It was 30 years ago this month that a couple of college students in Kennewick, Wash., stumbled upon a rare archaeological discovery — one that would help trigger a war between science and racial identity politics, or what we now call “DEI.” Three decades later, it’s clear that if we don’t act quickly, it’s a fight science will probably lose.
What the students found was a 9,000-year-old skeleton that was soon nicknamed Kennewick Man. It was certainly one of the most precious anthropological finds ever. At the time, it was the oldest human skeleton ever found in North America, and it had signs of an injury from an arrow or a spear. More intriguingly, it seemed to have less in common with the skeletons of Native Americans than with those of ancient Japanese peoples, thus potentially changing our understanding of how humans first arrived in the New World.
But that’s when the federal government stepped in. Under a law called the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, skeletons found on federally owned land (as Kennewick Man was) must be turned over, or “repatriated,” to the Native American tribes they’re related to. NAGPRA was written in response to the actions of 19th- and early 20th-century archaeologists who sometimes engaged in practices that would be unacceptable today to acquire specimens, and it requires not only the “repatriation” of human remains, but also of “funerary objects” — that is, things buried alongside bodies.
Kennewick Man was far older than any existing tribe and not related to any of them. Nevertheless, tribal officials insisted that the bones be kept away from scientific study and turned over for reburial, which would destroy their usefulness for scientific research. In compliance with those demands, federal officials confiscated the skeleton and buried the Kennewick Man site under 600 tons of rock and fill to prevent any further discoveries.
Scientists sued, arguing that NAGPRA simply doesn’t apply to objects that old. After years of litigation, federal courts ruled in their favor. Indeed, the courts found that government officials had acted in bad faith and awarded the scientists $2 million in attorney fees. A year later, even though DNA research revealed that Kennewick Man was closest to South American indigenous peoples, an executive order by then-President Barack Obama forced the scientists to turn Kennewick Man over to a group of Northwest Coast Native American tribes who destroyed the bones forever.
That was bad enough, but in the years since, tribal activists and sympathetic politicians have taken increasingly aggressive positions in demanding the “repatriation” of specimens — many of which have no true connection to tribes, and others that aren’t even particularly old. Some museums have even “repatriated” artworks made in the 1980s and purchased from gift shops — as if these were sacred remnants of someone’s ancestors.
Today, in museums across the country, it has become common to see empty display cases, featuring signs like the one spotted recently at the San Diego Museum of Us: “As part of our decolonization process, these items have been moved to a sanctuary space.”
Equally absurd are cases in which scientists are forced to relinquish animal bones — literally the trash our ancestors threw away — on the theory that they’re somehow “funerary objects” that should be off-limits out of racial or religious sensitivities.
What’s more, some museums have adopted rules based on tribal practices to govern how scientists handle objects in their collections. These sometimes bar female scientists from handling specimens, since that’s sometimes prohibited by Native religious taboos. Museums are also required by federal regulation to have “advisory” committees that include practitioners of tribal religions. Christians, Jews, and Hindus aren’t given the same preferential treatment.
It’s hard to imagine a starker example of the collision between racial identity politics and the scientific rationality that our social and technological progress depends on. Out of deference to politically correct race politics and irrationally romanticized conceptions about “stolen land,” the institutions where science should reign supreme are being suborned into erasing the accumulated knowledge of centuries. In effect, an entire field of scientific inquiry has been placed at risk by an overzealous activist movement using the regulatory power of the state.
The study of human remains and artifacts isn’t just some antiquarian hobby. It provides critical insights about present-day issues like climate change and provides insights that can help police officers solve crimes. But entire areas of anthropological research may now be shutting down, thanks to the aggressive use and misuse of NAGPRA.
The science of anthropology can still be saved if we act now. Museum officials and state governments can push back. For one thing, many “repatriation” efforts aren’t actually required by NAGPRA. Museum leaders should refuse to be cowed by activist demands that fall outside the law. And states should adopt legislation prohibiting the return of specimens that are too old to be associated with a tribe or too young to be a “funerary object.” They should also forbid any museum from following rules that discriminate on the basis of sex or religion.
Science is too precious to be sacrificed to the political demands of DEI and the wishful thinking of angry activists who prioritize race over research, discovery, and progress.
***
Timothy Sandefur is the vice president for legal affairs at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of the Goldwater Institute report, “<a href="https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-reburial-of-the-southwest/">The Reburial of the Southwest: Closing Off Native History and Archaeology</a>”

FRANCE-SCIENCE-ANTHROPOLOGY-MUSEUM-PREHISTORY-RESEARCH

Identity Politics Is Burying Science

American History

Anthropology

Archeology

DW Opinion

Kennewick Man

Native Americans

Natural history

Science

Woke Culture

The Smithsonian National Museum of American History pushes left-wing activism, featuring bizarre displays including chest binders, a crotch harness, and the diary of a gender-confused girl, according to a scathing White House report released Monday. 
The Trump administration’s Domestic Policy Council released a 162-page <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Smithsonian-Report-Saving-Americas-Story.pdf">report</a> concluding that the Smithsonian “fails in the basic task of illuminating our heritage” and instead promotes woke political causes. The report argues that the museum portrays the Founding Fathers primarily through the lens of slavery while marginalizing their broader influence on the nation&#8217;s founding.  
“Our central finding is not that the Museum has simply added overlooked stories, corrected perceived errors, or broadened its historical scope,” the report found. “Rather, it is that Museum leadership has explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens.”
Anthea Hartig, the director of the National Museum of American History, has previously <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxKVJ1pYcEw&amp;t=2484s">said</a> that she wants to use the museum to “advance social justice” and <a href="https://americanhistory.si.edu/press/releases/slaverys-shadow-george-floyd-and-american-legacies-anthea-m-hartig-elizabeth">wanted</a> to “work to reframe the traditional, celebratory narrative of U.S. history for visitors”
Hartig has also made derogatory statements about “whiteness,” claiming that she was propped up “by the cushions of whiteness and the pillows of the bourgeoisie.” 
The report highlighted past <a href="https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/gay-history-beyond-stonewall/online/how-far-will-you-go">displays</a> that included a crotch harness accompanied by a description of clothing being used as “acts of resistance as well as self-identity” for the LGBTQ movement, a chest binder that belonged to a transgender-identifying skateboarder, and a diary page from a young girl who wrote that she prayed &#8220;every night for my penis to grow.&#8221; 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In accordance with <a href="https://x.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>&#8216;s &#8220;Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History&#8221; order, a new report exposes how the Smithsonian turned the Nat&#8217;l Museum of American History into a vehicle for Radical Left propaganda and degeneracy.
Here are some of the worst examples.
🧵THREAD:
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2074317861443559809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1129653" style="width: 1510px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1129653" class="size-full wp-image-1129653" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-11.32.09-AM.png" alt="" width="1500" height="524" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-11.32.09-AM.png 1500w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-11.32.09-AM-300x105.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-11.32.09-AM-1024x358.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-11.32.09-AM-768x268.png 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1500px) 100vw, 1500px" />Smithsonian Exhibit.</div>
It also cites displays suggesting it was discriminatory to keep boys who identify as girls out of female sports and videos featuring drag queens.
According to the report, museum staff also pushed an &#8220;anti-racist&#8221; toolkit encouraging employees to “confront whiteness” by “making the case for inclusion.&#8221;
The report criticizes the museum&#8217;s treatment of the nation&#8217;s founders, arguing that visitors &#8220;will find no major exhibits dedicated to America&#8217;s Founding era,&#8221; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, other Founding Fathers, the Continental Congress, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, or major moments of the American Revolution&#8230;  
“Instead, visitors will find Founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, introduced chiefly through their connection to slavery while their decisive roles in building the Republic and their anti-slavery efforts are minimized or ignored,” the report found.
A Smithsonian spokesman told The Daily Wire that it has ”served the American public with nonpartisan and independent scholarship, and we remain committed to doing so.&#8221;

SMITHSONIAN UNDER FIRE

The White House Just Highlighted These Absurd Displays At The Nation’s Top History Museum

Smithsonian Museum

Social Issues

Transgender

U.S.

