Untitled design – 2026-06-09T122313.811

America Just Lost One Of Its Greatest Defenders

America 250

American Revolution

Founding Fathers

History

Obituaries

Upstream

It’s been 48 hours since organizers unveiled the lineup for the “Freedom 250” concert on the National Mall, and nearly every featured musical act has dropped out.
Morris Day &amp; The Time say they were never confirmed for the kickoff to The Great American State Fair, while the other acts all posted some version of the same statement.
Martina McBride said she “was assured this was a nonpartisan event,” while Bret Michaels said the event was described to him “as a celebration of our country through music and a chance to honor … hardworking Americans from all walks of life.”
“Unfortunately, what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive,” Michaels added. Rapper Young MC offered a similar excuse, saying he was “never told about any political involvement with the event” and expressed his desire to “perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”
What a load of bullshit.
I don’t expect famous musicians to embody courage and patriotism, but even by celebrity standards, this is an egregious display of both ignorance and cowardice. These artists didn’t pull out because the concert was politicized — they politicized it by pulling out.
The bigger issue is that the event would have been politicized no matter what the artists did. Had McBride and Michaels and the lot stayed on the bill, it would have sent a message to Americans about the importance of separating patriotism from politics. Instead, their actions worsened the problem they pretended to lament. It’s unfortunate, and it’s embarrassing.
Let’s break it down.
<h3>Partisanship Is Neither Bad Nor Un-American</h3>
I want to start here, because this is the subtext of the entire debacle. The artists were happy to sing on the Mall until the media and Democrats started deeming it “Trump’s concert,” at which point they promptly ran for the hills. The real issue, of course, is that they don’t want to be associated with Trump (more on that later). But because they want to seem like they’re above the political fray, they simply say that they want to remain “nonpartisan.”
People love to say this, and it always makes them sound stupid. You can’t touch politics and remain nonpartisan. Bipartisan, sure — it’s possible for people with different party affiliations and ideologies to work together, and good when they do. But nonpartisan? To quote the 21st century’s sleepiest president: Come on, man.
This isn’t even a commentary on our divisive political age, though it’s certainly gotten harder to play at nonpartisanship over the past decade. Partisanship is literally built into the foundation of this country. The Constitution? A document born out of a brutal political struggle. Washington, D.C.? Declared our nation’s capital after a backroom trade between warring factions. Even George Washington’s <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/george-washington-farewell-address-1796" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Farewell Address</a> — where Washington famously cautioned Americans to avoid “the enterprises of faction” — is a partisan document. Alexander Hamilton wrote the speech with an eye towards Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s nascent Republican Party. Washington wasn’t warning Americans to avoid political parties as a rule; he was telling them they should <a href="https://dn720706.ca.archive.org/0/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.148237/2015.148237.The-Idea-Of-A-Party-System.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">all be Federalists</a>.
So, even if a celebration is associated with a particular party or politician, that doesn’t make it bad. But as luck would have it for our roster of stars, that’s not even a thing they needed to worry about.
<h3>There’s Nothing “Partisan” About The National Mall Concert</h3>
Donald Trump is a divisive and partisan figure. The former is a matter of perception: if Democrats could get over themselves, he would be seen as the opposition rather than the enemy. But the latter is an indisputable fact: Trump is an elected official and the head of the Republican Party. In that role, he is inherently partisan, no two ways about it.
But Trump isn’t just the leader of the Republican Party. He’s the President of the United States. As ultraliberal President Jed Bartlet says in “The West Wing,” “I&#8217;m the President of the United States, not the president of the people who agree with me.”
So it is with Trump. Partisanship is just one part of a presidency. The other, more important part — leading the nation and all that — was perfectly reflected in this concert. Trump is right to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence with, as John Adams <a href="https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L17760703jasecond" target="_blank" rel="noopener">once wrote</a>, “pomp and parade, shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations.”
Now, Trump will almost certainly make some kind of political speech at the concert. Of course he will. Would it be better if he stuck to patriotic platitudes and avoided potshots at political foes? Of course. But that’s not who he is, and that&#8217;s not what our politics is like these days. But even a presidential display of partisanship is not enough to drown out the broader message of the concert. That’s the entire point of this country – the republic looms larger than, and outlasts, our petty squabbling.
It’s also, to a certain extent, the point of live music. Conservatives take it for granted that their favorite artists hate them, and they go to their concerts anyway. You can sit through a rambling Springsteen monologue about tyranny if it means getting a roaring “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out.” Liberals, having enjoyed cultural hegemony for so long, can’t conceive of this. And so these artists — none of whom are really famous enough to pass up a national stage — chose to stay home rather than play nice with the president for an afternoon. That’s unpatriotic and stupid, but it’s also just really, really lame.
<h3>Everyone Needs To Be Cool About Cool Stuff</h3>
Just because partisanship isn’t inherently bad doesn’t mean it’s all inherently good. And one of the worst expressions of partisanship is when people let their political priors blind them to objectively good things. We see this all the time when politics and entertainment intersect.
Before acts started pulling out of the concert, people were talking about the upcoming UFC fight on the White House lawn. Construction began on the Octagon this week, and liberals naturally took to social media to say that this was an affront to democracy.
If I thought that these critics were arguing in good faith, I would say that a bare-knuckle brawl on the White House lawn is the perfect distillation of American democracy. But of course, these critics aren’t arguing in good faith. It’s not about keeping the White House free of spectacle, or else they would have been furious when Joe Biden turned the lawn over to a bunch of half-naked transvestites. It’s about opposing anything that’s even a little bit affiliated with Trump.
Republicans have this problem, too. It was dumb to pretend it wasn’t awesome when Obama played basketball with <a href="https://www.si.com/nba/2020/04/04/barack-obama-basketball-white-house-kobe-bryant" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kevin Durant</a>. That was awesome! It was an incredible American moment, just like Dubya telling the White House press corps to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HZ3Tjohwqo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“watch this drive</a>.” A UFC fight on the South Lawn, a concert on the National Mall: these are incredible spectacles, and it’s objectively cool that the president is involved. It would be cool if the president was a Democrat; it would be cool if the president was a different Republican.
Some things are too enjoyable to let politics get in the way. It’s why there are conservative Grateful Dead fans and liberals who love “Yellowstone.” It’s why Martina McBride didn’t object when Americans turned her song “Independence Day” — written from the perspective of a woman fleeing domestic violence — into a patriotic anthem in the wake of September 11.
The song’s writer, Gretchen Peters, has complained about the song’s new life, making it known that she donated her royalties from Sean Hannity’s show (which famously used “Independence Day” as its theme song) to <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/independence-day-martina-mcbride-real-meaning-855248/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Planned Parenthood.</a>
Not so McBride, who famously performed the song while flanked by two giant American flags at Farm Aid in 2001, shortly after attacks on the World Trade Center.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5Q3LyECse3g?si=jySv9mDwogmdTuh4" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The singer would subsequently say that she had “mixed feelings about” that performance, because she doesn’t “want to take away from what the song is really about.” But she was very clear about the reason she leaned into a patriotic interpretation of the song when she did.
“We were all so raw … and trying to have solidarity and pulling together as a country,” she said. “When I realized that the words to that chorus, ‘let freedom ring,’ kind of mirror what we were all feeling at the time, I made that decision to do that.”
Some things are bigger than politics. Americans understand this. The president understands this. There was even a time when Martina McBride understood this. It’s a shame that she and her fellow performers lost sight of this truth.  But hey, there’s still time: maybe Trump can get <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hey-country-stars-do-the-right-thing-perform-on-the-national-mall">Morgan Wallen</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/country-musics-hottest-star-keeps-pointing-back-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ella Langley.</a>

HBO, Starbucks and Chase hosted the first free and open to the public Veterans Day Concert for Valor Tuesday, November 11, 2014 on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to honor Americas veterans.

