow ballots to be received after Election Day could start by doing what the Supreme Court would not – mandating that the prescribed day on which the election is held means the ballot receipt deadline. Late last year, the State of Ohio saw an opportunity to instill even more confidence in its elections by passing and signing a bill that would take bold action even before this Supreme Court holding and end the state’s four-day period after an election during which absentee ballots could still be received and counted towards the election tallies.

Other states should follow Ohio’s lead and give their voters the right to know that ballots being tallied in the days and even weeks following Election Day are not the result of some ballot drop or ballot harvesting operation in a way that nullifies the legitimate, validly-cast votes on or before Election Day.

Election Day means Election Day for a reason, even if the majority of SCOTUS disagrees.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

“The best part about crisscrossing the country for our RV trip is the excitement for this national moment,” Doocy wrote for the New York Post this week. “There’s so much news right now—a lot of it good, a lot of it bad. But running up to the 4th of July, I hear a lot of people talk about America for a change.”

Six couples joined Doocy and his “Fox & Friends” co-hosts for Wednesday’s grand-prize presentation. While one lucky couple went home with the RV, the other five finalists were surprised with free travel trailers of their own.

An All-American Road Trip

Over the past two months, Doocy crisscrossed the country collecting entries from viewers at stops in Jekyll Island, Georgia; Destin, Florida; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; the Jersey Shore; Houston; and the Kansas City area.

Six finalists—one from each stop—were flown to New York for a live showdown Wednesday to see who would drive off with the RV.

Alongside Doocy, co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt, Brian Kilmeade, and Lawrence Jones ran the contestants through the elimination round, handing each finalist a key and having them try to start the RV one at a time.

After four of the couples failed to start the RV, Doocy turned to the final two in anticipation of who might win.

When it was time for Linda Cutruzzula and her husband, the engine started and the show’s hosts erupted in cheers.

‘The Most Incredible Country’

“This whole adventure has been amazing,” she told the hosts. “I just want you to know that we live in the most incredible country that there ever has been or ever will be.”

Camping World CEO Matthew Wagner joined the broadcast to hand over the keys and described the prize as a Class A motor home, with a retail price north of $90,000. Fox News and Camping World covered the taxes on the prize.

Wagner told the finalists who didn’t win that they wouldn’t be going home empty-handed. Camping World had a second RV—a travel trailer—waiting on set, and every one of the five runner-up families was awarded one on the spot.

“Everybody wins a camper,” Doocy told the crowd.

During an interview earlier this month at the Nixon Presidential Library, Vice President JD Vance observed that “Nixon’s historical legacy is enjoying a bit of a cultural renaissance, and deservedly so.”

Vance has clearly noticed the growing online phenomenon of young conservatives taking ownership of Richard Nixon and transforming him into a social media star.

The trend was ignited over the past year by the Richard Nixon Foundation’s social media accounts, which began posting archival photos and videos of the former president that are specifically tailored to reach Gen Z. Clips of Nixon’s speeches and even of Nixon walking to Notorious B.I.G. songs are proving to be stylish and engaging content.

The Foundation’s Instagram page now has almost 110,000 followers. Social media influencers began posting videos of themselves unboxing Nixon-themed merchandise, a tote bag with the phrase “Pretty Girls for Nixon” went viral, and people online began arguing whether Nixon was the greatest president of all time. Gen Z adopted the phrase “Nixonmaxxing” as a descriptor of their newfound affection for the 37th president.

The youth embrace of Nixon is surprising, given how he has been portrayed in the media and in school curricula for the past few decades. In AP U.S. history study guides, for instance, Nixon is often depicted negatively, primarily focusing on the Watergate scandal and accusing him of eroding the public’s trust in the government.

Renowned historian Nigel Hamilton compared Nixon to Hitler: “Like that of the leader of the Third Reich, Richard Nixon’s downfall was one of prolonged agony as his enemies closed in upon him after the Watergate break-in of June 1972.” Fellow historian Randall J. Stephens has similarly characterized Nixon as a “power-hungry authoritarian.”

Movies like Nixon (1995) and Watchmen (2009) have also done their fair share to tarnish his name, portraying him as paranoid, power-hungry, and deeply corrupt. Even “Futurama” humorously depicts Nixon’s floating head fighting for political control in the year 3000. Pop culture painted Nixon as a supervillain, and many young people never questioned that narrative.

In 2023, Nathan Pinkoski’s article “How the Deep State Took Down Nixon” helped shift the conversation about Nixon. Pinkoski argues that Nixon was the target of a sinister scheme by deep-state operatives to undermine his presidency and destroy his administration. He makes a compelling case that the Watergate scandal was an act of sabotage, and that the nefarious image of Nixon we often see is something of a myth.

Through his analysis of formerly classified documents, Pinkoski concludes that the Watergate scandal was part of an “institutional ‘conflict’” and “that Nixon was removed from office not because he endangered the constitutional order, but because his bureaucratic and political enemies plotted successfully against him.” Pinkoski also highlights the challenges Nixon overcame to win the presidency in a landslide victory, championing his efficacy as a statesman and political operative.

Pinkoski’s analysis of Nixon set off waves of online discussion, as people began to realize that perhaps Nixon had been unfairly maligned. However, it should come as no surprise that his resurgence as a beloved public figure came shortly after the 2024 election.

As Vance put it, “If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it’s not all that different from what the same group of people, the same institutions, tried to do to Donald Trump.”

Vance has a point. The public’s perception of President Donald Trump has been negatively influenced by the misdeeds of his political enemies. The Russiagate hoax, impeachment attempts, and lawfare Trump has faced indicate that he is fighting against a powerful and enraged bureaucracy.

Trump’s popularity with young people might help explain why some young people have fully embraced “Nixonmaxxing.” In 2024, Trump earned a larger share of the youth vote than he had in both of his previous elections, indicating that he had growing favorability. One YouGov poll showed that shortly after his election, Trump had a whopping 57% favorability rating among voters aged 18-29. 56% of young men voted for Trump.

Trump spoke openly about how he was lied about and targeted by mainstream media outlets, a populist message that resonated with young people who felt like they were being ignored by elitist Democrats.

Both Trump and Nixon are appealing because they feel countercultural. As conservatives face the threats of oppressive leftwing media conglomerates, DEI, and socialism, they feel like rebels. Nixon was considered a threat to the state, and he was removed from office in faux disgrace. Trump was considered a threat to the state, and he was dragged into a Fulton County jail to be humiliated.

Many young people are concerned that if they push back against liberal narratives, they will be silenced, threatened, and mocked. Nixon was taken down by the deep state, something many modern conservatives can personally sympathize with.

Nixon’s life and legacy are resonating with the next generation of patriots who believe they need “Nixon, now more than ever.”

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

A strong country must produce those willing to sacrifice for its safety, and in this respect, Europe is in worse shape than we are, despite displays of national pride.

Strikingly, our visitors say they feel freer to show pride in their own countries here, having seen Americans do it without apology. As one German put it: “I respect how proud Americans are of their country, unimaginable back home in Germany.”

We’d better be prouder than the Germans: Only about 500 German 18-year-olds signed up for the military after 300,000 were contacted by mail and follow-up. Germany is now trying to find more effective ways of military recruitment, with some believing that conscription will ultimately be necessary to meet military needs.

That said, a poll from the Public Religion Research Institute found a similar drop in patriotism here at home: Just 51% of Americans call themselves very or extremely proud to be American, down from 82% in 2013. While 82% of Republicans are very proud, only 28% of Democrats are, with independents falling in the middle.

It gets sharper when you slice by age. Two-thirds of those over 65 are proud, while only about one-third of those aged 18-29 are. We are not looking at a society that’s uniformly less patriotic. We’re looking at one generation handing the next a country it never really taught them to love. And in too many classrooms, that failure to teach has not been an accident. It has been the lesson plan.