Wokeness

Visitors to the American Colonies in the mid-18th century were astonished by the families they encountered. Schoolmaster Gottlieb Mittelberger, dispatched in 1750 by the Duke of Wuertenberg to report on German settlers in Pennsylvania, was typical. “It must be confessed that the female sex in this new country is very fruitful,” he wrote. In both city and country, “when one comes into a house, one finds it usually full of children, and the city of Philadelphia is fairly swarming with them.” Whenever a visitor meets an American woman, he noticed, “she is either with child, or she carries a child in her arms, or leads one by the hand.”(1)
In 1766, the Church of England sent the priest Charles Woodmason to bring Anglican order to the Scotch-Irish settlers in the Carolina backcountry. He described the subjects of his mission as “Rude—Ignorant—Void of Manners, Education, or Good Breeding…the most lowest, vilest men breathing.”(2)
And yet, Woodmason was stunned by the fecundity of their womenfolk:
<blockquote>
There’s not a Cabin but has 10 or 12 Young Children in it—When the boys are 18 and the Girls 14 they marry—so that in many Cabins you will see 10 or 15 Children, Children and Grandchildren of one size—and the Mother looking as Young as the Daughter.
</blockquote>
No less a figure than Benjamin Franklin pondered the causes of such things. In his remarkable 1755 essay, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, Etc., he accurately calculated that American marriage and birth rates were twice as high as those found in Europe: an average of eight births per woman in the New World compared to four in the Old. This meant that the American population would double every 20 years by natural increase alone. Why this difference? Franklin noted that land was plentiful and cheap in America and that “a laboring man that understands Husbandry, can in a short time save enough to purchase a piece of new land sufficient for a plantation, whereon he may subsist a family.” Such men “are not afraid to marry,” and marry early. Moreover, Franklin argued that “sects” that regarded frugality and hard work as religious duties and educated “their children therein” would grow faster than groups which did not.(3)
Writing in 1775, Harvard University theologian Edward Wigglesworth suggested causes closer to the divine. The rapidity of American population growth had no “parallel in the annals of Europe!”  he wrote. Indeed, he noted, such a thing “has never been equaled since the patriarchal ages,” described in the Old Testament. On a more practical note, he argued that Americans “are less luxurious in their manner of living” and that their “temperance in diet renders them more healthy.” Hinting at the political implications, Wigglesworth estimated that Americans “will be more numerous than their brethren in Britain” within a mere 50 years.(4)
This demographic exuberance was not new. The Puritan settlers of New England had recorded similar numbers in the 17th Century. The first two generations of Puritans averaged nine children per couple.(5) At the upper extreme, the 90 families in Billerica — today a Boston suburb — counted 1,043 children, an average of 11 kids.(6) As demographer Jim Potter has summarized, “the natural growth rate of Massachusetts and Connecticut in the second half of the seventeenth century was extremely unusual, if not unique, in human history.”(7)
Moreover, similar decades-long episodes of familial effervescence also occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. During the former event, the hugely influential writers Sarah Hale and Lydia Sigourney described a remarkable conflation of good homes and the American Republic around “the Eden Laws”: the creation by God of marriage; the Divine command “to be fruitful and multiply;” and the necessity of distinctive male and female tasks. As Hale wrote: “Do you not perceive a striking similitude between the family on Mount Ararat and the Pilgrim band in the Mayflower?”(8)
In the latter episode, marriage- and baby-booms altered the American social landscape. The marriage rate more than doubled between 1932 and the late 1940s. The average age of first marriage may have reached record American lows in 1956: 22.5 for men; 20.1 for women. By 1970, over 95% of American adults either were or had been married. Meanwhile, the fertility rate soared from an estimated 2 lifetime births per woman in 1930 to 3.625 in 1957, an increase of 80%.(9)
Looking past our current time of marriage and fertility woes, do these past episodes of family strength and renewal teach common lessons about what works?  The answer, I believe, is yes.
Here are six lessons we can take away from America’s past to boost fertility in our future:
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li4">Embrace a family-centered worldview. In one exemplary community, the Quakers in 18th-century Pennsylvania organized the whole of life around family-centeredness, to transform the “trivia, responsibilities, and relations of family life” into something “fascinating, profound, and sacred.”(10)</li>
<li class="li4">Encourage Property Ownership. Productive land, homes, forests, and small enterprises should be owned by as many families as possible. Notable episodes of greatly expanded property-holding include a quadrupling in the number of family farms in America during the second half of the 19th century through measures such as the Homestead Act of 1862 and the 90% rise in the number of owner-occupied homes between 1945 and 1960, heavily fueled by favorable federal policies.(11) (See the <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/homes-for-young-families-a-pro-family-housing-agenda">IFS report on housing</a> for more ideas on boosting home ownership).</li>
<li class="li4">Build Family Economies. In both the 17th and 18th centuries, families formed the basic economic unit, not individuals. Throughout the British colonies, Americans expected each family to operate as a self-contained unit. They expected children to accept a duty toward their families, “even to the point of sacrificing individual advantage.” And they expected that education would be the responsibility of families, not “society.”(12) In the 19th century, theologian Horace Bushnell borrowed an image from Jeremiah to praise “the organic working of the family,” explaining: “If the father kindles the fire, and the women knead the cakes, the children will gather the wood.”(13) Even in the late 20th century, calculations of the value of the full-time homemaker’s contribution to the home economy through child care, cooking, cleaning, and so on ranged from 50-100% of the median cash family income.(14) (Looking ahead, <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/introducing-the-third-oikos-homemaking-reimagined">the &#8220;Third Oikos&#8221; model</a>, a joint project of IFS the Foundation for American Innovation, seeks ways in which new information technologies can reintegrate production in households, bringing both mothers and fathers &#8220;home.&#8221;)</li>
<li class="li4">Grow the Middle Class. Every period of family strength in American history either witnessed or built upon a shrinkage of the proportions of both the super-rich and the very poor, and the expansion of the middle class. Perhaps the most dramatic and well-documented example of this came in the middle decades of the 20th century. Labeled “the great compression of wages,” economic inequality “fell precipitously” between 1940 and 1970, with “a wage structure more egalitarian” than it had been for the prior one hundred years or “at any time since.”(15) These were the very years of the celebrated Marriage and Baby Boom.</li>
<li class="li4">Seek a Family-Centered Polity. Just as in economics, “the family rather than the individual was the basic political unit” throughout 18th century America.1(6 )Much closer to current time, every significant Federal domestic policy adopted between 1933 and 1948 sought to promote and defend the breadwinner-homemaker family model as a clear expression of American solidarity.(17)</li>
<li class="li4">Respect Sexual Complementarity in Marriage, While Making Work from Home Easier. The Americans of 1776 expected that men and women would hold distinct spheres of responsibility: the former in the fields and the public square; the latter in the house, garden, and farmyard. Albeit with a shift from farm to suburb, the same assumptions prevailed in the mid- 20th century. Research studies of that era found well-educated women expressing “a fervent commitment to marriage” and full-time homemaking.(18) As feminist historian Elaine Tyler May accurately summarizes: “the young women of the day would not be dissuaded. They were homeward bound.”(19)</li>
</ol>
These are the principles — grounded in a distinctive, if large, geographic place — on which a well-defined American family system has been built, and re-built, over the last four centuries. As we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, I predict that if family renewal occurs again in this fair land, it will derive from new iterations of these same six strategic tasks.
***
This is republished with permission from the <a href="https://ifstudies.org/">Institute for Family Studies</a>. The original can be found <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demographic-miracle-of-1776-and-what-it-means-today">here</a>.
Allan C. Carlson’s books include <a href="https://canonpress.com/products/the-american-way-family-and-community-in-the-shaping-of-the-american-identity?srsltid=AfmBOoqq6zB2vSlOXNLwXAgPAjBnuxPUZl3KUm8lO4iO4isM3xSiP7un">The American Way: Family and Community in the Shaping of the American Identity</a>(Cannon Press, 2003), and  <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Family-Cycles-Strength-American-1630-2000-ebook/dp/B0FCCXGG5N/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2DQK3714SMB5T&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.lo_8wN8FBUL7Lk4p5m_xfdoXx5h03fGC5BxVLsa_HVxAOjN5HHa6Sz3c3JFB2nfY.1XtjdDnobLMxuyQxn_4ZfcxBmrber30jVSz5lRi8rTE&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=family+cycles+allan+carlson&amp;qid=1782233385&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=family+cycles+allan+carlson%2Cstripbooks%2C167&amp;sr=1-1">Family Cycles: Strength, Decline, and Renewal in American Domestic Life, 1630-2000</a>(Routledge, 2016).
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, policies, or positions of the Institute for Family Studies.
1. Gottlieb Mittelberger, Journey to Pennsylvania in the Year 1750 and Return to Germany in 1754, trans. By Carl Theo. Eben (Philadelphia, PA: John Jos. McVey, 1898), 107.
2. Charles Woodmason, The Carolina Backcountry on the Eve of the Revolution 1766-68 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953), 39.
3. Benjamin Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, Etc. (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1755), 217-8, 220, 222.
4. Edward Wigglesworth, Calculations on American Population with a Table for Estimating the Annual Increase of Inhabitants in the British Colonies…. (Boston: John Boyle, 1775), 5-6, 23.
5. Richard Archer, “New England Mosaic: A Demographic Analysis for the Seventeenth Century,” The William and Mary Quarterly (Third Series) 47 (October 1990), 477-502.
6. Changes in Population,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 38 (1869), 387.
7. Jim Potter, “Demographic Development and Family Structure,” in Colonial British America, ed. Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 148.
8. Sarah J. Hale, Manners; or Happy Homes and Good Society. All the Year Round (New York: Arno Press, 1972 [1868], 22-3, 261-2.
9. Historical Statistics of the United States. Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1976), 19, 50, 63.
10. Barry Levy, “The Birth of the ‘Modern Family’ in Early America: Quaker and Anglican Families in the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania, 1681-1750,” in Michael Zuckerman, ed., Friends and Neighbors: Group Life in America’s First Plural Society (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982), 48.
11. Harvey S. Rosen, “Owner Occupied Housing and the Federal Income Tax: Estimates and Simulations,” Journal of Urban Economics 6 (1979), 263-4.
12. Robert V. Wells, Revolutions in Americans’ Lives: A Demographic Perspective on the History of Americans, Their Families, and Their Society (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1984), 56-63.
13. Horace Bushnell, Christian Nurture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967 [1847]), 74-98.
14. Reuben Gronau, “Home Production—A Forgotten Industry,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 62 (1980), 408-16.
15. Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo, “The Great Compression: The Wage Structure in the United States at Mid-Century,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 57 (February 1992), 2-4. 24-32.
16. Wells, Revolutions in Americans’ Lives, 56-63.
17.This assertion comes from materials found in: Allan Carlson, The ‘American Way’: Family and Community in the Shaping of the American Identity (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2003), 55-78.
18. The most rigorous and thorough of these was the Kelly Longitudinal Study, ably summarized in: Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 30-38.
19. May, Homeward Bound, 80-82.