What The America 250 Concert Reveals About Our Broken Political Culture

bipartisanship

Country Music

Donald Trump

Washington D.C.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is many things: a radical progressive, a viable presidential candidate, a former bartender, and apparently, America’s foremost revisionist historian. Last week she graced the country with a bombshell revelation, informing us all that it was black Americans who created democracy:
<blockquote>I think about the Civil Rights and voting rights movement, and how black Americans really created democracy in this country… black Americans created democracy. They built something from nothing. </blockquote>
I had no idea. I was under the naive impression that it was the ancient Greeks and our Founding Fathers who conjured such a thing, but clearly I was the last to know. Even the podcast host, whom she was enlightening, nodded along in vigorous agreement: “Yes, YES.” Where have I been all these years?
There you have it, folks. The 1619 Project rides again. History has been rewritten, you’ve been lied to your entire life, and James Madison was apparently mixed. Unless, of course, AOC hit her head falling out of a coconut tree and is simply, resoundingly, and spectacularly wrong.
Let’s take a stroll down history lane.
Democracy literally comes from the ancient Greek word dēmokratia: “rule by the people,&#8221; from dēmos meaning &#8220;the people&#8221; or &#8220;citizen-body,&#8221; and kratos for &#8220;power&#8221; or &#8220;rule.” <a href="https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm">By the people, for the people</a>. Sound familiar? It describes a system in which citizens hold the power to make decisions, either directly or through their elected representatives. 
In 508-507 BC, the true “Father of Democracy,” Cleisthenes, shifted power away from hereditary elites and toward the demos. He reorganized citizens into tribes based on residence rather than bloodline, introduced equality under the law, and reformed governance through popular voting. Long after his death, the historian Thucydides praised the system: “Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy.”
Credit for the creation of democracy goes to white, ancient Greek aristocrats. My apologies, Congresswoman.
If AOC means American democracy specifically, she’s no less mistaken. American democracy wasn’t “built from nothing” by any single group or era. It was deliberately engineered as a constitutional republic with robust democratic features during the late 18th century. Drawing on ancient Athens and Rome, English common law, and Enlightenment thinkers including John Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, our Founders designed a republic specifically intended to avoid the pitfalls of pure direct democracy. As Madison argued in <a href="https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-10/">Federalist No. 10</a>, this often resulted in mob rule and instability.
In its place, they built representative government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, all to protect individual liberty.
This architecture did not spring up overnight. In 1620, the Mayflower Compact established a framework in which settlers agreed to &#8220;combine ourselves together into a civil body politic&#8221; and make &#8220;just and equal laws&#8221; by majority consent, planting the seed of consensual self-governance on American soil. Over a century later, on July 4th, 1776, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that “all men are created equal,” endowed with unalienable rights from God, not government, and that we have the right to rule ourselves. This culmination came at what historians have rightly called the <a href="https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/the-constitutional-convention/">“Miracle at Philadelphia,”</a> where 55 delegates, including Madison and Washington, met in secret at the Pennsylvania State House and hammered out the most consequential governing document in human history. Popular sovereignty, elected representatives, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism all took final form under the tutelage of the evil, non-pigmented caucasian.
Just as it would be inaccurate to say women alone created American democracy, it is equally inaccurate to say black Americans did because it is simply not true. Unless Washington and the Founders were applying considerably more face powder than the portraits suggest.
I was reminded of all this just last night at an Independent Women’s event, where extraordinary women gathered to celebrate and defend exactly this history. That’s the spirit we need more of: women, Americans of all backgrounds, who know what this country is built on and aren’t afraid to say so. We should be teaching this, not erasing it.
To be uncharacteristically charitable to AOC, one could argue that she means that black Americans, through the crucible of slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement, helped make the promise of democracy real rather than merely rhetorical. Indeed, black Americans&#8217; contributions to expanding rights were immense and undeniable, but &#8220;expanding and perfecting democracy&#8221; is a very different claim from &#8220;creating it from nothing,&#8221; and conflating the two isn&#8217;t empowerment, it’s historical erasure. This revisionist framing flattens a complex, centuries-long story into a single-group morality tale, where one group’s activism gets sole credit for everything good.
Meanwhile, that very democracy she claims was created by black Americans is being thwarted by her and her fellow Democrats in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama wants to strip away the voting rights of Republicans of all color, and they’ve promised that when they regain power, they will pack the Supreme Court, enable mass mail-in-ballots, throw away voter ID, and nuke the filibuster to add four more blue senate seats. 
These are not the actions of people who revere democratic institutions. They’re the actions of people who revere power.
The danger of letting the Left rewrite history and promote fallacious ideas is not abstract. When young people and useful idiots are taught a distorted version of the past by a backward education system and p(regressive) leadership, they have no framework to defend what is true. That’s been the design. Gutting civics and history education was not an accident; it was a strategy.
Our Founders studied history with rigor, absorbed its lessons, and built something incredible and new: a durable, liberty-focused republic that has endured for nearly 250 years. Its genius lay not in perfection but in self-correction through elections, courts, and amendments, not reinvention.
Don’t fall for the lies: communism has failed everywhere it has been tried, Capitalism harnesses human self-interest to drive innovation, growth, and prosperity like no other, and our constitutional republic is a miraculous achievement, conceived by a very pale founding bunch and hardened over generations by Americans of different color and circumstance, bound under one creed.
That’s not an uncomfortable fact; that’s a beautiful one, and as we approach our 250th birthday, it is one worth defending clearly and without apology.
So thank you, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for yet another opportunity to do exactly that.