One sign of this failure that should really alarm us is how casually our newest leaders treat the flag—and how little it costs them.

In New York’s 13th District, democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled a five-term incumbent this month despite writing that she “wiped my hand on the American flag” and calling the country “a f—–g disgrace.” In Lynnwood, Washington, a councilwoman said she “would not raise an American flag” at her own house and pushed to take down a 27-flag civic display. In Sacramento, a councilwoman now running for Congress routinely turns her back during the pledge.

None of this behavior has disqualified them in voters’ minds—in fact, it may have helped.

When contempt for the flag is no longer a deal-breaker for a meaningful share of voters, that’s not a story about three politicians. It’s a story about us.

That story has authors, and a good many of them stand at the front of a classroom. For two generations, a determined faction on the hard left has worked to indict and disparage our country. It has understood, better than we have, that the surest way to kill a love is to reach people before it forms.

Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” which has sold millions of copies, renders the American story as little more than an unbroken chain of theft, racism, and exploitation, and it is a fixture in schools coast to coast. It is often assigned as if it were settled fact rather than the polemic Zinn freely admitted it was.

Its heir, the 1619 Project, was built to be pushed into K-12 classrooms, recasting the very founding as a defense of slavery and describing racism as something woven into the nation’s DNA. An entire organization, the Zinn Education Project, exists to hand this material to teachers and coach them to teach “outside the textbook.”

Surely most teachers love this country and want their students to love it too, and we owe them our thanks. But the radicals are organized, well-funded, and patient. A rising generation has been taught to be ashamed of its inheritance before it was ever given the chance to be grateful for it.

The councilwoman who wipes her hand on the flag did not invent that contempt. Somewhere, years ago, she was assigned it. And somewhere, right now, someone is grading the homework of another child never given the chance to love his nation.

We must be vigilant in our schools, but the most direct path to kindling patriotism is in the early years at home.

Researcher George Barna’s decades of work on childhood worldview formation found that children begin developing their basic outlook on life as young as 15 months old, and that “by the age of 13, it’s almost completely in place” for the rest of their lives. Barna’s research speaks directly to religious worldview rather than patriotism, but it is clear the heart’s deepest attachments are formed early, while we’re not watching closely, and they harden fast.

But young children don’t need lectures to fall in love with America; they need stories. So, give them stories!

Matthew Mehan, a professor at Hillsdale College, just published “The American Book of Fables.” In the tradition of Aesop, it reimagines America’s animals and landscapes as the setting for tales about the Declaration of Independence alongside American history, geography, and wildlife. There are sections “for Littles, Middles, and Bigs,” so a toddler and a teenager can sit at the same table and both find something that sticks.

Patriotism is fostered by stories good enough that a child asks to hear them twice.

Tell the great stories of American heroes early and often, not so much as facts to memorize but as drama to feel: Valley Forge; Little Round Top; the Battle of the Bulge; the Birmingham bus boycott; the first responders of 9/11; and the signers of our Declaration who pledged their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor.

At 250, we must rededicate ourselves to telling our stories. And we must make sure ours are louder, truer, and more often told.

If European soccer fans can find things to love about our country, surely we can, too.

In “American Patriarch: The Life of George Washington,” prolific historian H.W. Brands delivers an in-depth look at the man who was driving events years before there was a United States.

As far back as 1754, the young Washington, then a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia militia, helped trigger the French and Indian War on the western frontier. That war, like so many of Washington’s endeavors, worked out well for his countrymen. When it was over, France had lost its foothold in North America, and the colonists were able to dream of pushing westward to build an empire.

Before long, Washington was also taking the lead on independence from the British crown. “At a time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors,” Washington wrote to fellow Virginian George Mason after Parliament imposed the Townshend Act in 1767. He was prepared to do something about it.

“Colonel Washington appears at Congress in his uniform,” John Adams wrote from Philadelphia in 1775. Washington attended the Second Continental Congress and was unanimously appointed commander in chief of the Continental Army on June 15. Through trials and travails, he would lead that army to victory more than six years later.

However, it was never easy, as Brands makes clear.

Washington took command in the Boston area, where the British controlled the city and the rebels the surrounding territory. He was eager to take the fight to the enemy but didn’t want to destroy the town in order to save it. He ordered an attack on Quebec as a way to distract and weaken the enemy, but it failed. Brands writes that poor weather was a factor, but not the only one. “Washington’s summons to a defense of American liberty stirred few of the French inhabitants of Canada and even fewer of the Indians there,” he writes. “Both groups were as suspicious of the Americans as the British.” Indeed, after the American Revolution, many loyalists from the United States would relocate north of the border.

Washington was so far ahead of many of his countrymen that he’d been fighting Brits for more than a year by the time Congress declared independence 250 years ago this weekend. He told his soldiers about the Declaration of Independence in a general order. “Everyone is seemingly highly pleased that we were separated from a king who was endeavouring to enslave his once loyal subjects,” one soldier wrote that day. “God grant us success in this our new character.”

Washington recognized that the British were far more powerful. Their navy could land troops anywhere and cut off supplies. They had much larger armies in the field. But while the British attempted to win the war by occupying territory (New York City, Philadelphia, Savannah, and Charleston), the Colonials realized they could prevail by surviving and refusing to surrender.

Still, he remained a man of action. Brands writes about how swiftly and effectively Washington moved when he had a chance to bottle-up Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781. The British surrender brought an end to the war and gave Americans the opportunity to prosper. “If their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own,” he said as he prepared to surrender his command of the army. “It is in their choice and depends upon their conduct whether they will be respectable and prosperous or contemptable and miserable as a nation.” Washington’s retirement and return to civilian life led King George III to declare him “the greatest man in the world.”

Brands also details Washington’s successful post-military career. “Having conducted these states to independence and peace, he now appears to assist in framing a government to make the people happy,” William Pierce, of Georgia, wrote when Washington returned to Philadelphia to preside over the Constitutional Convention.

As was so often the case, he mostly remained quiet, allowing lesser men to argue approaches and strategies while he remained above the fray, keeping everyone in line. He was pleased with the document that the delegates delivered. “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people,” he wrote. “It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing, and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

Washington was the only reasonable choice as the first president of the United States under the Constitution he’d helped shape. He allowed robust debate within his Cabinet, especially between Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Hamilton. But nobody doubted that Washington was a decision-maker with the country’s best interests in mind. His decisions shaped the presidency for generations, and his humility inspired scores of future presidents, even as the position grew into the most powerful in the world.

The man wasn’t perfect. Brands shows Washington wrestling with issues such as slavery and betrayal by those close to him. There were issues he would not be able to resolve, but he helped shape a country that would eventually grapple with them.

Brands, who teaches at the University of Texas and has written 17 other books, doesn’t limit himself to Washington. Throughout the book, he tells the story of other crucial characters and how they contributed to American history. “American Patriarch” is a book that can be devoured all at once—or dipped in and out of as a refresher course on American history.

In his will, Wahington identified himself as “a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same.” He ended his ending an amazing life with the same humility he’d shown throughout it. As America turns 250, we owe him a debt we could never repay.

But now an amazing solution is available: self-driving cars.

Robotaxis like Google-owned Waymo, for example.

Passengers who try them, like them. Wherever robotaxis are allowed, ridership increases fast. Two years ago, there were 50,000 trips per week—today 500,000.

“The car did a better job than if somebody was driving!” says a passenger in my new video.

Waymo claims its cars are “10 times safer” than human-driven ones. I wouldn’t believe that if insurance companies, with their own money at stake, didn’t agree.  

Reinsurance News reports Waymo’s had an “88% reduction in property damage claims and a 92% reduction in bodily injury claims.”