The Peale Family

The Lesson Colonial America Can Teach Modern Families

American family

Fertility

Institute for Family Studies

marraige

My Dearest America,
From across your northern border, from a nation that has enjoyed the serene luxury of your shadow and your shelter, I write to you on the occasion of your 250th birthday — as a grateful beloved and not some moralistic scold or resentful neighbor. For I am acutely aware that the liberties I enjoy, and the clarity with which I know myself free, are gifts of your thought, your daring, and your existence. I am a Canadian woman, yes, but in the profoundest sense that matters — one which appeals to nature and not to passports — I am your daughter.
Others will say you are a “propositional nation,” while some still cling to the hope that you are a “heritage nation.” Both miss the point, because each misunderstands the revolution behind what you really did and who you really are. The radicalism of your proposition lies in its claim to be true by nature. In brief, you are and will be true in all times and places. You did something unprecedented: you took equality and liberty out of the realm of myth, custom, and historical accident, and you wrote them on the tablet of nature itself. “All men are created equal.” You said that what you claim depends not on particular English habits, Protestant temperament, or colonial grievances; it depends on the soul.
That is why I, a foreigner, can claim you with gratitude and seriousness. The moment you say “created equal,” you obliterate the boundary between your citizens and the rest of mankind — not politically, but philosophically. You announce that the standard by which regimes are to be judged is man’s eternal nature and not tradition, blood, or geography. And if that is true, any regime — yours, mine, or any other — that repudiates that standard becomes an enemy not merely of Americans, but of humanity itself. This is why your existence is more than a political fact; it is a philosophical revolution.
You are called arrogant for speaking of yourselves as a “city on a hill.” But your most profound audacity is your humility before nature. You dared to assert that the truths upon which you rest are not yours. They do not belong to Boston or Philadelphia. They are not an American custom; they are a human truth. You did not create the equality of men; you discovered it. You did not grant inalienable rights; you recognized them. That is why you are, and must be, a light to other nations.
The light you bear is not the sentimental glow of humanitarian feeling, which rises and falls with fashion. It is the light of nature—a light that flattens false hierarchies and exposes tyrannies as both false and unjust. It is the light by which a peasant in China, a dissident in Iran, and a woman in Canada can quietly measure her rulers and know whether they are legitimate. It whispers to the soul: You were not born to be a subject. You were not born to be a means. That whisper is your greatest weapon.
You are the New Zion and its new chosen people. This is not to say God prefers your soil or your accents, but rather that you have been chosen for a specific task. You are chosen to live with the burden of having declared to the world that there is a standard above tribe, throne, party, and epoch. The burden is that you cannot retreat into the consolations of relativism without betraying your foundation. You cannot comfortably say, “Well, every culture has its own truths,” without also sawing off the branch on which you sit. If equality and liberty are not true by nature, then your founding is a magnificent illusion, and you are only one more tribe defending its prejudices. But if they are true by nature, then their reach is universal, their demand inescapable. You carry that demand. You carry it in your institutions, but more profoundly, you carry it in your self-understanding. You are condemned, by your own first principles, to care about the fate of liberty everywhere — out of philosophic consistency and not of imperial ambition. This is the burden of being New Zion. You cannot hide your light under a bushel without ceasing to be yourselves.
From my vantage point, in a nation that has grown accustomed to retreat — to the modest comfort of thinking we can live as if history has ended and geography will protect us — I see you for what you are: the keystone of Western civilization. Remove you, and the arch collapses. Your military power is the result of this reason. The real keystone is that in you, the philosophy of natural rights did not remain an abstraction in a book or a lecture, but took the frightening step into reality. You wagered that men, understood as by nature free and equal, must govern themselves. The West’s greatest achievement — the union of reason and liberty—has its most concrete home in you.
That is why your crises are never local matters. When you grow weary of yourself, when you tire of the old words and regard them as empty slogans, it is not only you who are endangered. A world already suspicious about reason looks on and concludes that even the noblest attempt to found politics on nature is a failure. Your decadence is offered as proof that the longing for liberty must submit at last to some new form of gentle despotism, administrative and “scientific,” tidy and soulless. The world is always looking for an excuse to give up on the demand that regimes justify themselves by appealing to something higher than power. Your failure would be that excuse.
This is why — on this 250th anniversary — I write to thank you, not simply to flatter. You are tempted today by two opposite forms of forgetfulness. One is the temptation of heritage idolatry: to imagine that what makes you is a mere continuity of blood and custom, an ethnic story dressed up as philosophy. The other is the temptation of pure proceduralism: to see yourself as nothing but an empty framework in which any “culture”, any “values,” any “identity” may be poured.
Both are evasions. The first reduces you to a tribe among tribes and abandons the universality at your essence. The second strips you of all substantive claims and abandons the truth by nature that gave you birth. Between these lies the hard road of self-knowledge: to remember that you are, in origin, argument and not blood — the argument that there are truths about man and justice that are true everywhere and always.
As a Canadian, I have been spared many of your struggles. But I have not been spared the consequences of your ideas. I live in a world fundamentally shaped by the fact that, in 1776, a group of men on the eastern edge of a vast continent dared to write that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that when any form of government becomes destructive of the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it may be altered or abolished. Whether my own nation remembers it or not, I know, because you taught me, that any regime which denies the equal natural freedom of its citizens is illegitimate.
That knowledge is a liberation and a wound. It liberates because it tells me that I am not crazy when I feel outraged by injustice; I am simply judging by the nature of things. It wounds because it leaves me no refuge in the cozy lie that “this is just the way we do things here.” Your universalism leaves me cosmopolitan in the deepest sense, unable to be satisfied with local excuses.
So today, on your 250th birthday, I thank Providence that my quiet, conciliatory nation has been blessed to share a border with you and not with a despot. I thank Nature’s God that your existence keeps alive the possibility of politics grounded in nature and not will. I thank you that your flag, mocked and burned in some quarters, still stands as a symbol that there is such a thing as a rational standard by which the mighty may be called to account.
My love, the chosen people of natural right, you remain the one great nation that staked everything on the claim that man is by nature free and equal, and that government must humble itself before that fact. For that, a woman across your 49th parallel can know, without permission or apology, that she is free and equal by nature. That knowledge is your gift to me. Do not renounce it.
In awe and wonder,
An eternally grateful Canadian
***
Dimpee Brar currently serves as the Director of Engagement for Allies for a Strong Canada. She is a writer whose work can be found in the Federalist, American Spectator, the Western Standard, and the Toronto Sun. She appears frequently on various podcasts and radio shows. You can follow her on X: @isthisdimpeeb