Democratic National Convention (DNC) 2024 – Day One

AOC Flunks American History

1619 Project

American History

DW Opinion

Across the board, trust in our institutions in the United States is at an all-time low.
Trust in the media is at an all-time low. Trust in church is at an all-time low. Trust in the scientific establishment is at an all-time low. Trust in government is at an all-time low. And, of course, trust in academia is at an all-time low.
Because of our lack of trust in institutions, Americans also mistrust one another.
You might think that it would be the opposite, that we mistrust one another, and therefore we mistrust our institutions.
That’s not the case. Our institutions shape us, and the way that we interact with the world is through the mechanism of institutions.
If you grew up in a religious community, going to church helped shape you. The rules of the church helped shape you. The people you spent time with shaped you. The institution of your family shaped you. Your school or university shaped you. 
As we lose faith in all of those institutions to shape us, we are incapable of coming together anymore.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2416-2-university-of-austin-speech"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Institutions tend to foster a common orientation, which is why Alexis de Tocqueville was such a big fan of them. It&#8217;s why in Democracy in America, he made the suggestion that one of the things that made America so different from all other countries was the plethora of social institutions in which Americans were enmeshed. He noted that in most other countries, people had formal institutions that they were forced to interact with, but in America, everybody was a member of a social institution or many social institutions — and that created this extraordinary social fabric that was durable, that allowed for innovation, that allowed for freedom. 
Without trust, there can&#8217;t be freedom at all. If the institutions that provide the shaping function that set the rules for our lives, the way we interact with the world, die, so does the social fabric. And then, when the social fabric dies, we stop attributing decent motivation to each other.
Instead, we start engaging in what the philosopher Alistair MacIntyre called “emotivism”: the belief that everybody except for you is motivated by something nefarious. Instead of having a political conversation, what you do is attribute a motive to the person&#8217;s policy.
You shouldn&#8217;t be attributing motivations to other people unless you have good evidence that their motivation is malign.
But that&#8217;s what we jump to when there is no trust.
I trust my wife. I&#8217;m not worried that when she criticizes me, it&#8217;s coming from a terrible place. I trust the people that I go to synagogue with. If they have a critique or we have a disagreement, I don&#8217;t immediately jump to, “They do it because they hate me.”
“You&#8217;re doing it because you hate me” is the death of politics, because if that&#8217;s the case, then how exactly are we supposed to live together and work together and create policy together?
Religious institutions used to be truth-making institutions, but the question of whether those institutions ought to pursue truth has been supplanted by the idea that they ought to do politics. In many cases, they have become progressive bastions where people go to eat pizza and play guitar rather than unite with some eternal value.
That is why many people don&#8217;t attend anymore. Why go there when you can go to a sports event instead?
We saw the scientific establishment move from evidence to narrative, most obviously during COVID. The result for an enormous number of people was to completely discard science in favor of nonsense that has zero evidence to back it.
The slide from truth to narrative is almost invariably followed by a slide from narrative to conspiracism or nonsense.
The move from seeking the truth at universities to “We are going to engineer a population of discontented people who believe that the system must be turned on its ear” led people to stop trusting the universities.
The American government was built to pursue one fundamental principle above all: epistemic humility, the idea that you might not be correct.
If you think you&#8217;re always correct, you might want to be a tyrant. 
Humility with regard to other people in your society, the idea that maybe they&#8217;re right on occasion, maybe you&#8217;re wrong on occasion, has to be rooted in trust of our fellow citizens.
We have checks and balances in the United States government to prevent it from swinging side to side to stop radical things from happening. That is legitimately the point of the American government. Unless we have a very broad agreement on something, it should not happen. That is why we have a bicameral legislature. It is why we have three branches of government.
But when that wears away, when we hate each other, what we end up with is a battle to the death in the blood sport of politics.
We get angry at the checks and balances because it&#8217;s not possible that people who oppose me are correct; those people are malign. “Those people want bad things to happen to me and to my family, and so I&#8217;m going to grab the government. I&#8217;m going to kill the filibuster. I&#8217;m gonna stack the Supreme Court. I&#8217;m going to add states willy-nilly to the United States Senate, and then I&#8217;m just going to run right over everybody.”
In the absence of rebuilding trust in the institutions, you end up with a war of all against all on the governmental level. And things will not go well.
When you get rid of the fundamental epistemic humility of the government, checks and balances give way to a centralized tyranny.
If you don&#8217;t trust your neighbor and you think your neighbor is taking advantage of you, you might say that the government should just do what you want it to do. Grab that brass ring and do exactly what you want with that power.
In order for a solid debate to take place, there must be a fundamental sharing of values and rules of the road. There ought not to be debate about fundamental propositions, because if you are having to debate individual value — such as the idea that individual human beings have individual worth — you&#8217;re arguing with something outside the system.
If you have to argue with somebody about the worthiness of truth, that is not an argument that can ever be won, because truth itself is an assumed value.
This is why, in the Declaration of Independence, when the Founders said that there are certain rights that are self-evident, they didn&#8217;t mean that they prove themselves. They mean that these are the fundamental building blocks of a society. And if you question them, the society crumbles.
Only a carefully cultivated moral culture that values truth and evidence and logic and moral decency, that actually protects free speech and property rights and equal rights under the law, is capable of restoring our institutions.
We shouldn&#8217;t be debating about fundamental moral matters, things like “lying is wrong.” If I have to debate you about that, there&#8217;s no debate.
Individual human beings have moral worth, and their autonomy has moral value.
Those are the values that we begin with, and those are the values that need to be embodied in institutions.

Rotten_Core

The Rot Spreading Through America’s Core

When A Nation Forgets Its Foundations

Ben Shapiro

Church

Family Values

Federal Government

Opinion

Religion

TOPSHOT-US-BRITAIN-ROYALS-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY

Ilhan Omar Hits Rock Bottom With Her Dumbest Remarks Yet As Trump Delivers His Best Speech Ever