“We have the data,” says Adam Thierer, author of “Permissionless Innovation.” “Ninety-four percent of all accidents are attributable to human error … We can address one of the leading killers of Americans!”

Unfortunately, some politicians say you shouldn’t be allowed to try robotaxis.

New York state Sen. Luis Sepulveda wants a law that says motor vehicles for hire “shall not be … operated by an automated driving system without a human driver … seated behind the steering wheel and engaged in the task of driving.”

He says the state must protect immigrant taxi and Uber drivers who live in his district.   

“I cannot support something that is going to almost overnight lead to loss of jobs of over 100,000 people.”

“Even if he isn’t needed?” I ask. “Even if he’s worse than the machine?”

“I don’t think that having an individual in a vehicle would be worse than a machine,” says Sepulveda.

“That’s just wrong,” says Thierer. “Humans get drunk, drowsy, distracted. Say what you want about robots, they don’t get drunk.”

Sepulveda responds: “Waymo is going to make billions of dollars—let them pay for the disruption to the labor force.”

“Sounds like a mafia pitch,” I push back. “‘Want to come here, Waymo? You have to pay.'”

“If the pitch sounds like a mafia pitch, so be it,” Sepulveda replies.

I thought I might change his thinking by making a creepy comparison, telling him his ban would kill more people than infamous serial killers have. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy combined killed about 80 people. Human-driven cars kill more people every day.

“The data on Waymo is not 100% safety,” he replies. “A Waymo vehicle struck a child in California.”

Like most critics, he cites isolated incidents. Even that child wasn’t injured.

Millions of miles of data show that robocars are much safer.

And they keep getting safer. We humans learn from our own experiences, but self-driving cars learn from millions of miles of experience. They get better while we sleep.

Yes, some drivers will lose jobs. But technology constantly does that. Despite all the jobs destroyed by computers, U.S. unemployment has stayed relatively low.

Typists, switchboard operators and elevator operators lost jobs. But most found other jobs, often better jobs.

“Some people want cars with no drivers,” I tell Sepulveda. “Women feel unsafe. Some drivers don’t smell good. Some are reckless.”

“Many women feel safer with a driver,” he replies.

“Shouldn’t people have the choice?” I ask.

“Absolutely.”

“But you want to take away the choice!”

“No,” says Sepulveda. “I’m saying, [protect] the drivers that exist now.”

I say, with 100 Americans dying in cars every day, politicians who slow the arrival of self-driving cars have blood on their hands.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

It is fascinating but ultimately depressing to watch old-style Democrats say or do anything to avoid the new mob of Robespierres. Democrat candidates who recently begged for a Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries endorsement now are telling them to get in line at the guillotine.

Jewish American Democrats are terrified that what happened to the primaried and defeated Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, an arch-Trump hater, could befall them. Goldman’s obnoxious showboating hatred of Trump and championing of neo-socialist agendas offered no defense against the Jacobins’ antisemitism and hatred of Israel.

A number of Jewish Democrat candidates, like wannabe California congressman Scott Wiener, are backing off from Israel and now join the “genocide!” mob. Wiener hopes that the throng will reward his new anti-Israel position by overlooking the now inconvenient fact that to the antisemitic Democrat base he is still Jewish.

Some of the rich, likewise, think they can escape the guillotine—the various proposed taxes on “billionaires” and “millionaires” on their net worth or unrealized capital gains or plans to confiscate private properties deemed “not in the people’s interests.” They will either flee to Florida or join the mob and hope their donations spare them from the blade.

The hard socialist agenda, which lacks even 50 percent popular support, is often recognizable despite efforts to conceal it until after elections. Given the clickbait lunacy of these socialists’ mindset, their true views often trickle out from prior social media posts, hot mics, leaks, and occasional temper-tantrum outbursts (cf. [Zohran] Mamdani’s “monsters” or [James] Talarico’s “I hate Christianity” or [Graham] Platner’s litany of unapologetic racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic outbursts).

In general, the socialist challenge is to “fundamentally transform America” into a statist, inert redistribution machine—nuttier than socialist Europe, a prescription for North Korean-style poverty, and completely unrecognizable to the Founders and most contemporary Americans. As far as we can distill, here are their agendas:

1. The new demography

Open borders, massive, unaudited new immigration ending the distinction between mere residence and citizenship.

2. Dismantling the “system”

Packing the court, destroying the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, bringing in new left-wing states, defunding the police, ensuring same-day registration/voting, no voter ID, foreign nationals residing here being eligible to vote.

3. The Islamization of America

Ending America’s traditional friendship with Israel and realigning the U.S. with the West Bank, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their autocratic and illiberal, terrorism-sponsoring Muslim regimes. Restoring massive USAID subsidies to fund left-wing takeovers abroad and mainstreaming now overt harassment of Jews at home.

4. Old Communism

The government takeover of housing and utilities, targeted expropriation of private property, new punitive taxes on net worth and unrealized capital gains. Wild talk of nationalizing airlines and all health care.

5. Statism

Massive new entitlements, free college, canceling $1.7 trillion in student loans, more federal acquisition of private lands, rent freezes.

6. Reparations

Compensation for victims of alleged “white privilege,” institutionalization of radical identity politics, and racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation chauvinism. Third world hatred of supposed white oppressors, justifying reparatory preferences for the non-white “oppressed.”

7. Globalism

Pledging solidarity with socialist/communist movements abroad while despising Western civilization in general and the U.S. in particular.

Once “Mayor” Zohran Mamdani took control of New York, he began promising to confiscate rental properties from landlords and to focus on “white” neighborhoods, and he no longer disguised his innate hatred of Jews.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia dropped her moderate false face and began radically ramming through hard-left executive orders to ensure more DEI, higher taxes, and anti-ICE hysterics. After being elected, Seattle Mayor Katie Willson gushed “bye-bye” to the billionaire entrepreneurs who are fleeing from Washington state’s new “millionaire’s tax.” She mocked their departure and cared not a whit that her now-socialist city would further descend into a West Coast Detroit or Baltimore.

Socialists hide their revolutionary anger with banal pleasantries. We have become well accustomed now to the “socialist smile,” emblemized by the grinning Mamdani or the faux-happy face of James Talarico. Usually, the new touchy-feely socialists chuckle loudest when a rare reporter presses them on their past lunatic harangues, which are then laughed off as hysterias from paranoid right-wing minds.

Sometimes socialists embrace the hard commissar style, like the perpetually venomous Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, who ridicules journalists, lies flagrantly, and takes back none of his hate-filled rants.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, perpetually screams rather than talks, usually venting her monotonous hatred for the Jewish state. Her latest socialist champions are the Antifa criminals just sentenced to long prison sentences for their conspiracy to murder ICE officers.

The more Ilhan Omar is caught trafficking in antisemitic tropes, denying alleged immigration fraud schemes, or filing preposterous federal financial disclosure forms, the more defiant her shouts of “racist” become.

The newly emerging socialists, like recent congressional nominees Darializa Avila Chevalier or Analilia Mejia, can never explain why their parents left socialist paradises in Latin America to come to cutthroat capitalist America.

Nor do they explain to us why and how such a supposedly toxic, racist nation would extend such generous scholarships and DEI preferences to both. They suffer from the Joy Reid/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib/AOC socialist syndrome: parents flee socialist paradises of indigenous peoples to ensure their children might thrive in a settler/colonialist and capitalist U.S. whose magnanimity they interpret as proof of guilt that is therefore to be reciprocated not with gratitude but with ever more venom.

And once the second-generation socialists joined the privileged elite classes of America, these boutique radicals decided to tear down the very system that nurtured them, without ever expressing a wish to return to the socialist paradises of their parents’ homelands.