United States flag, letter and pen

A Grateful Canadian’s Love Letter To America

America 250

Canada

Founding Fathers

Punch-Hamilton-4

The Editor Of The Most Popular Edition Of The Federalist Thinks It’s More Important Than Ever

Federalist Papers

interview

Punch

The Federalist

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
***
As the United States marks its 250th birthday and Americans reflect on the nation&#8217;s Founding, we should also ask whether we&#8217;ve prepared the next generation to understand it.
The truth is, we haven&#8217;t.
On the <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ushistory/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)</a>, U.S. history is the worst-performing subject tested. Just 13% of 8th graders were proficient, and four in 10 couldn&#8217;t reach even a basic level in 2022. Scores have been declining since 2014. On the <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/civics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Civics NAEP assessment</a>, about one in five students was proficient, and nearly a third scored below even a basic level.
The country has already written down what a citizen should know — it just doesn&#8217;t require citizens to know it.
Immigrants who want to become Americans must pass a <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test" target="_blank" rel="noopener">naturalization test</a> that requires them to name a branch of government, explain what the Constitution does, and say why the colonists broke from Britain.
Yet survey native born Americans with the same questions, and most fail. <a href="https://cands.org/research-national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A 2018 study found</a> that only 36% of American adults could pass a basic citizenship test — compared with a <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/naturalization-related-data-and-statistics/naturalization-test-performance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">95% pass rate</a> among immigrants actually required to take it.
We hold the people joining this country to a standard we don&#8217;t hold the people born into it. Much of that gap starts in the classroom, where history and civics have gradually been pushed to the margins.
<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Under No Child Left Behind,</a> schools were held accountable for reading and math. Students were tested in those subjects, and schools had to answer for those results. That worked, and it coincided with the largest gains across the nation.
But history and civics were largely left out of that framework. Schools were not held accountable for them, and over time, they received less attention. Today, the average elementary classroom spends <a href="https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/social-studies-and-science-get-short-shrift-in-elementary-schools-why-that-matters/2024/02" target="_blank" rel="noopener">roughly 16 minutes</a> a day on social studies — a fraction of the time devoted to reading and math.
<h3><a href="https://manhattan.institute/subscribe?utm_source=DailyWire&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=reihan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.</a></h3>
<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/report/restoring-civics-education-all-50-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In a federal survey</a>, only 49% of 8th graders reported taking a class focused primarily on civics or government, and 8% had taken no such course at all.
After No Child Left Behind, the country moved to<a href="https://www.thecorestandards.org/about-the-standards/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Common Core</a> State Standards, which never set a single standard for what history students should learn. The Common Core governed reading and math, and its approach to reading taught students to stay inside &#8220;<a href="https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/3._Publishers_Criteria_for_Literacy_for_Grades_3-12.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the four corners of the text,</a>&#8221; answering only what the page itself revealed.
History is different. Students cannot fully understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution without understanding the grievances against King George III, the debates over independence, and the political philosophy that shaped the American Founding. Common Core may have addressed how students should read those documents, but it never addressed what they should know before they did so.
The result is a generation that may recognize the Founding documents without understanding why they were revolutionary. They may know the Constitution exists without understanding federalism or the separation of powers it created. They may hear arguments about socialism and capitalism without ever having studied the history from which those arguments come.
What a student actually learns increasingly depends on the state, and often the district, where he happens to go to school.
A <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/young-americans-socialism-too-much-thats-problem-libertarians-must-fix" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2025 survey</a> found that 62% of Americans under 30 now hold a favorable view of socialism, and a third say the same of communism. These opinions were formed, for most of them, without ever having studied what this truly means in practice. A student who never studied the Soviet famines or the Cold War doesn&#8217;t know what it looks like when a government controls what people can grow, buy, or sell.
And these gaps certainly don&#8217;t remain in the classroom. They shape how young Americans understand the political, economic, and civic debates they inherit.
America 250 should be a national recommitment to teaching the story of the United States with defined content and accountability. Every graduate should leave school understanding the nation&#8217;s Founding, the Constitution, the structure of American government, and the events that have shaped the country since.
The real gift of America&#8217;s 250th would be a generation of graduates who finally understand the country they&#8217;re being asked to celebrate. Committing to truly teach it is the least this birthday should ask of us.
***
Jennifer Weber is a fellow for K-12 Education Policy at the Manhattan Institute.