Congress

Great Britain

Ilhan Omar

King Charles III

Matt Walsh

Revolutionary War

The easiest way to misunderstand Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent <a href="https://manhattaninstituteny-my.sharepoint.com/personal/pbeston_manhattan_institute/Documents/Documents/CJ/as%20part%20of%20the%20celebration%20of%20the%20250th%20anniversary%20of%20the%20Declaration%20of%20Independence">speech</a> at the University of Texas is as a conventional swipe at contemporary progressives. His target was instead deeper and older: the capital-P Progressive challenge to the American Founding itself.
Appearing in Austin as part of a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas framed the issue as one of first principles. “The Constitution is the means of government,” he said, and “it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government.”
Indeed, the American system is bigger than mere elections or policy outcomes. It’s defined by a moral claim about human equality and natural rights, and by a constitutional structure designed to secure them.
<a href="https://www.rawstory.com/clarence-thomas-2676762870">Thomas’s critics</a> seem eager to collapse his argument into today’s partisan disputes. They miss the broader view of his speech, with its focus on the long intellectual revolt against the Declaration’s premises and the Constitution’s architecture. As Thomas put it, “At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream.” Its leading apostle was Woodrow Wilson, and the movement was progressivism.
Since then, Thomas said, progressivism has “coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration.” Because it’s opposed to those principles, “it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”
The original Progressives really did reject the Founding’s understanding of liberty, rights, and constitutional structure. Wilson proposed more than modernizing technical improvements around the edges. He argued for a different theory of government, based on his study of German bureaucracy.
That view dates back to his 1887 journal article “<a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2">The Study of Administration</a>,” where he insisted that “administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics,” and that “Administrative questions are not political questions.” He praised expert administration as distinct from ordinary constitutional politics and suggested that Montesquieu did not “say the last word” on the distribution of authority — meaning there was more to governance than checks and balances.
Thomas summarized the point bluntly. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” he said. “It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government.”
That gets to the heart of the matter: a dispute over the nature of rights, not merely whether the government should act here or there. If rights are granted only by positive law, then liberty becomes contingent and revocable — and ultimately political.
And structure is where that dispute cashes out. The Progressives regarded separation of powers, federalism, and bicameralism as mere impediments to enlightened administration. The New Deal accelerated that tendency, consolidating policymaking and enforcement inside sprawling agencies that would’ve struck the Framers as a dangerous concentration of power.
Thomas was thus right to make an argument about regime-level principles. A country that forgets the Declaration’s account of man and government will not preserve the Constitution’s structure for long. Why bother, after all, with rival institutions, limited jurisdictions, and procedural friction if rights come from benevolent experts rather than from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”?
That’s why the speech also matters, given the increasingly fevered speculation over possible Supreme Court retirements. Justice Thomas turns 78 in June, while Justice Samuel Alito turned 76 earlier this month. Both men are at the top of their game, enjoying more influence than they’ve ever had — as the most senior associate justices, with Thomas set to become the longest-serving justice in history if he stays through May 2028. Neither has indicated a desire to leave and, while they’re aware of the crass political calculus, Republicans <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/senate">are still narrowly favored</a> to keep the Senate in this fall’s midterms.
But the actuarial tables underscore what’s at stake. A hypothetical replacement needs to be not just smart, credentialed, and temperamentally suited for the high court. He or she needs to understand our constitutional order: that government exists to secure pre-political rights, and that constitutional structure is itself a guarantor of liberty. The late Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/us-supreme-court-justices-discuss-first-amendment">captured</a> the point memorably: “Every tinhorn dictator in the world today has a bill of rights. It isn’t the Bill of Rights that produces freedom. It’s the structure of government that prevents anybody from seizing all the power.”
Justice Thomas’s Austin speech was a reminder of that forgotten truth. The American Founding was a claim about human nature, political power, and the institutions needed to keep freedom alive. Any successor worthy of his seat should understand that, too.
***
This was originally published with permission in Manhattan Institute&#8217;s City Journal, found <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/justice-clarence-thomas-speech-progressives">here</a>.
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lawless-Miseducation-Americas-Ilya-Shapiro/dp/0063336588/">Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites</a>. He also writes the <a href="https://ilyashapiro.substack.com/">Shapiro’s Gavel</a> newsletter.

Clarence Thomas judge

Clarence Thomas Understands Why The Constitution And A Progressive Worldview Are Incompatible

Clarence Thomas

MI x DW

Supreme Court

“Americans have no culture,” decry the progressives, the activists, the woke leftists, smug Europeans, and the most spoiled individuals alive today.
This is the latest sentiment from our culture-deniers. They excuse their hatred, disdain, and active dismembering of our nation by claiming we’re on stolen land with nothing of our own worth defending. They are dead wrong.
To understand American culture, one first has to understand how it took root — and why it could only have happened here. In 1776, with the help of God, the Bible, an esteemed moral compass, a fiery yearning for freedom, and the long memory of what tyranny looks like, our Founders granted independence to the United States of America.
They did something no people in history had ever done: they created a nation not by inheritance or conquest, but by deliberate choice and reflection. As John Adams wrote in 1776, Americans were among “the first people whom heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon, and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.” George Washington called the republican model “an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” Benjamin Franklin, stepping out of the Constitutional Convention, famously answered a woman asking what had been produced: “A republic, madam — if you can keep it.”
America became the first modern republic explicitly grounded in natural rights, limited government, and biblical morality. This was rare. Unique. A risk. And it paid off spectacularly.
While Europe was dominated by monarchies and the Old World was bound by inherited hierarchy and colonial absolutism, people in the West were sitting down to create a creed-based nation. Soon, anyone could become an American by embracing the ideas of 1776, rejecting Old World hierarchies, and building a culture of opportunity, personal responsibility, and generosity.
Today, America remains the greatest country in the world — the freest, most prosperous, most decent, and most opportunity-rich society on earth — where individuals of any background can still become the architect of their own destiny through hard work, faith, and the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. The United States still produces over a <a href="https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/usa/gdp_share/">quarter</a> of the entire world’s wealth with just 4% of its population. Freedom of speech and religion remain sacred — <a href="https://themercury.com/ap/americans-love-free-speech-until-someone-uses-it/article_92c8b016-73bb-4a41-816b-b6ad17c276fd.html">81</a>% of Americans say speech should be protected “at all costs.” Our military remains the most powerful force for good in history, deterring tyrants and keeping the global order stable so freedom can flourish. She leads the planet in innovation, patents, and Nobel prizes, and offers the ordinary person the highest standard of living anywhere in the world.
Her success proves the Founders’ creed-based experiment in self-government under God continues to deliver more liberty and human flourishing than any other nation in history. 
America was, and remains, the rarest and most exceptional thing in political history.
The United States is where people come to live a better life. That is why non-Americans are clamoring to get inside the minute they get the chance. But according to many on the Left (and some on the Right), America doesn’t have a culture. I beg to differ.
To me, American culture is playing in the yard with neighbors, running home when Mom calls you for dinner, saying prayers before a meal and before bed, church on Sunday, working hard and playing harder, football, freedom, hot dogs, friends, family, traveling, sharing laughter, and being able to do and say whatever the hell you want. If our culture had a theme song, Rascal Flatts’ “Fast Cars and Freedom” would play well.
But that is what is so incredible about this nation: American culture can look different to everyone. For some, it means never settling down, hitchhiking across all 50 states, starting a travel business, making millions, and donating a portion to the charity of your choice. For others, it means falling in love with whoever you want, raising a family, choosing how and where they grow up, living on a small plot of land, going to work, and tending a garden. It can mean choosing burgers, pasta, tacos, or sushi for dinner. It can mean flying to space with your fellow astronauts and reaching farther than any human being has ever gone before. It can mean choosing to serve your country at age 17, fighting our enemies abroad, and defending our sacred freedoms at home. It can mean losing everything and starting from scratch after hitting rock bottom. It&#8217;s Girl Scout cookies, space expeditions, bloody hockey champions wearing the American flag — it&#8217;s being immensely proud of our nation, despite its flaws. American culture is perfect and imperfect. It&#8217;s customizable to oneself.
John Adams wrote that he had to study politics and war so that his children could study mathematics and philosophy, so that their children could study painting and poetry. That inheritance is ours. We are the generation he was writing for, and we are lucky enough to live inside the culture he made possible.
Yet universally, it is a culture that protects natural rights, rewards merit and hard work through the freest markets on earth, and safeguards the freedoms of speech and religion that no other society has ever guaranteed at this scale. It would behoove us to remember what our martyred American champion Charlie Kirk said about this culture — the culture of the American settler: faith-driven, family-centered, entrepreneurial, and generous, born from people who fled oppression to build something better under God. It is a culture of opportunity and virtue. And this has cultivated the most innovative, charitable, and upwardly mobile society ever known, where immigrants still pour in because nowhere else lets the ordinary man rise so far on talent and effort alone.
So when you ask, “What is American culture?” Put simply, it is living proof that the rarest political experiment in history actually worked.
My culture cultivates greatness. To be American is to know that, feel it in your bones, and wake up every day grateful for it.
As I write this from my deck — sun on my face, country music in my ears, the Capitol standing tall before me — I am reminded that none of this was an accident. It was built, fought for, and paid for in blood and belief by people who had every reason to quit but didn’t. That legacy landed in our hands. What we do with it is on us. 
The next time someone tells you America has no culture, no soul, nothing worth saving — look around. Really look. This country gave ordinary people an extraordinary life. It still does. It will keep doing it as long as we have the spine to stand up and say so.
I do. I will. And if you don’t — there’s a plane leaving tonight.