What drives the sheer hatred of the new upscale socialists, and why are they in vogue now?

There are three constants in all these new socialists, as we have seen recently from the recent nationwide primary elections, as well as the daily street theater.

One, they hate the United States—loathe its foundation, hate its maturation, and despise the current American nation. They detest especially the middle classes, who lack both the romance of the dependent poor and the supposed “refinement” and “culture” of their own elite socialist aristocracy.

And the more they demagogue “white privilege” and “white supremacy,” the more they feel that the river of exemptions, set-asides, preferences, and special considerations will flow to them from a supposedly guilty nation.

The socialists’ hatred of America is becoming clearer as middle America embraces the 250th anniversary of the nation, highlighted by throngs of World Cup tourists who cannot praise highly enough the decency, amicability, and prosperity of America between the coasts.

So, what is a perennial socialist PhD candidate, or a failed “community organizer,” or NGO flack to do when millions happily suffer from “false consciousness” and have failed to listen to their Marxist handlers?

The socialist architects of the current Jacobin takeover see no contradiction in that, like moths harkening to flames, they cannot get enough of the American good life, conspicuous consumer consumption, and merit badges of success like their Ivy League-branded kids, letters and titles after their names, and the right zip code for their first and second homes.

Every socialist buffoon reminds us almost daily of Alexis de Tocqueville’s droll warning that most people would prefer everyone to be absolutely equal and worse off than all better off, but with some better off than themselves.

The socialists’ hatred of America is also revealed in their envy. Unlike the poet Hesiod’s notion of a “good” envy—embodied in the American tradition of emulation and admiration of those richer than themselves—they buy into the “bad” envy of wanting to destroy those who are brighter, more successful, richer, and more essential to America than themselves, whether an Elon Musk, a Larry Ellison, or a Jeff Bezos.

Second, socialists still have little current power other than their control of institutions such as K-12 education, academia, the media, foundations, the bureaucracies, the corporate boardrooms, professional sports, entertainment, and popular culture.

Perhaps they wish to end up like the lifelong government employee, Bernie Sanders, who for a half-century shook his two upraised fists at America, screamed at the greed, and ended up with three homes and membership in the millionaire class.

Socialists and communists have no confidence in winning over the majority of the American people, at least outside blue-city and blue-state districts. Hence, their efforts to change balloting laws, destroy the border, import angry, poor, new constituents, stage violent street confrontations, and either celebrate or contextualize assassinations from the attempts on [Donald] Trump to the killing of Charlie Kirk.

Sane Democrats would reexamine 2024 and conclude the party was far too left-wing and the antidote was a return to the winning formulas of Bill Clinton. But unhinged socialists and communists would claim that 2024 was lost because they were not far-left enough. So we are to believe that Americans scared of Harris’s poorly disguised radicalism can be won over by scaring them even further? A communist in 2028 can win over America when a socialist in 2024 could not?

Third, Donald Trump has driven the Left so crazy that they have gyrated from Obama’s four-mansion socialism to unapologetic hardcore Trotskyism. Why? Their pathological hatred transcends Trump’s background, his appearance, his accent, his tweets, and even his appeal to the despised “clingers, irredeemables, deplorables, chumps, dregs, and garbage.”

Of course, Trump is a conservative, so he suffers the same left-wing slurs of “fascist” and “Nazi” that met Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But in his second term, Trump, quite unlike most Republican presidents, is not addressing just symptoms but also the causes and fuel of the socialist project.

Trump did not just jawbone the “fake news” but cut off subsidies to NPR and PBS, suing the media when they deliberately engaged in baseless character assassination. He did not just close the border but began deporting the criminal cohort of Biden’s 10 million illegal entrants, sought to end birthright citizenship, made would-be refugees apply for entry in their home country, ended catch-and-release, and will wall off or electronically secure the entire southern border from the Pacific to the Gulf of America.

He did not just rhetorically critique DEI; he banned it from the federal bureaucracy. Unlike past Republicans, Trump did not merely critique elitist campuses; he leveraged them to behave like normal people–taxing endowments, banning racist DEI protocols, prohibiting grant surcharge scamming, and demanding they abide by the Bill of Rights. He slashed the left-wing USAID money machine rather than just whining that it subsidized America’s worst critics abroad.

In other words, the socialists are enraged not just because they despise the U.S. and lack the power to turn America into Cuba or because they have not yet stabbed, poisoned, shot, decapitated, or blown up the hated Trump, as their followers, celebrities, and a few of their leaders have so often boasted.

The real rub is that Trump is their flip side—not a revolutionary but a counterrevolutionary. He seeks to overturn root and branch the entire 100-year progressive project and ensure America’s insidious slouching toward socialism ends with his term—for good. The more they brag about our collective socialist tomorrow, the more Trump incessantly dismantles socialism today.

So far, they haven’t stopped him yet–but their lidless eyes never close.

(C)2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The terminated employees are suing with the backing of the litigation group Democracy Forward. Democrat lawyer Marc Elias is chairman of the board for Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous lawsuits advocating for the federal bureaucracy against elected leaders. Elias is best known for election litigation for Democrats, and for his role in pushing the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

The plaintiffs—three of them suing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and four suing in the Northern District of Illinois—assert the firings were unlawful because they were exercising their First Amendment rights on their own time. Claire Balani, Lane To, and Alexis Wright are suing the EPA in Washington, D.C., while Andreas Harris, Alexander Cole, Stephanie Eytcheson, and Anna Laird are suing in Illinois. The lawsuits were announced Tuesday.

The June 2025 public letter from the employees to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, coordinated by the liberal group Stand Up for Science, says it is a “Declaration of Dissent” from the Trump administration’s policies. The letter said the administration “dismantled” what it called “environmental justice,” stating, “Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.”

Stand Up for Science says it wants to “take back Congress,” but doesn’t openly support one party, only asserting it wants “pro-science” members. The group has sponsored rallies across the United States.

The seven were considered probationary employees, based on how long they worked for the EPA, meaning they didn’t yet have full civil service protection afforded to other federal employees and couldn’t appeal their removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Democracy Forward notes that more than 100 agency employees signed the public letter criticizing the Trump administration’s policies, and more than 30 agency employees went without discipline because they were union representatives.

The letter says that climate issues disproportionately affect “vulnerable communities, including Black communities and other communities of color, poor communities, disabled communities, LGBTQIA+ communities, and historically overburdened and underserved rural and urban communities.”

The letter goes on to say, “In addition, your administration has fired or forced onto administrative leave several categories of employees, including those responsible for environmental justice and those managing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives.”

The fact that so many employees signed a politicized letter is part of a bigger problem with the federal bureaucracy, said Robert Moffit, former assistant director of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal workforce.

“It is arrogant to assume one has the right to federal employment,” Moffit, now a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Signal.

“These employees don’t understand a simple fact of life: The president of the United States determines the policy of the executive branch,” Moffit continued. “If one can’t work to implement the president’s stated agenda, the right and honorable thing to do is resign and work in the private sector, where they will have a greater sense of personal fulfillment. They might even get a job at Democracy Forward.”

However, Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman contends that probationary federal government employees “have the constitutional right to participate in public discussion and debate.”

“[T]he government has no right to retaliate against these civil servants because of a protected opinion they expressed while off the clock,” Perryman said in a public statement. “We are honored to work with these brave plaintiffs to protect their First Amendment rights and to protect civil servants from this kind of anti-democratic attempt to punish people for protected speech.”

The law firm of James & Hoffman is also representing the federal employees.

Those celebrating America’s birthday in the nation’s capital can expect a fireworks show, a rally from Trump, and multiple flyovers beginning at 1 p.m. The new Air Force One, a Boeing 747-8 gifted by the Qataris, will lead the flyovers.