Blackboard in Old-Fashioned School House

Let’s Mark America 250 With A Civic Education Revival

Education

MI x DW

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country, there are two forces that wish to wreck America stem to stern, and seek to destroy it: The DSA Left and the Woke Right.
And they are coming together.
The things that matter most to the United States and Americans are under assault. Core principles: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and private property. These things are under assault. Also, the very idea of America being an amazing place, a place that is good and great. The idea of American peace through strength.
All of these things are currently under assault from the Left.
Of course, the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, is eating the Democratic Party wholesale. These are not normal Democrats who are worried about tax rates or entitlement programs. They truly despise the country, and they are full-scale socialists.
What the DSA is doing all over the country is not fun and games; it has consequences. The Democratic Party is on the verge of taking over not just the House in the midterm elections, but also the Senate.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2458?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
In the Senate races, in North Carolina, Democrats are up; in Ohio, it&#8217;s a dead heat. In Maine, a dead heat. In Texas, a dead heat. A dead heat in Alaska. In Iowa, a dead heat. That&#8217;s six seats. If Democrats were to win four, they would take control of the Senate. If they win six, they would have 53 seats. Statistician Nate Silver says there&#8217;s about an 80 to 90% shot Democrats take the House and there&#8217;s a 40% shot they take the Senate.
And remember, increasingly, these are not establishment Democrats. These are not John Fetterman, moderate Democrats. These are Democrats who are in thrall to the DSA. They understand which way the winds are blowing and they&#8217;re moving in the direction of those winds.
So what would happen if the Democrats win? We should keep this in mind because this is the backdrop to Tucker Carlson announcing that he wants to start a third party, which, by the way, is nonsense.
What would happen if Democrats were to win? You need to understand the stakes, to understand the game that Tucker is playing, which is a very dangerous game.
The prime example is judicial nominees. The Supreme Court makes decisions that affect all of us on a wide level.
You can either have people in positions of power who are going to do things like strike down Roe v. Wade, curb the administrative state, or ensure the checks and balances of the Constitution, or you can have a bunch of leftists who greenlight every Left-wing policy.
Justice Clarence Thomas is currently 78. Justice Samuel Alito is 76. Unless either one of them or both retire in the next couple of months, and if Democrats win the Senate, you are likely to see them replaced at some point by a Left-leaning member of the Supreme Court.
If you get two justices who shift from Right to Left, or from originalist to the “living Constitution” crew, you end up with a majority on the Supreme Court in favor of every radical social, fiscal, and foreign policy that the Democrats could ever imagine.
That’s a full-scale disaster area.
That’s why the Senate is crucial.
Democrats are going to start stacking up the district courts. They&#8217;re going to start moving those district courts in the direction of Left-wing social policy. If they were to gain control of the Senate, they would move to impeach President Trump. There&#8217;s an outside shot they could even get a conviction in a Senate split between a Democratic majority and maybe some rogue Republican senators.
They will stymie any effort to fund our military, to restock Patriot missiles, to build the new kind of military we need to actually challenge our enemies in the world.
That all happens if the Democrats win the Senate. This is very, very serious stuff.
That sets it up for 2028. Because if Democrats control the Senate and the House in 2026, they are one step away from having a trifecta in 2028.
It’s true that Republicans have an uphill battle in 2026. We all know this; it&#8217;s an off-year election. This is normal.
What&#8217;s exacerbating that, other than the obvious fact of the president&#8217;s unpopularity, is a group of people purportedly on the Right who are openly saying they want the Republicans to lose.
Tucker Carlson is doing this. This is Tucker&#8217;s entire game. Tucker Carlson wants the Republicans to lose, because what he wants is a party that takes the place of the Republican Party, that mirrors all the presumptions of the Woke Left, except for trans issues.
Tucker Carlson truly dislikes the country. There&#8217;s no way to consistently watch his show and believe otherwise. He literally hosted an arms dealer from Russia to talk about the evils of America.
Carlson does not actually like any of the things that classically have made America awesome. He does not like free markets; you&#8217;ll recall him praising feudalism over free markets. He has praised pretty much every jihadi group he can imagine or pretended they don&#8217;t exist. He has said that Iran is actually the wondrous force in the region, and Carlson&#8217;s unending, lavish praise for Vladimir Putin is laughable at this point.
But here&#8217;s the actual story. Carlson is discussing launching a third party. This is the schtick.
You can see why he&#8217;s doing this; his friends are getting kicked out of the government. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Joe Kent, and Thomas Massie.
In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review this week, he said, “I do know what really matters is war and finance. Where does the money come from? Where does it go and who gets killed? And on those questions, the parties are in lockstep solidarity with each other.”
That is a lie. It is not true. If you think that there&#8217;s no distinction between Democrats and Republicans on how taxing works, where the money comes from, how markets work, how foreign policy ought to work, if you think that they&#8217;re the same, it&#8217;s because you&#8217;re stupid or lying.
I don&#8217;t think Tucker is stupid. I think he&#8217;s lying. He said:
<blockquote>That&#8217;s not a democracy. That&#8217;s a one-party state posing as a democracy and it needs to be broken. And there&#8217;s going to be a third party, and I&#8217;m going to do everything I can to bring that about. And that&#8217;s the lesson of the last two and a half months to me. If you vote for Trump and you still wind up in a regime change war &#8230; then we need options, or else let&#8217;s just give up and be ruled by the most unscrupulous people. And I&#8217;m just too young to accept that. We need a third party. I&#8217;m going to help build a third party.</blockquote>
Then he segued into his National Socialist spiel: “I mean, if you make $60,000 a year, you&#8217;re degraded, your life expectancy has gone down, and the promise of your children&#8217;s lives is likely gone.”
That is not true. Upward mobility in the United States remains available.
He says “no one seems to care,” which is, of course, Tucker&#8217;s constant refrain, that all the people who oppose his bizarre and unsavory policy prescriptions just don&#8217;t care. They&#8217;re not “caring enough.”
That’s very feminized Left-wing language from Tucker Carlson on a consistent basis.
What about Hamas? He said, “I officially don&#8217;t care about Hamas.”
That&#8217;s weird, because the dude talks about the Middle East more than anyone who does a broadcast. He cannot stop talking about the Middle East. He&#8217;s obsessed with it.
He says the U.S. government should have as its first priority the welfare of its own people, which, of course, I agree with.
Then he says, “I don&#8217;t want to be a candidate&#8230; I was tempted to say to the New York Times, ‘I&#8217;m running on the pro-patriarchy ticket.&#8217; Just to make sure I gain no new fans.”
This is always Tucker’s shtick; he says a bunch of Left-wing stuff, and then he throws out a Right-wing red meat red herring, and then goes on his merry way.
Tucker has no intention of starting a third party. That is not his actual game. He&#8217;s not going to do that. He&#8217;s too lazy. He has another game in mind.
What is Tucker doing? He&#8217;s not launching a third party. Tucker is not stupid. He is ideologically vile, but he is not stupid. He&#8217;s not going to run a third party because third parties fail.
To take the most obvious comparison, remember the Reform Party? Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 1992, and he was focused largely on the evils of NAFTA and the idea that global economics was bad. He withdrew in July, and then jumped back in in October, and he ended up with 19% of the popular vote, which was the highest percentage for a third party since Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in 1912.
In 1995, he launched the actual Reform Party, and this was a giant dud.
The United States is built for a two-party system because building a national infrastructure is extremely costly and very difficult. Perot won roughly 8% of the national popular vote in 1996.
But here&#8217;s the thing. I hope Tucker launches a third party.
Why? Because it&#8217;ll get crushed. Third parties get crushed. I would love to see a clean referendum on Tucker&#8217;s perverse views, but he&#8217;s not going to do that.
Here&#8217;s the game. Tucker sees that Republicans are probably going to have a bad 2026. What he wants to say is that the reason Republicans had a bad 2026 is that they alienated key people like him. Thus, if you wish to win in 2028, you need to shift the entire policymaking direction of the party back in his direction.
Tucker is not launching the Reform Party. Tucker is launching the TSA, the Tucker Socialists of America. His goal is for Republicans to lose in 2026. He&#8217;s not hiding the ball here. He has said he&#8217;s not voting Republican. He wants Republicans to lose. He is here to demoralize conservatives prior to 2026.
That is the goal; the worse Republicans do, the more Tucker can then try to pretend that the reason Republicans lost is that they disappointed voters like Tucker Carlson.
The reality is that if Republicans lose in 2026, there will be many factors at play. It&#8217;s an off-year election; Trump has been unpopular for a year.
Tucker is not launching some sort of rival to the Republican Party. He&#8217;s standing outside the Republican Party and then saying that because they didn&#8217;t hand it to him, they lost.
That&#8217;s the goal.
And that is just another reason we have to fight. Because people who care about the country, people who deeply care about those fundamental principles of America, the stuff we&#8217;re going to be celebrating this weekend, have to fight two forces: One is the Left, along with the DSA, and the other is the force of their twisted allies on the Woke Right, who are holding hands with them, who are hugging them.
There is a reason why Tucker Carlson and Cenk Uygur are hugging buddies now.
Our principles matter. Some of us have had the same principles for our entire political careers. Some of us have never moved, not one iota. Some of us have always defended private property and free markets. Some of us have always defended peace through strength. Some of us have always defended traditional virtue and traditional values.
Some of us have not moved. We&#8217;ve been here the entire time.
That is why the Daily Wire exists. It&#8217;s why it was founded: not just as some sort of generalized anti-Left brand, but because we actually care about the fundamental principles that undergird the country&#8217;s foundation.
So as we celebrate July 4th this weekend — and obviously we should, because America is the greatest place in the history of planet Earth, and the greatest privilege you have, other than being born into a solid family, is being born in America — we all must keep in mind there&#8217;s an immense responsibility that we all bear in these very perilous and difficult times.
We need to make sure that America makes it from the 250th anniversary to 251, then to 300, and then to 500.
And that only happens if we keep standing for the principles that matter.