Patriotism

America Has A Culture — And It Is Worth Defending

America First

Freedom

Ordinarily, when a man affirms that American culture and Islam are mutually exclusive, that Muslims cannot assimilate because their allegiance to Sharia law trumps everything else, and that their religion will “make people feel uncomfortable,” you can assume he’s making a case for immigration restrictions.
Then along comes Shadi Hamid, a Muslim Washington Post columnist who happily asserts all these things in an ostensible effort to make the opposite case: reassure Americans that these are qualities they should embrace.
In reality, of course, Hamid’s arguments are likely to have the opposite effect, repel even those who harbored hopes that Muslim immigrants and their descendants would be assimilable. Indeed, he spent a great part of Wednesday dealing with the hornet’s nest that his op-ed kicked off online.
But there is a clue that Hamid must have known he was being disingenuous. He made sure to throw in a caveat: his co-religionists are American now, at least in what he claims is a vague “constitutional” sense, and aren’t going anywhere anyway.
Hamid, it is important to add, is not just anyone. He is a bona fide member of the establishment.
He is not just a columnist at the Post, where he published <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/04/08/muslims-religion-republicans-assimilation/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzc1NjIwODAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzc3MDAzMTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3NzU2MjA4MDAsImp0aSI6IjI3MTYxYzU5LWJkMWMtNDdhNC05N2UxLTI3NzNiYTVmZDQ5OSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI2LzA0LzA4L211c2xpbXMtcmVsaWdpb24tcmVwdWJsaWNhbnMtYXNzaW1pbGF0aW9uLyJ9.DcfeobpFw6plIp9OnTE01ldX4KJZ2hhwn0CNLh-lnxs">the piece</a>; he is also a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, a former fellow at Stanford University, a former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and the director of research at its Doha Center.
In other words, Hamid has shaped the thinking on Islam’s place in America from the highest of ivory towers and now popularizes it through a regular gig at one of the country’s most prominent newspapers.
And yet, rebutting his claims is not hard. Some are untrue (he wrote that most American Muslims were “born and raised here,” earning an <a href="https://x.com/shadihamid/status/2041920238510317941">X community note</a> showing that 58% are actually immigrants), other claims are only partly so, and still others are just downright specious.
Among the main arguments were the following: America no longer has a unifying culture to conserve; assimilation means secularization, and thus degradation; and Republicans should ally themselves with unassimilated Muslims because they have anti-gay views (yes, he really makes this argument).
In his piece, Hamid writes that “America was not founded on the assumption that its citizens would eventually come to agree on foundational questions.”
The Founders would like to have a word. They created the new country precisely on the premise that, if it took in immigrants, they would have to, as Alexander Hamilton put it, “get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments.”
Not for nothing did they make E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one — the country’s motto. The evidence is far too large to go through in a piece of this size, but numerous quotes from many of the Founders to this effect can be found in <a href="https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/patriotic-assimilation-indispensable-condition-land-immigrants#_ftn27">this comprehensive study</a> I authored more than a decade ago.
But let’s quote at least George Washington, who wrote to John Adams that his hope with immigrants was that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
On the question of Sharia, Hamid avers that “practicing Muslims — despite being repeatedly asked to — can’t disavow ‘sharia’ even if they wanted to,” because it “includes guidelines on how to pray, fast and otherwise observe what it means to submit to God.”
But Sharia is a large system derived from Muslim sacred texts and their interpretation.
Many Muslim countries and clerics have interpreted things in ways that severely disadvantage more than 50% of society, women. Sharia is invoked to impose oppressive rules from dress codes to rules on inheritance, testimony, mobility, etc. I dare Hamid to show any evidence of conservative support for any of this.
Sharia is even invoked by some Muslim states in the punishment of homosexuality. Some American conservatives will rail against LGBTQ ideology when pushed on minors. But all conservatives would find the notion of throwing gays off buildings stomach-churning.
Thus, though Hamid is disingenuous throughout his arguments, he is particularly so when he says that “You’d think Republicans would sense an electoral opportunity.”
I don’t know about Republicans, but the conservative “crusade” as I understand it — and as President Donald Trump has pursued it, with universities, museums, etc. — is to conserve the unified American culture that Hamid not only repudiates but claims no longer exists (he writes in <a href="https://x.com/shadihamid/status/2042013918927667651">a tweet</a> “There is no longer any unified culture or set of supreme values that enjoy a consensus. We can lament this, but it&#8217;s a fact”).
First, as the X poster Noah Smith <a href="https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/2042017057366241560">pointed out</a>, there is plenty of evidence that “we actually agree on a lot more than politics suggests.”
But it is the Left — which denigrates this culture as much as Hamid — that has made a wartime alliance with political Islam. They sense that they both seek to deconstruct Western culture. In Europe, this is called “the Red-Green Alliance.”
To be sure, each side senses they will fall out with each other as soon as they destroy the unified culture. But medium-term alliances win wars, as World War II attests. (My money is on the Islamists crushing the silly Leftists if this dystopia ever came to pass).
The fight to save the West — against secularism, family breakdown, and the atomized individual — is real. But it presupposes that we save the unifying culture, which may be on life support yet still redeemable.
And for that I can quote evidence from one Shadi Hamid, who left no doubt in a 2016 Atlantic <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/islam-politics-exceptional/485801/">piece</a> on the Ottoman Empire that he understands that “spiritual unity” was foundational if there is a hope of establishing a legitimate political order.
That is why assimilation remains an indispensable condition in any land that takes in immigrants. Islam is one of the world’s great religions, but its practitioners don’t get a pass.
***
Mike Gonzalez is the Angeles T. Arredondo Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. His book “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution” is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/BLM-Making-New-Marxist-Revolution/dp/1641772239">now available</a>.