“This is going to lead to a group of many, many planes. … Every pilot wants to do it. Those pilots are all fighting to do it, so we’re gonna have a lot of planes flying over the Capitol and over the White House.”

Trump said the airshow will be “the biggest, by far, in the History of the United States of America.”

“Hundreds of Planes, of different types, sizes, and speeds, will be on display,” he said.

Starting at 7 p.m., there will be a live broadcast featuring the Joint Armed Forces Orchestra and national speakers. Trump will speak at 9 p.m.

Trump will deliver “a unifying message about how America is back and hotter than ever,” said Freedom250 spokeswoman Julia Friedland.

He will “recognize the weight of this occasion, 250 years as a nation, and the fact that he is commander-in-chief during it is pretty cool, and it’s a part of history, so I imagine he will touch on that,” she told the Daily Signal.

Trump spoke at kick-off celebration for the “Great American State Fair” on the National Mall on June 24, and Friedland expects he will give a similar message on July 4.

After Trump’s address, a fireworks show will commence at 11 p.m., lasting for 40 minutes, double the usual length.

There will be 850,000 fireworks shells launched from 10 sites. The show will be “approximately ten times larger than any Fireworks in the History of our Country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Freedom250’s Great American State Fair has operated on the National Mall since June 25 and will remain until July 10. The fair features exhibits on all 50 states, though some blue states chose not to send a delegation.

Friedland stressed that the celebration is not partisan, but rather an event for everyone celebrating the “weight of the moment.”

“This is not political, this is not partisan at all,” she said. “We are all here for the same goal. Any attempt to make it political or partisan, is very partisan.”

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has urged D.C. residents and tourists to plan ahead for the celebration, due to road closures, extreme heat, and additional flyovers and a fireworks show “that will begin later and last longer than ever before.”

Musk has long been known as an environmentalist. He in fact created the most successful electric vehicle company of all time. He also managed to do it right here in America. Both should receive serious commendation, as well as burnish his credentials in discussions of environmental conservation.

Which is partly why MSCI’s latest ESG rating for SpaceX is so blatantly farcical.

MSCI is still profiting from increasingly disreputable ESG ratings and related sustainability products, despite pushback from investors, state attorneys general, and federal regulators. Why? Because ESG ratings agencies enjoy support from certain institutional investors, asset managers, and European governments and businesses.

ESG strategies have often delivered weaker performance than comparable non-ESG funds, saddling savers with unnecessary costs to subsidize ideological experiments. Investments guided by ESG principles too often funnel capital into activist causes that prioritize political and social agendas over genuine financial returns.

These practices raise profound questions about fiduciary responsibility, even if state and local plans are not subject to ERISA. Rather than maximizing returns for retirees and workers, ESG engagement frequently reshapes investment decisions in ways that may conflict with beneficiaries’ best financial interests.

Far from a voluntary market phenomenon, ESG investing reflects a government-influenced push that undermines free enterprise and individual liberty. This movement drifts toward centralized control rather than decentralized decision-making. ESG imposes subjective values on pension beneficiaries and distorts capital allocation away from prudent, return-focused stewardship.

Yet even as evidence mounts that ESG-guided investments frequently deliver inferior returns, many investors and institutions continue to treat the underlying ratings as credible and authoritative. That confidence is increasingly misplaced.

Consider MSCI’s own ratings. A rocket company like SpaceX—which advances American innovation through reusable, self-landing launch vehicles and pursues the ambitious goal of making humanity multi-planetary—should not be ranked in the same tier as a hostile foreign adversary such as Russia. Yet that is precisely what MSCI’s system produced. Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, MSCI downgraded Russia to its lowest ESG tier, a move that, on its face, appears defensible given the environmental destruction, loss of life, and geopolitical instability caused by the conflict.

The absurdity lies in equating SpaceX with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime. SpaceX is an All-American enterprise at the forefront of U.S. space leadership. It prioritizes hiring American talent and has faced Biden-era DOJ lawsuits for allegedly discriminating against noncitizens.

According to MSCI’s framework, investors are expected to weigh these “societal” concerns on par with an illegal war that has devastated Eastern Europe. This category error exposes the shallowness of ESG’s value structure.

Even on purely environmental grounds, the comparison collapses. Elon Musk has long advocated colonizing other planets to safeguard humanity’s long-term resource future—a goal with profound environmental implications. Whatever carbon emissions SpaceX’s launches generate pale against that broader vision, especially when contrasted with the ecological toll of mechanized warfare.

While ESG ideology faces mounting resistance in the United States—including through the work of Heritage’s Free Enterprise Initiative—it retains influence in Europe and among certain global institutions. For the average investor, even those sympathetic to environmental goals, MSCI’s rating of SpaceX reveals ESG for what it is: less a tool for “socially conscious investing” than a mechanism for advancing ideological ends at the expense of financial prudence and American interests.

By placing one of America’s most innovative companies on the same plane as a strategic adversary, MSCI inadvertently disrobed the ESG emperor.

The CDC reported that 3,094,593 total deaths occurred in the U.S. in 2025. The nation’s overall death rate was 689.2 per 100,000 people, a 4.6% decrease from 2024 and also marking the lowest death rate ever recorded in the U.S., according to the CDC.

The death rate dropped across all age groups, per the CDC’s data. Moreover, the age-adjusted U.S. death rate per 100,000 people was 811.1 for males and 582.9 for females.

Overall, age-adjusted death rates in the U.S. were lowest among the multiracial non-Hispanic population in 2025 at 187.3 per 100,000 people, and highest among the black non-Hispanic population at 869.0 per 100,000 people, according to the CDC’s estimates.

The CDC’s report also notes that the top causes of death nationwide in 2025 were heart disease, cancer and “unintentional” injuries.

“In 2025, death rates per 100,000 were lowest for children ages 5–14 years (14.0) and highest for people age 85 and older (12,787.5), similar to patterns in 2024,” according to the report.

The fall in total deaths last year was largely driven by a steady drop in drug overdoses, NewsNation reported.

The nation’s general fertility rate was 53.1 births per 1,000 females ages 15–44 in 2025, marking a 1% decline from 2024, according to CDC data released in April.

Several analysts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that issues such as less quality medical care, lack of access to medical insurance and unhealthy lifestyle habits may have been driving poor health among some southern Americans in recent years.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

That insight is further enriched by reading primary source documents, classical texts the Founders themselves relied upon, and accounts of the American character. Here are six book recommendations from evaluators of the Heritage Guide to Historic Sites: “On Duties” by Cicero, “The Life of George Washington” by John Marshall, “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” by James Madison, “The Federalist Papers” by Publius, “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville, and “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith.

Stay tuned for four more books to read for America 250!

Recommendation: “On Duties” by Cicero

Evaluator: Matthew Mehan

The American Founders relied on the Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero’s “On Duties” more than any other single work of public right. At the time of our Founding, Cicero’s most famous, most read, most memorized, and most taught work was ubiquitous in the education of the citizenry.

Today, we may find their familiarity with “On Duties” surprising, given the work’s current and regrettable—though hopefully only temporary—obscurity. Yet, it was the second book off the Gutenberg printing press after the Holy Bible. Like the Bible, it was considered a representative of the entire civilization, a pillar of the ethical life and of republican self-government.

Phrasing from “On Duties” can be found in the concept of “sacred honor” that closes the declaration; the work’s teaching and formulae for taking an oath are used directly in the Constitution’s oath of office; and the preambles of both documents bear the marks of deep familiarity with Cicero’s account of justice in “On Duties.”