IMG_4692

The Most Dangerous Alliance In American Politics

Ben Shapiro

Democratic Socialists Of America

Opinion

third-party

Tucker Carlson

Woke Right

As America marks its 250th birthday, the country is asking some necessary questions: Who built this nation? What ideals are worth celebrating? And what does it mean to be truly American?
Part of the answer is with the Jewish people, who have been there since the very beginning. Jews have been part of the American story since the nation&#8217;s infancy: helping to finance the Revolution, defending religious liberty, building its economy, advancing its science, and strengthening its democracy. The story of the American Jew is not separate from the story of America. It is woven into it.
That&#8217;s why I closed my speech at the 2024 Republican National Convention with a line I believe more strongly today than ever: Jewish values are American values, and American values are Jewish values. I did not say it to flatter the audience. I said it because history proves it.
I am a proud Orthodox Jew, a first-generation American, and the lead plaintiff in a civil-rights lawsuit against Harvard. The university settled with me, but not before I saw firsthand what institutional silence on antisemitism looks like. So when I hear that standing with Israel is a foreign entanglement, or even a betrayal of American interests, I know the claim is not merely wrong. It is backward, and the whole of American history says so.
When the Continental Army was broke, and the cause was nearly lost, a Polish-born Jewish immigrant named <a href="https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/haym-salomon">Haym Salomon</a> brokered the funds that <a href="https://www.americanjewisharchives.org/snapshots/one-jews-financial-support-for-the-revolutionary-war/">kept George Washington&#8217;s war effort alive</a>. He was not a bystander to the American founding; he helped pay for it.
A year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135">wrote</a> to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport that the new American government gives to bigotry, &#8220;no sanction, to persecution no assistance.&#8221; That was not a throwaway courtesy. It was a promise, from the father of the country to a small Jewish congregation, that in America they would be citizens and not guests. Jews took that promise seriously.
Look at what came of it: Jewish Americans are<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/the-size-of-the-u-s-jewish-population/"> roughly 2% of the U.S. population</a>, yet they have earned a wildly disproportionate <a href="https://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html">share</a> of this nation&#8217;s <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/60/oa_edited_volume/chapter/3264788">Nobel Prizes</a> in medicine, physics, chemistry, and economics. They helped <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/arts/new-academy-museum-exhibit-hollywoodland-details-how-jews-pioneered-film-business-1235901994/">build industries</a>,<a href="https://www.nps.gov/people/manhattan-project-scientists-leo-szilard.htm"> split the atom</a>,<a href="https://www.salk.edu/about/history-of-salk/jonas-salk/"> cure diseases</a>, <a href="https://www.ilctr.org/about-immigrants/immigrant-entrepreneurs/hall-of-fame/sergey-brin/">launch companies</a>, and make the American dream a reality. A people Washington welcomed as equals repaid the country a thousandfold. That is the American promise working exactly as designed.
Israel is that same promise projected outward. It is the Middle East&#8217;s only enduring democracy and a major <a href="https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/">non-NATO</a><a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44245"> ally of the United States</a>, a partner that <a href="https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/">shares our commitment</a> to the rule of law, free markets, and innovation. We do not stand with Israel out of charity or because there&#8217;s a nefarious conspiracy afoot. We stand with them because it is the one country in a hostile region that holds the values we hold, and because a strong Israel keeps Americans safer and American principles respected abroad. Reinforcing that alliance is not a gift to a foreign government; it is an investment in the kind of world America wants to live in.
That is not an abstraction. Israel stands on the front line of a war the free world would otherwise be forced to fight closer to home, absorbing the aggression of <a href="https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2021/iran">Iran</a> and the terror network it arms and funds, from Hamas to Hezbollah to the Houthis. For more than four decades, the same regime that chants &#8220;Death to America&#8221; has counted on Americans to look the other way. Israel does not have that option, and neither, in truth, do we. Every rocket Israel intercepts and every plot it dismantles is a danger that never reaches an American city. A partner that meets our enemies before they meet us does not drain American strength; it multiplies it.
The Anti-Defamation League counted <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incidents-2024">9,354</a> antisemitic incidents in 2024, the most in its history, and for the first time, a majority were tied to Israel or Zionism. The movement that brands support for Israel as un-American is the same one tearing at the actual foundations of America: free inquiry, equal citizenship, the simple idea that a Jewish student can walk to class without being told his loyalties are suspect. They have it backward: it&#8217;s patriots who are the ones defending the alliance, not the ones torching it.
I know what that costs, because I have paid it. I wrote to Harvard&#8217;s antisemitism task force <a href="https://jewishjournal.com/community/373467/shabbos-kestenbaum-the-outspoken-harvard-grad-taking-a-stand-against-antisemitism/">more than 40 times</a> and never received a reply. I <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5750924-my-testimony-on-campus-antisemitism-was-derailed-by-an-israel-obsession/">testified</a> before Congress about what I had witnessed. I have lost most of my friends. I did none of it because it was easy or popular, but because the country that gave my family refuge is worth defending, and the alliance that carries its values into the world is worth defending too.
We will not apologize for loving this country, and we will not pretend that standing with the world&#8217;s only Jewish state is anything other than deeply, proudly American. The synagogue in Newport still stands, and the synagogue of the American Revolution in the heart of Philadelphia attracts thousands of visitors a year. Washington&#8217;s letter still means what it said. American Jews helped build this nation into the freest and most prosperous on earth because of our undivided commitment to the values that made America worth loving in the first place.
***
<div dir="auto">Shabbos Kestenbaum is a PragerU political commentator, Harvard Divinity School alumnus, lead plaintiff in the landmark civil-rights lawsuit against Harvard University for antisemitism and a 2024 Republican National Convention speaker. He was named one of the<a href="https://www.jpost.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.jpost.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1783101720699000&amp;usg=AOvVaw09dXRDoOPQSlctpEdpHf0v"> Jerusalem Post’s</a> 25 most influential Jewish voices of 2025.</div>

US-VOTE-REPUBLICANS

Jewish Values Are American Values

antisemitism

Harvard

Jewish Americans

It has become an unfortunate habit of some on the Right to blame our failures on an overly idealistic youth. Our country’s history tells a different story.
Audacity and idealism in young people are features, not bugs. As a matter of fact, it’s baked into our national identity. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, young men in their 20s and 30s.
In the year 1776, Alexander Hamilton was the age of a college junior. Instead of trigger warnings and safe spaces, he dedicated his energy to the nuances of nation-building. Not long after, he went on to craft the greatest financial system the world has ever known.
James Madison at 25 wasn’t focused on “work-life balance” or “finding himself” like much of today’s youth. He was framing the Virginia State Constitution and would soon author the Bill of Rights.
It was a young man’s world. A far cry from today’s Washington, D.C., which can at times be difficult to distinguish from a nursing home.
Even the oldest among them, Mr. Benjamin Franklin (age 70), would be a veritable spring chicken in today’s political landscape.
They weren’t waiting for permission from the grown-ups.
While the average life expectancy was only around 35-40, this figure is widely misunderstood. Extremely high infant mortality rates drove the average down vastly. The life expectancy for adults who survived youth was <a href="https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/08/15/three-score-and-ten/">closer to 70</a>. Today, a healthy 21-year-old can expect to live to about 78-82.
In other words, the change in life expectancy does not explain why our politicians have doubled in age.
The same youthful energy exists today. You can find it in college protests. You can find it in the endless online crusades and political activism. With some exceptions, I tend to believe that these rowdy youth are well-intentioned. The difference is that the Founders were driven by a deep understanding of history and the world around them. Today’s youth are predominantly driven by catchy slogans and bumper-sticker logic.
Robert A. Heinlein once said that “Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil.”
Even in the days of the American Revolution, there were two versions of youthful idealism: one disciplined by history and the other intoxicated by utopian rage. Only a few short years after the American youth had crafted the republic, the French youth had brought chaos and mayhem into their society. In their case, the consequence of reckless idealism was the Reign of Terror.
While experience is the best teacher, there is also something to be said for action. The Founders chose not to wait for permission. They ferociously educated themselves in philosophy, history, and economics.
The Founding Fathers didn’t have access to Google. Their education paled in comparison to ours when you factor in the modern world&#8217;s vast resources and democratization of information.
True, there may be a wash of underqualified teachers and liberal orthodoxy in the public education system. But this problem has existed in one form or another for hundreds of years. The great minds in our history didn’t wait for world-class education to drop neatly into their laps. Thomas Jefferson was known to devote 15 hours a day to his personal studies.
What’s your excuse?
We cannot be so lazy as to blame partisanship for the prevalence of a destructive disposition. The disagreements between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans were no less fierce than those today. Think Jefferson didn’t view Hamilton as a tyrannical threat to Democracy? Think Hamilton didn’t view Jefferson as a radical extremist with no grasp on reality? Think again.
They compromised with their enemies not because they wanted to, but because it was necessary. They rose to the occasion because young didn’t have to mean stupid, and idealistic didn’t have to mean immature.
Perhaps young people governed differently when they had to live in the world that they built. It is a lot less appealing to plug your ears and pretend that snappy rhetoric is a substitute for pragmatic action when you have to face the consequences.
Our debt crisis is indicative of politicians who are much more comfortable hitting the snooze button on today’s issues than facing them head-on. It’s a lot easier to kick the can down the road when you’ve got one foot out the door. Hamilton and Jefferson had to reap whatever they sowed. Bernie Sanders, not so much.
It is both futile and foolish to try to suppress the youthful spirit. It should be nurtured and directed towards positive ends.
It is time we teach our children to be a little more like the Founding Fathers and a little less like the French.