TRT World Forum 2019

Shadi Hamid Makes Outlandish Claims About Islam, Assimilation, And America

Assimilation

Muslim Immigration

Sharia Law

What makes America great?
Some attribute American greatness to the brilliant system of government inaugurated two and a half centuries ago. The first groups that came to this continent were Christians, and so were most of the Founding Fathers. Fifty-three out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians who believed that “God who gave us life gave us liberty” and endowed us “with certain unalienable rights” as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated. They developed a political and economic system that reflected this Judeo-Christian belief.
For the first time in human history, there existed a nation where freedom not only guaranteed the rights of citizens but also ensured the smooth operation of a market economy. Individuals, regardless of their origin or social status, could attain the American Dream by applying themselves in exercising their God-given talents to the fullest extent. Thus, our political and economic structures helped build this great nation. Rightly so.
As someone who grew up in China, I, however, have another perspective. America is great because for many decades her immigrants came from a similar cultural background that bore a heavy Christian influence.
For two centuries, the majority of immigrants came from Western countries whose civilization was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. In this new environment where they shared the same traditions, they didn’t experience severe cultural clashes. In fact, American freedom enhanced and protected the Christian values that had already been observed in their mother countries. Consequently, most of the immigrants naturally embraced the culture of their new country. The fusion of freedom and Christianity has produced — in addition to unprecedented prosperity — citizens who feared God, were honest, compassionate, hardworking, independent, and law-abiding.
Together, they made America great.
<h3>The Rise Of Multiculturalism</h3>
However, America&#8217;s immigration policy underwent a significant shift in the 1960s. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act, abolishing the &#8220;country-of-origin&#8221; quota system, which favored immigrants from Western countries. This change was most likely influenced by the civil rights movement, aiming at eliminating the perceived discriminatory practice in immigration. In subsequent decades, it led to an increase in immigration from outside the West, drastically altering immigration patterns and the demographic makeup of the United States. Ultimately, it contributed to the rise of multiculturalism.
<div id="attachment_1049789" style="width: 856px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1049789" class="size-large wp-image-1049789" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-846x576.jpg" alt="President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor with a view of the New York City skyline in the background. Next to the president on his right are First Lady Lady Bird Johnson and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. To the president's left are Senator Edward Kennedy (third from right) and Robert Kennedy (second from right). (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)" width="846" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-846x576.jpg 846w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-300x204.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-768x523.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 846px) 100vw, 846px" />President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)</div>
Those on the Left believe that there is no good or bad culture. Every culture is equal.
I strongly disagree. They mistake the concept of the individual with the notion of culture. While individuals who are made in the image of God have innate value and rights regardless of which culture they are from, culture, on the other hand, is a complex system of learned behavioral patterns deriving from outside influences. Not all behavioral patterns are the same, and some clearly should be condemned and rejected, as the various wicked nations surrounding Israel described in the Hebrew Scripture.
In addition, culture is a powerful force that dictates and controls individuals’ thoughts and behavioral patterns; even those who strive to go against the flow often feel compelled to comply with the socially endorsed behaviors. If culture had not had such a strong pull, then God would not have commanded the Israelites to painstakingly separate themselves from the surrounding nations.
For nearly two millennia, since the death and resurrection of Christ, Western civilization has implemented a new set of behaviors and social expectations centered on the gospel message. This Western shift toward Christianity radically diverged from other non-Western cultures. It was on this Christian foundation that America was established.
<h3>Coming To America</h3>
When I first arrived in America, I could tell immediately that American culture differed fundamentally from that of China. I noticed how free Americans were; even young children could candidly express their thoughts without worrying about being silenced by adults. I also noticed how Americans, by and large, demonstrated a strong sense of law and order and right from wrong.
In contrast, in the province where I grew up, the concept of individual value and rights was totally absent. No one could exist apart from a group. Thus, who you knew was more important than who you were. The intricate interpersonal social structure and the lack of individual rights made it impossible to execute law and order successfully. Practicality often preempted rules and morality.
<div id="attachment_1049825" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1049825" class="size-large wp-image-1049825" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-864x576.jpg" alt="BEIJING, CHINA - DECEMBER 06: Large images of the late former leader Mao Zedong hang behind a vendor as a customer looks at items at a stall at the Panjiayuan Market on December 6, 2024 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kevin Frayer/Getty Images</div>
Corruption has been a common practice throughout Chinese history. It’s ironic, though, that quite a number of individuals in Chinese history have stood up against the dominant culture, championing integrity and honesty. They were hailed and are still remembered as heroes and role models for the Chinese people to emulate. Nonetheless, it takes culture to transform beliefs into behaviors. That is why being upright and incorruptible has never become part of Chinese culture, only a quality to be admired. The impact of those role models, thus, remains minimal.
By no means do I suggest that every aspect of American culture — and by extension Western culture — is preferred and that all features outside of Western civilization are questionable. However, from the perspective of cultural expectations — the shared beliefs about how people should behave in society — the difference between the two groups remains unbridgeable.
For instance, take corruption. Though not all Americans are honest, and corruption does occur among American citizens and politicians, it is widely condemned by society and has not become a cultural phenomenon.
In contrast, in many non-Western countries, bribery, fraud, and dishonest dealings are often given tacit consent, even by those who despise such practices. This is why the Chinese government’s repeated attempts to crack down on corruption are more of a show than a sincere effort. It is ultimately unattainable.
Under no circumstances do I disapprove of immigrants from outside the Western world. I am one of them. What I oppose is the notion of multiculturalism, which differs from the concept of multiethnic societies.
<h3>Multiculturalism Vs. Multiethnic Societies</h3>
A multiethnic society comprises people from different cultural backgrounds who are united by a set of essential beliefs, analogous to conservative Christian denominations that share the orthodox Christian core doctrines and moral principles, while still able to retain non-essential elements in their practices.
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is an attempt to form a co-existence of different cultures that do not share a basic conviction and whose ideologies are irreconcilable, comparable to a church encompassing Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. The ideological incompatibility will eventually result in the dominance of one group with the extinction of the other two.
Is a multiethnic society achievable in America? My own experience says, yes. Most immigrants from a non-Western country do not ponder and analyze their own cultures before immigrating to America. They will, however, perceive the cultural differences once arriving in the United States. In a way, America’s freedom and Christian values — the core of American culture — function as a mirror, reflecting the condition of an immigrant’s own culture. Those immigrants who truly love America and treasure what she stands for would be inclined to assimilate into the American culture, relinquishing the elements in their culture that are contrary to the core beliefs of America. They would want to live in conformity with the features that have made America great — freedom, individual rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, honesty, compassion and other Christian principles. The prerequisite of a multiethnic society is assimilation.
<div id="attachment_1050899" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1050899" class="size-large wp-image-1050899" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-864x576.jpg" alt="LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 28: People holding national flags of the United States attend a parade celebrating the Chinese Lunar New Year, or the Spring Festival, at Chinatown on January 28, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by I RYU/VCG via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />I RYU/VCG via Getty Images</div>
My own assimilation experience has not reduced my ethnic identity. Rather, it has in some way enhanced it. Take the concept of The Middle Way, for instance. It’s a prominent Chinese philosophical concept that advocates making compromises so as to find the more effective, appropriate, and harmonious path in a given situation. In a free society where excess tends to be the norm, an active pursuit of equilibrium through balance is especially practical. For me, the benefit of The Middle Way was more acutely felt after I immigrated to the United States. Indeed, while living in America, I have been able to practice many of the positive features of Chinese culture.
Even so, I am keenly aware that I am an American now and must abide by her fundamental beliefs. While I can still speak Chinese, enjoy Chinese food, and celebrate Chinese New Year, I must treasure freedom and be ready to fight to preserve it. While I can still visit the country of my origin, I must give America my first allegiance and live as the host and owner of the country, not as a guest. I must also be attentive to the events in society, knowing my constitutional rights and striving to contribute to her greatness, instead of taking advantage of her magnanimity.
Unfortunately, not every immigrant from outside the Western world shares my conviction.
<h3>Leftist Multiculturalism Courts Disaster</h3>
What Nick Shirley exposed about the Somali fraud in Minnesota may shock us, but it should not be a surprise. Aside from the green light given by the Democrat run state government, our immigration policy that encourages and enables mass immigration from a non-Western culture should also bear responsibility. This practice, in accordance with the multiculturalism of the Left, courts disaster by allowing immigrants — whose ideology is worlds apart from ours, and who love neither America nor what she stands for — bind together as a group, and thus permitting them to live as Somalians on American soil and openly and shamelessly steal American taxpayers’ money. Perhaps for them, America feels like heaven, whose welfare system has offered them such an auspicious opportunity to do what their culture is inclined to. It would have been a genuine shock if they had not stolen so much already.
<div id="attachment_1024577" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1024577" class="size-large wp-image-1024577" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-864x576.jpg" alt="MINNEAPOLIS, MN. - DECEMBER 2025: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a press conference to address the media following reports that the Trump administration will be targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities, held at City Hall in Minneapolis, Minn., on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. Behind Frey is Minneapolis city council member Jamal Osman." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Leila Navidi/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images</div>
Multiculturalism — people of different races, religions, and traditions living together — is a mirage, looking attractive only from a distance. No nation can afford multiculturalism, for diverse religions and traditions can never co-exist. One will eventually dominate the others. If we allow the idea of multiculturalism to progress, America soon will repeat the fate of Turkey and Egypt, which once were major Christian centers but were tragically replaced by Islam.
Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
America is good because her culture — centered around Judeo-Christian values and freedom — is good. Multiculturalism poses an existential threat to our culture. In contrast, a multiethnic approach protects the integrity of American culture by welcoming immigrants from diverse backgrounds, Western or not, but demanding assimilation.
* * *
<a href="https://stream.org/author/chenyuansnider/">Chenyuan Snider</a> was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the United States and studying at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor at Christian colleges and seminaries. She and her husband live in Northern California and have two grown children.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Shadows of People on the road and Flag of China concept picture