More importantly, the entire understanding of republican self-government, private property used by free people for both personal and public virtue, liberty, the necessity of a vibrant culture of free speech unto legislation—all these profound and elaborated teachings from “On Duties” can be seen in the writings of the Founders and in their handiwork, namely our great original and organic laws, among which we cherish most highly the declaration and the Constitution.

Cicero was one of the many great heroes of the Roman republic that the Founding generation revered. Towns and children were named for him. Founders spoke of him fondly by his nickname, calling Marcus Tullius Cicero simply “Tully.” He both saved his republic once, and when it fell, he twice sacrificed himself to see that it fell in the least harmful way by undertaking a massive endeavor: in a few short and disastrous years, he wrote a flurry of the greatest works in the Western Canon in order to gift the habits, the principles, and the testament of republican Rome to future generations and future peoples who might open his works and start anew.

“On Duties” was Cicero’s last work, after which he was hunted down and murdered by the lawless triumvirate, but not before he prudently sent copies of the work to the four corners of the failing republic, much to our eventual benefit. That Cicero did all this was well known to the Founding Fathers, as it is now known to you.

The study of Cicero’s “On Duties” is an excellent first step for any American seeking to understand the Founders, the Founding, and the requirements of duty in a self-governing republic.

Recommendation: “The Life of George Washington” by John Marshall 

Evaluator: Adam Carrington

We have many books written by great men. We have many books written about great men. However, rarely do we find a work in which one great man writes about another.

Chief Justice John Marshall’s biography of George Washington is one such work. With special access to Washington’s private papers, Marshall published this five-volume biography between 1804 and 1807.

The chief justice did more than tell Washington’s life story. Marshall recounted that life as the exemplar of republican virtue. Washington combined the classical characteristics of courage, justice, temperance, and prudence in a rare harmony. He exercised these virtues, not for monarchical glory or aristocratic privilege, but in the cause of founding and establishing the American republic. Moreover, Marshall wrote his biography of Washington to give a Federalist articulation of that republic and of its constitution.

By his telling, Marshall’s vision of the United States—strongly nationalistic, committed to popular self-government and to ordered individual liberty—is the magnificent legacy of our most indispensable Founding Father. 

Recommendation: “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” by James Madison

Evaluator: Brenda Hafera

James Madison’s “Notes,” rivaling the Bible in thickness, is the most detailed record of the Constitutional Convention and well worth a perusal. Reliance on primary sources distinguishes faithful accounts of history from distorted ones, and being familiar with primary sources inculcates discernment. The “Notes” convey what the debates at the Convention were really about, what the delegates argued, and their reasons for their positions.

Reading Madison’s “Notes” gives American citizens an appreciation for what was at stake at the Constitutional Convention. There was no guarantee that America would come to exist at all, as it was quite possible the states would splinter off into separate confederacies. Northern and southern states, large and small states, had varying interests and opinions. Against the backdrop of history, it was unlikely that America would succeed as a republic, which was historically confined so that the people’s will could be heard.

Still, somehow, after almost four months of being enclosed in a room in the hot Pennsylvania summer, Americans issued to the world the miracle of Philadelphia. And James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was there to chronicle the account for posterity.

Recommendation: The Federalist Papers by Publius

Evaluator: Lucas Morel

Thomas Jefferson once described the Federalist Papers as “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” This was high praise by the chief draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and eventual opponent of Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, who, along with James Madison, wrote most of the 85 essays published in 1787-1788 in defense of the ratification of the Constitution.

Addressed to the citizens of New York under the pseudonym “Publius,” the immediate aim of the Federalist Papers was to persuade New Yorkers (and eventually citizens of other American states) to send pro-ratification delegates to their state convention in hopes of replacing the weak Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. But its appeals to philosophical authorities like Montesquieu, examples of flawed ancient republics, and the experience of state governments ill-suited to restrain the excesses of majoritarian self-interest suggested its authors sought to make a lasting contribution to political thought.

The Federalist, whose essays were soon published in two volumes, offered a theory of self-government informed by a “science of politics,” as Hamilton put it in the 9th essay,  that “has received great improvement” over the political reasonings and forms of antiquity.

Both principle and prudence are displayed as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay defend a stronger federal system, which they argued would “first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

In a year dedicated to celebrating an American republic 250 years in the making, readers of the Federalist will find plenty that reflects the principles of the Declaration of Independence as Publius tried to help Americans “form a more perfect union.”

Recommendation: “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville

Evaluator: Daniel J. Mahoney

Every serious student of the United States or of modern democracy must at some point come to terms with Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” originally published in two volumes in 1835 and 1840, respectively. Much more than a travelogue, Tocqueville’s classic reflection on both America and democracy rises to the level of political philosophy—but it is political philosophy of a most graceful and accessible kind.

Tocqueville admired the American Founders for their wisdom and sobriety (he recommended that all European statesmen study the Federalist) even as he warned about the dangers posed by majority tyranny, and perhaps more ominously, an “individualism” where apathy wins out over civic engagement.

At the same time, he lauded the way Americans perfected “the art of association” and recommended its efforts to do justice to both “the spirit of freedom” and the “spirit of religion.” He was particularly sensitive to the role that manners and morals (moeurs in French) play in informing and elevating the exercise of liberty. 

He defended the truth of human equality and detested slavery, even as he warned against doctrinaire egalitarianism or an indiscriminate “passion for equality.” His warnings against “tutelary despotism” (what we today call a “nanny state”) remain as relevant as ever.

As the essayist and cultural critic Joseph Epstein has written, today, it is impossible to think “about America, about democracy, about liberty, about bureaucracy, about equality, about almost any aspect of politics, or for that matter about large stretches of human nature,” without reference to Tocqueville.

I recommend the fine translations by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (available in paperback from the University of Chicago Press) and the hardcover edition translated by Arthur Goldhammer (available from Library of America).

Recommendation: “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith

Evaluator: Amity Shlaes

Adam Smith’s insights into the importance of commerce informed the thinking of the framers in their formative years. Especially informative was his “Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1759), which explains the culture that gives rise to what we later called “spontaneous order’—the associations of men that foster commerce and provide its basis. Smith’s blockbuster, the “Wealth of Nations,” appeared in 1776, the same year as the declaration, and became the corollary founding document for American economics.

In 1790, Thomas Jefferson called it “the best book extant.” Critically, these theses of “The Wealth of Nations” guided young America towards ordered markets, and away from excessive government.

Smith’s theses set parameters we still regard as the right ones today: “Commerce and manufactures can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay.”

It’s not a “both-sides” issue: a 2025 Gallup poll found that only 36% of Democrats say they are extremely or very proud to be American, while 92% of Republicans say so.

What sort of Democrat isn’t proud of the greatest country on earth? The same sort of Democrat who’s on the ascent in the New York and Colorado primaries.

Don’t buy the messaging: the only “democratic” thing about the Democratic Socialists of America is its rapid infiltration of the United States’ left-leaning major party. The only “American” thing about it is how vehemently the DSA hates America’s foundation.

The Democratic Socialists Against America

To adopt a phrase from Christian theology, the DSA is “in but not of” America.

Its ideology traces back to “Progressivism,” a transplant from 19th-century Europe—and a movement at odds with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Under Progressivism, our God-given inalienable rights become privileges ordained by the fickle whims of government elites. The people’s will takes second place to “scientific expertise,” and technocratic experts determine policy. Democratic socialism takes this one step further, expanding government power over more and more aspects of American life.

This focus on government expertise has enshrined leftist positions—from critical race theory (the notion that America is systemically racist and requires fundamental change) to climate alarmism, to transgender ideology—in government and culture, giving the impression that truth and justice must be “woke.”

These forces demonize President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the woke bureaucratic consensus, comparing the enforcement of immigration law after four years of open borders to the Gestapo.