Thomas Jefferson

The Young Men of 1776: When Progressives Really Wanted Progress

Youth Vote

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld birthright citizenship, which was a legal abomination. But that does not mean that America is doomed to a future of open immigration.
To understand what we can and should do, we have to understand what went wrong with immigration in the United States.
The answer is not Supreme Court decisions. What went wrong with immigration in the United States was the elected branches of government: legislative and executive policy.
Over the decades, our legislators and presidents have let in tens of millions of people who should not be in the country. That needs to stop, and some of it needs to be reversed.
So let&#8217;s start with a question: if we want to understand America&#8217;s immigration policy, where exactly do you think it broke down?
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2457?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
The percentage of immigrants of the total U.S. population from 1850 to essentially 1930 was well north of 10%, quite high.
Very few people think about immigration in that period as breaking America. It obviously created significant social problems, but nobody tends to think of that period in American life between 1850 and 1930 as a time that wrecked what America was.
And then the share of immigrants in the U.S. population dropped sharply between 1930 and essentially 1970. Then it spiked again.
If you look at the immigrant share of the U.S. population, it was 9.7% in 1850. In 1890, it rose to almost 15%. People don&#8217;t tend to think of this as a bad time for America because of immigration. Yes, there were social concerns, but overall, in retrospect, we don&#8217;t see this as a time when America was “being hollowed out.”
From 1930 onward, that percentage declined sharply from well north of 10% to 4.7% in 1970. And now it has spiked up again to roughly 14% as of 2022.
So what changed? We tend to think of immigration as a massive problem, but we didn’t think of immigration as a massive problem in 1900 when the percentage was about the same.
We need a quick history lesson here on the nature of American immigration. What changed is the nature of American immigration, not the sheer number.
America is a land of people who came to settle an unsettled wilderness, and they came from Europe, in large measure. There were no welfare programs. They didn&#8217;t come here to take advantage of existing welfare programs.
In 1850, the top five foreign-born populations were Ireland, Germany, the U.K., Canada, and France.
Move forward to 1880, and you can see that the pattern remains the same, except for massive Chinese immigration to the West Coast. But even that massive Chinese immigration to the West Coast was not in the top five in terms of foreign-born population. In 1880, when a substantial percentage of Americans were immigrants, the top five foreign-born populations were Germany, Ireland, the U.K., Canada, and Sweden.
Move forward again: 1910. In 1910, the top five foreign-born populations were Germany, Russia, Ireland, Italy, and the U.K. — still mostly European immigrants.
Move forward to 1990: Things have shifted quite a bit. It turns out that number one with a bullet is Mexico. A huge, huge percentage of immigrants were now coming from Mexico. In 1990, 4.26 million immigrants were from Mexico. The next highest number was 910,000 people from the Philippines.
You may notice that neither of those countries is European.
740,000 from Canada, 740,000 from Cuba. Germany clocked in at a very low number five.
So the source of the immigration had radically shifted.
Now move forward to 2022. What you can see is that the entire country was blanketed with immigrants from India, China, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Mexico. In 2022, the top five foreign-born populations by country of origin were: 10.6 million immigrants from Mexico, 2.83 million immigrants from India, 2.23 million from China, 2.01 million from the Philippines, and 1.42 million from El Salvador.
That is a giant shift in the nature of the places people are coming from. To pretend that gigantic numbers of Mexican immigrants are going to be the same as gigantic numbers of German, Irish, or British immigrants is silly. The same thing for India, the same thing for China.
That is not a case against any individual immigrant. It is just a fact. When you import large numbers of people from cultures that don&#8217;t cohere with the core culture of the United States — which is an English/Protestant culture from the beginning — then it&#8217;s going to be harder to integrate those people.
Add to that the fact that from the very beginning, our immigration programs were rooted in the idea that there was no welfare; you came here for the adventure. You came here because you wanted a better life, not because you wanted welfare benefits.
Once you add welfare benefits on top, the kinds of people who are coming here change.
This is the difference between opening a Michelin-star bakery — where your clientele is going to be a certain type of person — and opening a donut shop, and you put in the window “free donut”: there will be a different type of person who shows up to the donut shop.
If you look at the history of American immigration, you can see why there was a gigantic wave of immigration and then a dip: congressional action.
It is not as though Congress has not acted before. In 1882, Congress passed what was called the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1880, China was the number one source of immigration, raising concerns in Congress. Thus, in 1882, they passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which actually barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States for 10 years and was later extended to bar Chinese immigrants from naturalization entirely.
By 1910, there was an incredible uptick in immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. So the Immigration Act of 1917 was passed, creating a barred zone extending from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, from which no immigrants were permitted, and instituting literacy tests for people entering the country.
In 1921, the Emergency Quota Act was the first federal law to set numerical limits on immigration. The goal was to keep people coming in at very low levels from countries we had already allowed entry.
In 1924, the National Origins Act, the Immigration Act, tightened it still further, intentionally barring immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and banning virtually all immigration from Asia. You see a giant drop in the share of immigrants in the American population between then and essentially 1965.
And then something seminal happened: the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which radically changed the nature of immigration in the United States. We went from a bunch of European immigrants to a bunch of immigrants from places like El Salvador, Mexico, China, and the Philippines, etc.
That act was pushed by Senator Ted Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson and repealed the quota system entirely. That meant a radical uptick of immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and South America. It had a no-discrimination clause that said no person could be discriminated against in the issuance of any visa because of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or residence.
Previously, we had two types of visas: permanent and temporary. We had limits on temporary visas. But that was jettisoned under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.
It also created a seven-tiered preference system designed to reunify families of U.S. citizens and legal residents. This created massive illegal immigration because there was a cap that was placed on Western Hemisphere immigration, but there was no guest worker program. Instead, people started crossing the border en masse and just staying.
Add on top of that the gigantic welfare systems that were created by LBJ&#8217;s Great Society programs and the accessibility of those welfare systems to illegal immigrants, and you get the free donut shop, where you have people coming across the border because the benefits here are great. You&#8217;ll not just get a better job; you will also have access to American systems.
Everyone wants to get in; the United States is a great place.
But you will draw a different type of clientele depending on whether you&#8217;re the free donut shop or the Michelin-star restaurant.
When you change the math, when you pay people, when you give them free money so they don&#8217;t have to integrate, they don&#8217;t have to assimilate by nature, and you change the system pretending that all cultures are equally capable of mass migration to the United States, you end up with the current system of immigration in the United States.
You&#8217;ll notice that throughout this litany of immigration history, the vast majority of this action is either bad congressional or presidential action — such as Joe Biden opening the border and widely refusing to enforce immigration law — or judicial actions that are likely reversible at the Supreme Court level today.
So what is the solution? 
Number one, you can enforce immigration law; it is the job of the executive branch. You don&#8217;t need an invalidation of birthright citizenship in order to enforce immigration laws. It is illegal to immigrate illegally.
Number two, you can get rid of the possibility of government dependency for illegal immigrants: the job of the legislature and the judiciary.
Number three, start by enforcing immigration laws. Our enforcement mechanisms on temporary visas need to be significantly stronger. When it comes to visa tests for permanent visas, we&#8217;d have to screen more carefully.
You&#8217;d have to share our values, come from a system that shares them, and be able to prove it. If you&#8217;re coming from a place where you can&#8217;t prove it, you shouldn&#8217;t get in. You have to show that you&#8217;re going to be of net economic benefit to the United States, that you&#8217;re not going to be a welfare draw.
When it comes to temporary visas, we would boot people as soon as the temporary visa has expired; we would actually follow up, which we don&#8217;t do right now. We would shut the border. We would start deporting people who are in the country illegally and are welfare-dependent or are engaged in illegal activity of any sort.
We can crack down on birth tourism, which was the key issue with regard to birthright citizenship. We can criminalize people who come to the U.S. through birth tourism networks.
Then there&#8217;s welfare. If you&#8217;re going to come in and be on welfare, you should not be able to come in. If you&#8217;re on welfare, you should be in line to get the boot again. We do not require congressional action here.
The worst thing you can do is black-pill, because that removes responsibility from the executive and the legislature, saying, “The judiciary blew it for us; there’s nothing we can do. I guess we&#8217;re screwed now.”
That&#8217;s not helpful.
But the most important thing is that the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling yesterday did not change the existing state of the law. They simply didn&#8217;t do the right thing — which sucks, it&#8217;s a blown opportunity — but the answers are still there.
For conservatives and Republicans, immigration remains a winning issue because it is not that Democrats are so in love with the concept of birthright citizenship; it is that they are in favor of open borders.
Congress can do something, and congressional and executive policy can do something.
Democrats are celebrating because they want birthright citizenship to be the basis of mass migration.
But there’s a lot we can do about it.