I Came From China — And I’ve Seen How This Ends For America

China

Chinese Communist Party

Constitution

Illegal Immigation

Immigration

Leftists

Trump Administration

2025 Atlantic Festival

Exposing Every Lie In The New Anti-American Documentary From Ken Burns

Diversity

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Documentaries

Film

Film Reviews

George Washington

Slavery

Woke Culture

John Adams and the other founders of the United States believed that the country they were establishing could only thrive if it remained a religious and moral society within the framework of Judeo-Christian values. In that same vein, I believe a healthy free market can only work if the people who participate in it understand that the ultimate purpose of commerce is to serve the greater good.
Unfortunately, when it comes to artificial intelligence, we are witnessing too many corporate leaders adopt a morally vacuous and inhumane attitude, one that divorces innovation and productivity from human dignity. Leaders at companies like Amazon, which is expected to cut <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/amazon-targets-many-30000-corporate-job-cuts-sources-say-2025-10-27/">as many as 30,000 jobs</a> very soon, are convincing themselves that eliminating human beings in favor of robots — yes, robots — is in their business’s and their customers’ best long-term interests. It is staggeringly short-sighted. Even mad.
<div id="attachment_995297" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-995297" class="size-large wp-image-995297" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2243466511-864x576.jpg" alt="An Amazon Prime e-cargo delivery bike in New York, US, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. Amazon.com Inc. is expected to release earnings figures on October 30. Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2243466511-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2243466511-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2243466511-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2243466511.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Competition, innovation, and productivity are principles worth adhering to because doing so leads to the best outcome for society at large. Of course, an indispensable part of all this is the commitment to provide for the destitute and those who truly cannot provide for themselves.
But right before our eyes, we are watching industry leaders succumb to pride, greed, and selfishness in a way that we couldn’t have imagined even twenty years ago. The mad dash to adopt anything and everything AI threatens to undermine both economic and social structures in potentially irreparable ways. And the only way to stop it is for corporate leaders to do something radical: recommit to the same moral principles that have undergirded our nation and society for more than two centuries.
Just in case anyone is wondering whether my perspective is driven by impracticality, mediocrity, or sentimentality, know that I have dedicated much of my career to helping organizations become successful by making them as healthy, effective, and productive as possible. What a blessing it has been that this pursuit has simultaneously served employees, leaders, customers, and, in the case of public companies, even shareholders. The new reality that AI is threatening to create will leave employees out of the equation, and ultimately, destroy the customer base of most companies because those customers will not have jobs.
Even a teenager can understand this dilemma, and yet, titans of industry seem to be allowing it to happen. There is no doubt that Amazon may be able to squeeze more margin out of its business in the short term by reducing costs related to salaries and benefits. This will benefit their leaders, the remaining employees, and shareholders for a while.
Ultimately, as more and more companies do the same, fewer people will be able to pay to have their whitening toothpaste sorted by robots and delivered by a drone. Toothpaste companies will suffer as product demand declines, leading to more layoffs. Eventually, even Amazon will have fewer robots, fewer drones, and even fewer employees. All this will take place in the name of innovation and productivity.
Again, an adolescent with a modicum of common sense can see where this is headed, even if Silicon Valley engineers with advanced degrees continue to dismiss it as fantasy. In the end, we will look back at the wanton pursuit of AI as a sort of slavish suicide, and we’ll have to answer to our children and grandchildren about what we were thinking and doing when it happened.
What is the solution? Well, it starts with adopting a new definition of success. When people make money — and I’m talking about IPOs and short-term stock windfalls — in a way that diminishes the dignity of employment, we have to call it what it is: inhuman. We have to see them the same way that people saw carpetbaggers after the Civil War. Or perhaps the way we look at pornographers and drug dealers. They are destroying the dignity of others to make themselves wealthier.
That sounds harsh, but it’s the new reality. When a man or woman claims to do something innovative at the expense of the greater good, that must be seen as exploitative.
Yes, AI is creating a whole new reality, and we must respond by changing the way we define successful innovation and productivity. People’s lives depend on it.
* * *
Pat Lencioni is one of the founders of The Table Group, a pioneer of the organizational health movement, and the creator of <a href="https://www.workinggenius.com/about?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=21520445429&amp;gbraid=0AAAAAD4dDHRyei0FFfuRCa63VdPO11RDk&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwlaTGBhANEiwAoRgXBSUpr89SSKKSTeoiFk-LdSAKpBsTFlfYYrEIm9MHWtUL1HjC7imP1RoC65MQAvD_BwE">The Working Genius</a>, which helps leaders understand workplace efficiency. He is the best-selling author of “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,” as well as 12 other books, which have sold over 10 million copies and been translated into more than 30 languages.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Robot building Ai sign