This “woke” superstructure is shifting the ground of elite opinion, making open socialism more and more attractive to those who have been primed to see President Donald Trump as the modern incarnation of Adolf Hitler.

While woke leftists may think their approach is sensible or moderate, their hyperbolic reaction to Trump has fostered an environment in which the Democratic Socialists of America can flourish. DSA candidates have won Democrat primaries, most recently in New York and Colorado, often ousting longstanding Democrat members of Congress.

The Democrat Party may have had the antibodies to resist the far Left decades ago, but Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has weakened its immune system and helped infect it with an anti-capitalist fever.

The DSA Platform

The DSA makes no bones about its radical agenda. Its web page on “working-class democracy” calls for extending “full voting rights” to “noncitizens.” It calls for expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives, ending the Senate filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, and “reducing the power of the Supreme Court.”

These structural changes amount to a wholesale rejection of the Founders’ approach to limited government, abolishing any checks or balances that might frustrate the Left’s agenda.

What would the DSA do with such unchecked government power?

The platform calls for establishing a “Green New Deal” in the name of combatting climate change, implementing socialized medicine, making higher education “free,” and reducing the work week to 32 hours—”with no reduction in pay or benefits.” It would allow “workers to freely migrate between countries to seek employment” and extend “immediate amnesty for all immigrants.”

Darializa Aliva Chevalier, the 32-year-old DSA member who ousted a five-term incumbent in a New York Democrat primary last month, fleshed out this immigration policy.

Chevalier opposes all deportations, even if an illegal alien committed a violent crime.

She also founded the anti-Israel group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. In 2024, the group posted a statement on Instagram declaring, “We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.” After a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the group posted “Marg bar Amrika,” which translates to “Death to America.”

Rejecting the Woke Ideology Behind DSA

Few Democrats are chanting, “Death to America!” in the streets today, but this post grows out of the same noxious ideology that claims America is systemically racist, sexist, homophobic, or what-have-you. The woke narrative claims that America is systemically evil, and that only a fundamental revolution in each of America’s institutions will bring about “justice.”

If states require ID to vote, it’s a “threat to democracy!” If moms and dads oppose racially divisive lessons in school, they’re abetting “white supremacy.” If we don’t want to pay more in gas prices, we’re contributing to the “climate crisis.”

The DSA brings these woke arguments to their logical conclusion. The result is horrifying, but it’s also revealing.

If Americans are rightfully proud of our country and its history on this 250th anniversary, we must reject the ideology that animates the DSA. We must dedicate ourselves to limited, constitutional government. We must remember the virtues of capitalism. We must oppose the leftist ideology seeping through so much of the legacy media, Hollywood, and academia.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, America was founded on the premise that our rights come from God, not government. Socialism, however “democratic” it may claim to be, rejects that fundamental premise. Americans must emphatically reject it, especially at this historic milestone.

Let’s celebrate the 250th anniversary, and throw such a big party that even those DSA haters can’t help but wish they could join us.

Sami Winc: Your thoughts on this birthright citizenship decision by the Supreme Court?

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, what the minority of [Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, [Neil] Gorsuch, and, to a certain extent, [Brett] Kavanaugh—he had a qualified dissent—was that they are originalists, and they said if you look at the Fourteenth Amendment, it came in the aftermath of the Civil War and the increasing pacification of Native American tribes.

So what are we going to do with people who were traditionally not considered citizens of the United States? And so we said if you were a former slave and your parents were here, then you were a citizen; i.e., you didn’t just come in.

A court case sometime later reinterpreted that as anybody born here could be a citizen, but it emphasized the original wording of the amendment that says, “and not subject to the jurisdiction of another country.” But, in fact, everybody knows that if you come in here and you’re a foreign national, you are subject to the jurisdiction of another country.

What do I mean by that? I mean if Mexico has an extradition or a hold on somebody and they come in here, and they come to us and say, “We’re going to extradite him back to Mexico as a Mexican national,” we say, “Okay.” If Mexico says Victor is going to be extradited, I’m not subject to their jurisdiction.

And so, to simplify things, every single person knows three things about this.

Number one, it was never the intent—never the intent—of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment to give automatic birthright citizenship.

Number two, everyone knows it is widely abused and not sustainable. People are flying in from China in their third trimester, having a baby, and flying back with the baby so that that baby—who might not know English or anything about the United States—at any time in his or her life, if things get bad in China, can come over here or can come over here and sponsor their children. The same is true south of the border.

So everybody knows it’s an unsustainable, crazy idea that has greenlighted a very pernicious habit of coming here in your third [trimester].

Three, everybody knows while there are a number of nations that technically allow it, usually they require both parents—we don’t—to be citizens, or at least one.

So if you come into the United States and you’re born on this—you know, most countries, I think the majority, require either one parent or two to be a citizen.

And if you’re born in France, you can only be a French citizen if one of your parents is French. Some require two, but it’s not the norm. It’s not that it doesn’t exist anywhere else, but it’s not the norm for a person to be born here to two foreign nationals.

Born here in the United States—or anywhere—it’s not the norm.

A lot of people say, well, a lot of Latin American countries are doing it. But, yes, it’s still not the norm.

So just to recap: Everybody knows it was not the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment to have this “anchor baby” malady we have.

Number two, we know it’s not sustainable because we’re handing out citizenship to people—we have no idea who they are. They have no affinity with the United States. The parents don’t. They can leave.

Number three, most countries—not all, but most countries—understand that and don’t do it.

So then the question is why, in a conservative court with a 6-3 majority, would you have two justices defect—Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts?

That, I think, is a political decision. I think that they understand that this is, right up with the Dobbs case, one of the most controversial cases that would radically change things immediately.

It would tell the Dreamers, for example—not all of the 20 million—but it would say to some Dreamers who are now in their 30s or 40s, you came when you were two, and so you’re not a citizen, but you were born here.

You’re not a citizen. You think you’re a citizen. You’re not.

I shouldn’t say Dreamers. I should say a lot of immigrants right now, as we’re talking, have parents who are either illegal or legal aliens, and they will be born immediately, and now they’re going to be told, “You’re not a citizen. You have no right to be here unless you apply for a green card or something.”

So I think the court, like in the case of abortion, they could outsource it to the states so they could get the heat off them. They can just say, “You know what? We’re not banning or we’re not approving abortion. Under our federalist system, we’re allowing regional control.”

They can’t with this. It’s going to be a fundamental change, and we have 53 million immigrants here, and we have a million coming every year, and the Democratic Party would go ballistic.

So I’m just conjecturing. I have no evidence, but I think that in their way of looking at saving the court’s reputation—not allowing it to be viewed as biased, perception-wise—they were going to rule in favor of the left on this issue, and they were going to rule in favor of the right on the trans issue and say that states, locales, regions, and organizations have a perfect right to say if you’re not a biological female, you’re not going to compete in female sports.

And that was controversial.

The problem with all of this is that’s not the purpose of the Supreme Court: to adjudicate what’s politically feasible or tolerable.

Number two, [Elena] Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and [Sonia] Sotomayor—they don’t defect. They’re lockstep.

They would be dead in Democratic circles. They wouldn’t be able to go speak. The left—the socialist, the Democratic-socialist-communists now—they’re intolerant.

They would not, if Sotomayor or Kagan voted for this, all their speaking invitations would be withdrawn. They would be persona non grata.

And so they stay that way.

They’re enforced by—the Democrats enforce cohesiveness and unanimity.

We don’t on the conservative side. So we get these constant defections.

And we’re always told that they’re to save the court or the reputation of the Supreme Court or not to be partisan. But this is not a partisan issue. This is something that affects the well-being of the United States.

Then they criticized Trump—I think Kavanaugh did, but others on the left—and said that he had issued an executive order stopping it, which precipitated the lawsuit.

And he can’t do that.

And they cited evidence where you have constitutional edicts in the Constitution—or by way of an amendment—that cannot be overturned by a presidential order. They need an act of Congress or maybe even another amendment, which is about impossible because you require three-quarters of the state legislatures and, I think, two-thirds of Congress.

But what they’re missing here, I think, is when they are saying you want to change the law, you have to bring either an amendment or maybe an act of Congress.

And the conservatives are saying we don’t want to change the law—not at all. We want you to obey what is written in the law.

The law says that if you were born in the United States and you’re subject to the jurisdiction of another country, you’re not going to be a citizen.

And everybody knows that if you come across the southern border from Venezuela and you’re here and Mr. Chávez or Mr. Maduro—or whoever the government is—says, “I want you extradited because you’re a citizen,” that will be adjudicated.

Nobody will doubt that.

And so what I’m getting at is the conservatives were saying, well, we don’t need an amendment. We just need an act of Congress to enforce the law or something like that.

The other thing is, very quickly, it wasn’t too handled by conservatives. All I think they should have said is we just want reciprocity.

If China allows somebody to be born in China to be an automatic citizen of the People’s Republic, OK, maybe we’ll extend the same.

What they’re saying is we have been taking on tariffs, technological appropriation, all of these issues, and we’re taking on birthright citizenship.

So any country that does not allow birthright citizenship whose people come over here and take advantage of our allowance shouldn’t do that.

If they did something like that and broadcast that fact, I think they would have gotten a lot more support.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Mountain States Policy Center staged the event with the help of a $50,000 grant from the Heritage Foundation as a winner of an America’s 250th Innovation Prize. The prize is a national program recognizing creative projects that strengthen civic education and public understanding of American founding principles as part of the United States’ 250th anniversary in 2026. 

The event saw the teams compete in a mix of fast-paced quiz-style questions and applied leadership challenges, advancing from virtual preliminaries to in-person state rounds and a livestreamed regional final.

 Xavier 1, a team from Xavier Charter School in Twin Falls, Idaho—comprised of Vita Wyatt, Grace Achurry-Guerry, Olivia Aiello, and Eleanor Nunnelley—won the 2026 “We the Students” Civics Bowl, taking home a grand prize of $7,000. 

The Daily Signal spoke to Mountain States Policy Center about their project at the time of the award and discussed the impact they hope it achieves.  

“It is important to celebrate America, especially given our 250th birthday,” Chris Cargill, president of Mountain States Policy Center, told the Daily Signal.  

“ Mountain West Policy Center is looking forward to honoring these kids and allowing an opportunity of civic education for them.” Cargill continued.   

Founded in 2022 and based in Coeur d’Alene and Boise, Idaho, Mountain States Policy Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on research and outreach that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty, and limited government across the Mountain West.  

It is the first multi-state policy organization of its kind in the region, serving Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana, and Wyoming by educating policymakers, media, young leaders, and the public on how free markets and limited government can drive prosperity and opportunity.  

The “We the Students: Mountain West Civic Cup” will continue to be an annual event in hopes of renewing involvement in American civics. “Our goal is to make sure every student knows that the civic cup is not just a one-year thing,” Cargill said.

 “We hope to continue the Civic Cup each and every year after this, and to get more and more people excited about American history and civic involvement, as well as involved in their government. If we can engage more folks each year and make them excited to be American, we feel like we will be victorious.”  

Mountain States Policy Center’s work extends beyond policy research to include public events, leadership programs, and educational initiatives aimed at fostering civic knowledge and engagement. The Civics Cup complements these efforts by strengthening students’ understanding of the foundations of American self-government and encouraging civil discourse and competition. 

Other America’s 250th Innovation Prize Round Two winners included:

• Constituting America
• Harlan Institute
• The Moving Picture Institute
• Wedgwood Circle  

Round One winners of the America’s 250th Innovation Prize:

• Creative Studio to Release Video Series for America’s 250th Anniversary 
• Faith Group Wins Innovation Prize for America’s 250th Celebration
• ‘A First of Its Kind’: Bestselling Author Crafts American Fable Collection
• Catholic Nonprofit Develops Resources to Inspire Patriotism
• Virginia Nonprofit Wins Prize to Create US History Documentaries for Nation’s 250th Anniversary

That’s the talk of the internet this Fourth of July week as much of Western Europe recovers from a hellacious heat wave that has claimed the lives of thousands of people.

Europeans are burning up in a hell of their own making, yet somehow, some way, they found a way to blame America for their troubles.

Paris Deputy Mayor Audrey Pulvar just couldn’t take all the snide comments from Americans comfortably posting and meme-ing on their couches in cool, 72-degree air from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

“Dear American journalists and social media ‘influencers’: for days, some of you have been criticizing and making fun of Paris because the city does not have A/C in every room. OMG, this is so rich!” she posted on Instagram on Friday.

I’d really like to know which meme set her off. I hope it was this one.

Pulvar’s ranting at those bully Americans with their abominable, newfangled air conditioning units invented in 1902 continued.

“As the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, you bear a significant amount of responsibility for global warming and the consequences we, in France, are experiencing,” she wrote. “Your cities ‘90% air-conditioned’ are not unrelated to this. In Paris, we take responsibility.”

Are they really taking “responsibility” when their insane policies get thousands of people killed during summer heatwaves? Far more than those killed by gun violence in the U.S., a topic they frequently like to harp on.

Instead of considering that little complication, Europe’s ruling class has decided to put blinders on and ignore the misery of their people so they can “save” the planet.

They really do tell themselves that suffering through summer will make heat waves go away.

Now, some have argued that the European aversion to air conditioning is just a product of there being so many old buildings and all that. That may have some part to play, but from the reaction of Pulvar and many others to the criticism it’s clear that this is about something much more existential and emotional.

Underneath all the other reasons Europeans forgo air conditioning, you have what amounts to a moral, even religious imperative.

The larger European aversion to air conditioning is akin to a kind of secular religious dogma, collectively enforced. And the European Left is particularly zealous on this front, of course.

What’s particularly absurd about the European anti-air conditioning attitude is that even accounting for their religious aversion to producing carbon emissions, A/C units are the tiniest of concerns on that front.

They really want to tell themselves that heat waves and summers didn’t exist before Americans messed everything up and that by collectively suffering, they can heal the climate wounds of the whole world.

The problem with this narrative they tell themselves is that the heat problem has struck Europe many times before and will strike many times more if every A/C in the world disappears tomorrow.

I remember the brutal summer of 2003 when tens of thousands of people died across Europe. It was awful, and tragic.

The answer to this would have been to make widespread air conditioner use a priority as it was in America.

The Wall Street Journal noted that widespread adoption of air conditioning in homes has accounted for most of the decline in “hot-day-related fatalities” since the 1960s.

We had a problem and we solved it. Now it’s Europe’s turn. Drop the absurd regulations. Make air conditioning more available and thus much cheaper for regular people to acquire.

Sure, other suicidal European policies come into play, like the restrictionist energy policies that made them reliant on Russia for energy needs. But if they had more homes with air conditioning they would at least have the choice to keep cool in times of great need.

Unfortunately, they haven’t changed and here we are. But I’d like to strike a note of optimism.

Much like on the immigration and speech issues that now bedevil much of Europe, I think most Americans want them to finally get this right, if only to make summer European vacations a lot more pleasant.

And maybe now is the right time for a change. After all, thousands of regular people from all over Europe are visiting the U.S. for the World Cup. Some seem to be amazed about the nice people and nice things they’ve encountered here, including the air conditioning blasting in literally every building.

OK, maybe we take things a little too far on that front, but I’ll bet there are more than a few European visitors who’d like to bring at least half of our A/C obsession back home with them. And they should. Many lives depend on it.