Immigrants on Ellis Island

Birthright Citizenship Isn’t The End

Assimilation

birthright citizenship

mass immigration

Supreme Court

Happy 100th birthday, Route 66! Yes, that scenic byway that runs from Chicago to Santa Monica, California – 2,448 miles of pure America — hit the centennial mark and looks pretty darned good considering it was marked for execution half its lifetime ago.
Instead of a death sentence, this vein that cuts through the heart of America persists, just as America has for 250 years: reinventing itself and rebelling against generations of nostalgia-bathed geriatrics to define its own purpose and future, brick by brick — or paved mile after paved mile.
Sure, there’s plenty of old-timey glory to be had, but this super roadway toward a sunset strip offers so much more: a glimpse into the past with the wheels always treading toward the future. And if you follow it west, it goes right into the horizon of a sun that never sets until you want it. And even then, perhaps it’s somewhere in the cool desert under a canopy of endless stars winking you a goodnight through the neon glow of a roadside motel or trippy little teepee. The Mother Road offers what Americans have always been looking for: adventure, discovery, possibility, and a path of unwritten rules (speed limit be damned). Go west, young man, and grow up with the country.
But this isn’t about Route 66. It’s about the type of country and the type of Americans it represents.
We are empire builders in every sense of the world, and if you’re ashamed of that, then you need to reassess your priorities, man. Because doggone, how could you not always be in love with the team that suffers the foolishness of the world and ends up shaking the whole thing down until it’s safe for the beaten and scared – or threats are at least behind us – and then carries on as if it was NBD? And all the while we’re blasting rockets into space, curing diseases, feeding the world&#8217;s hungry, writing great literature, creating great art, and writing the Great American Songbook. We build skyscrapers, railroads, fleets of aircraft, and TV dinners. We invented Hollywood, football, pantyhose, and pinup girls. We make muscle cars. We play golf on the moon.
What good is an empire if you don’t use it? Yet here we are – the U.S. of A. with our hotdog cookouts where men wear low-cut sneakers and grab beers from sweating coolers under the Maple tree, and wives in gingham and soft brown hair corral barefoot children, sticky from ice pops and marshmallows and lemonade made with too much sugar. Here is the Empire of the true believers: the road doesn’t start or end here. Each man knows from where he came and wishes to go. These are parents whose own childhoods were unburdened by the weight of the future and the fears of old men. Couples who fell in love with each other and the American Dream. When it comes to realizing that love — of God, family, and country — it cannot be held back. It’s akin to closing the back cover of a book that blew your mind, and the only thought that bubbles to the surface is, “This must be shared.” And so it is with building the American Empire.
Who has lost faith in the American Dream? When “proud” is a proxy for love, it’s easy to see who is invested in the long-haul, full-speed-ahead, ride-or-die America of the past, present, and future. If one man is making that drive by way of the Main Street of America or any other highway or byway, backroad or country road, in a Corvette alongside Tod Stiles or riding shotgun with Hunter S. Thompson, the Empire is unmistakable. It is belief in the project of America rather than the political projects subject to the whim of office-holding power. To Democrats, there is nothing to be proud of — nothing to love — when the levers of power aren’t being pulled by “your team.”
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1126395" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/image-5.jpg" alt="" width="579" height="466" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/image-5.jpg 579w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/image-5-300x241.jpg 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 579px) 100vw, 579px" /></div>
So it goes, why invest in the American Dream, become part of the Great American Project, the American Empire, if your entire viewpoint and love is dependent on political power? You don’t. You don’t see the point beyond one being wholly consumed by a constant feed of hateful slop, shoveled into every eye, ear, and mouth hole until the consumer is conditioned to crave it. For the leftist, the defiance and the satisfaction both depend on the project of destroying the American Empire rather than on recognizing its awesomeness.
We live in the most culturally and environmentally diverse nation, yet are largely unified under the principle of being, well, American. To paraphrase John Candy (R.I.P.) We like us — and we like being American. This is a land still waiting to be discovered and shared, and welcomed to, where you can stake your own little corner of it somewhere – practically anywhere. We are kind and without prejudice to strangers until the moment you badmouth the very things that make this the best place on Earth — our trust in goodness, and our ability to do good, if imperfectly. We unapologetic Americans don&#8217;t care about how others denigrate us to feel morally superior; that&#8217;s our superpower. The down-on-America types contribute nothing to this scenic adventure, but they do expose a shallow and unprincipled life by so easily and flippantly turning on a nation and its people who gave the world so much in exchange for the self-important applause of fellow pompous status-seekers.
It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that those who still love America despite the politics of the thing are <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/the-ideological-fertility-divide">having more kids</a>, according to the Institute for Family Studies. There might be something about being absorbed in shoveling slop to such an extent that the idea of being without it drives a person to be an anxiety-riddled mess, the weight of the synthetic fears smothering any optimism for the future.
People mercilessly attack the very idea of America as a chimera or a worn-out fable for silly-headed children and misty-eyed, faded patriots. But America and the American Dream endure — if not as the Promised Land, then as the Land of Promise. And whose to say what that promise is, exactly?
Maybe we don’t want someone to tell us the answer (what’s up, Alexa?) but to go forth and discover it on our own — and even if we don’t find it, we take pleasure and pride in seeking it ourselves. Because the truth is somewhere down that road, but first you have to get in the car and drive. And what a drive it is. That’s the dividing line. Those who see the miles of mountains, desert, grassland and plains, swamps and valley, forest and seashore, and stand in awe at what God has so graciously given us, and we want so desperately to share that sense of wonder. There is nothing that can satisfy that urgency like having children and wanting them to see and discover and experience what we have been so generously given for 250 years. Even through war and famine and desolation, Americans have conquered — not nation building for its own sake, but conquered to spread the American ethos: the unbound spirit of searching for an American Dream that never dies in the hearts of those who believe in it.

Frame 1618875290

Who Lost Faith In The American Dream?

Patriotism

On this day, 250 years ago, Thomas <a href="https://x.com/OldeWorldOrder/status/2071021131373429235">Paine</a> publicly argued for adopting &#8220;United States of America&#8221; as the formal name of the new nation, just days before the Declaration of Independence was adopted. The name stuck because it described exactly what we were building: a nation of united, sovereign states, not a collection of squabbling colonies.
And on this day, June 29, 2026, Democrats are flipping their flags upside down, banning the Bible from schools, and refusing to celebrate our 250th anniversary. They&#8217;re not just apathetic about this country; they&#8217;re actively allergic to it.
Gosh, they ruin everything good.
Though Republican pride in the country remains strong — 70% of Republican voters say they&#8217;re &#8220;extremely proud&#8221; to be an American — Democrats are at an embarrassing 14%. If you&#8217;re not proud of the nation that invented modern liberty, defeated fascism and communism, put a man on the moon, and gave the world the technologies that define the 21st century, then what exactly are you proud of?
I, for one, identify as an American thoroughbred. I bleed red, white, and blue. I think Uncle Sam is my actual uncle. I get giddy reading about the Founding Fathers and the impossible odds they overcame to secure the freedoms we now treat like background noise. Sure, I&#8217;m proud of my Italian heritage and my olive skin, and Sicily is a fantastic vacation spot, but all of that will always come second to my Americanism. 
 
And for those of you who don&#8217;t feel this way and have allegiances to other countries, may I ask why the hell you&#8217;re still here?
We have a mountain with four presidents&#8217; faces carved into it — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt — because they&#8217;re the men who brought us independence, individual liberty, global strength, and the abolition of slavery. We sent reusable rockets into space while other nations were still figuring out how to keep the lights on. We put a man on the moon before most people had calculators. We invented the airplane, the internet, and the smartphone, and turned the very landscape of every Taylor Sheridan series into the most powerful, prosperous, and free society in human history. Also, we have lots of air conditioning.
This is not a normal country. It&#8217;s an extraordinary one. Where people don’t just “make it,” they change the world.
And despite this, despite ubiquitous Ozempic, despite Amazon Prime and ranch dressing, the Left still isn’t having fun. But they aren’t just unhappy. They&#8217;ve built an entire identity out of grievance, and a country worth celebrating is a direct threat to that identity. If America is good, their whole worldview collapses. So it can&#8217;t be good. It has to be irredeemably racist, colonialist, and oppressive. Because the alternative is admitting they&#8217;ve spent decades being wrong about everything.
That&#8217;s why they ban the Bible from schools, sneer at the flag, and sit out the 250th anniversary of the greatest political experiment in human history. It&#8217;s not intellectual. It&#8217;s a mental illness. Misery needs company, and America&#8217;s success is the loneliest thing in the world for someone who needs it to fail.
Take the Bible. Liberals are furious that the Texas State Board of Education voted to make Bible passages required in public schools. I’m furious that it wasn’t already.
The Bible is in our national DNA. It helped write the code. George Washington prayed that citizens would imitate &#8220;the Divine Author of our blessed Religion.&#8221; John Adams said plainly that the Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and called the Bible the best book in the world. Thomas Jefferson created his own edited version of the Gospels. And our first Chief Justice, John Jay, said it was the duty of a Christian nation to prefer Christian leaders. These views weren’t fringe; they were the whole operation. Attacking the Bible isn’t brave countercultural resistance; it’s sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.
But here&#8217;s the thing about 250 years: we&#8217;ve survived worse than these woke woeful warriors. We&#8217;ve survived actual existential threats, and we came out stronger every time. The question is whether this generation will do its part.
It&#8217;s not too late for normal Democrats and independents who still love this country. Stop following activists who treat America like an original sin. Ask yourself what kind of nation you want your children to inherit. Be proud of the past, protective of the present, and hopeful for the future. Fly the flag right-side up. Teach your kids and your friends the real story of this country. Fire up the grill this Fourth and celebrate the 250th anniversary like it means something — because it means everything.
This nation is worth defending. It&#8217;s worth keeping alive for another 250 years. And it&#8217;s worth being proud of.

Patriot’s Day Parade

I Bleed Red, White, And Blue – The Left Can’t Stand It

Leftists

Menu