AI Without A Soul: How Corporate Greed Is Destroying Human Dignity

The Problem With AI Is Human

Artificial Intelligence

Capitalism

Free Market

Silicon Valley

Technology

If you want to know what the American spirit is, don’t ask a politician.
Ask the dad coaching Little League after a 10-hour workday. Ask the single mom who prays over the dinner table even when she’s not sure how she’ll pay the light bill. Ask the soldier who salutes a flag that too many in Washington now treat like a political prop instead of a sacred symbol.
The American spirit was never about government. It was about grit, grace, and the stubborn belief that no matter who you are or where you start, you can build a life rooted in faith, family, and freedom. It’s the heartbeat of a people who crossed oceans, tilled soil they didn’t own, and risked everything for the promise of something better.
Today, that spirit feels tested — maybe more than at any time in our lifetime. We live in a country where politics has become sport, truth has become optional, and too many Americans are told that our Founding ideals are relics of oppression rather than beacons of hope. Both parties have lost sight of who they work for. Both Democrats and Republicans “govern” like it’s a game or street fight. Somewhere between strategy and survival, the people get forgotten.
I’ll say this clearly: I love America. And when you love something, you’re expected to be critical of it. If you didn’t love your kids, you wouldn’t discipline them. Love doesn’t mean silence — it means wanting the best for what you hold dear. My criticism of America isn’t born of cynicism. It’s born of conviction that we can do better because we are better.
But here’s the thing: the American spirit isn’t dead. It’s just been buried under noise. And if you listen closely — past the headlines, the outrage, and the endless finger-pointing — you can still hear it.
I heard it at a Buccaneers game this past weekend. I was still in the concession area grabbing a beer when the national anthem began. Without anyone saying a word, the entire concourse stopped. Vendors, fans, security guards — everyone froze in place. Hats came off. Conversations stopped mid-sentence. For ninety seconds, the chaos of modern life went silent, and every person stood shoulder to shoulder, facing the direction of a flag they couldn’t even see. That’s the American spirit. Not something choreographed or forced, but something instinctive. Reverence that lives deep in the bones of ordinary people.
The American spirit is defiant and hopeful all at once. It’s rebellious in the best sense of the word. Our Founders didn’t wait for permission to pursue liberty — they acted on conviction. And they didn’t do it for fame or profit. They did it because they believed that human freedom was a divine calling, not a political gift. That belief came straight from Scripture: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” That’s not just a verse — it’s the origin story of the greatest nation on Earth.
Yet somewhere along the way, we traded that conviction for comfort. We let cynicism creep in. We started looking to politicians to fix what only character can. We looked to Washington for salvation when it should have started in our own homes, churches, and communities. We forgot that self-government begins with self-discipline.
When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America nearly two centuries ago, he was astonished not by our government but by our people — by their faith, their voluntary associations, their instinct to help neighbors before the state ever arrived. That’s what made America exceptional. Not that we were richer or smarter, but that we were moral and free.
Who needs to hear this? Honestly, everyone.
The young person taught that America is something to apologize for. The middle-aged voter who’s stopped believing that anything can change. The elected official who’s forgotten that public service is a trust, not a brand. And yes, even the conservative who’s become so jaded by corruption and media manipulation that they’ve forgotten hope is a weapon too.
We need to remember that pessimism never built anything worth keeping. Hope did. Faith did. The American spirit did.
If we can define that spirit, we can reclaim it. And reclaiming it starts with three things: we return to God, we rebuild the family, and we rediscover community.
No nation can sustain freedom without virtue, and no virtue survives long without faith. Our Founders knew this. John Adams said it plainly: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” They didn’t separate church and state to erase faith from public life — they did it to protect the church from the state’s reach. Reclaiming the American spirit means bringing prayer back to dinner tables, courage back to pulpits, and humility back to our leaders.
Every cultural rot you can name — crime, addiction, confusion, despair — can be traced to the breakdown of the home. A strong nation begins with strong moms and dads who teach their children that life has purpose, that truth exists, and that love isn’t license — it’s responsibility. You can’t legislate that. You can only live it.
And the American spirit thrives in places Washington will never reach: small towns, ballfields, church pews, front porches. It’s where people still look each other in the eye and say, “How can I help?” instead of, “Who did you vote for?”
Reclaiming that isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about survival. Because when you know your neighbor, you’re less likely to hate him. When you serve your church, you’re less likely to feel hopeless. And when you live with purpose, you stop waiting for politicians to deliver meaning they were never meant to provide.
So yes, criticize the left for weaponizing victimhood. But don’t spare the right for losing moral courage. The problem isn’t just policy — it’s pride. It’s thinking we can restore the country through ballots alone without first reviving our souls.
The American spirit was born in defiance of tyranny, but it survived through obedience — to God, to conscience, to truth. It’s not red or blue — it’s red, white, and blue. And it belongs to anyone willing to live by the creed our Founders staked their lives on: that freedom is worth the fight, that virtue is worth the cost, and that faith is worth the ridicule.
We are not finished as a nation. We are being refined. And maybe that’s exactly what the American spirit has always been. Tested, but never broken; humbled, but never hopeless; faithful, even when the world mocks the faith itself.
As we stand on the eve of America’s 250th birthday, let’s take that spirit seriously. We’re a ways removed from the fireworks and speeches of July 4th, but those celebrations will come soon enough. The question is: what kind of country will we be when that day arrives? Let’s make sure that when America turns 250, she’s not limping into it — she’s standing tall, proud, and faithful. Let’s be in the best spiritual, cultural, and moral shape we’ve ever been. That would be the greatest gift we could give to the generations who will inherit her next.
Our anthem says it best: “The land of the free and the home of the brave.” Not the land of the perfect. Not the home of the comfortable. But of the brave — the men and women who choose hope over hate, sacrifice over cynicism, and God over government.
That’s the American spirit. And it’s still alive.
You just have to look around.
Because it’s us.
It’s We the People.
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast “We The People.” Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu