Sports films, particularly those about football, have a strong inspirational bent.  You can add the upcoming The Senior to that list. Atypical but authentic, The Senior isn’t your usual underdog tale. It’s real, it’s raw, and it flips every cliché on its head with a playbook full of grit and plenty of aftermaths.  The film profiles the life of Mike Flynt, a 59-year-old proud Texan, who returns to college football decades after being kicked off the team — not to coach or cheer from the stands, but to finish what he started on the gridiron decades earlier by donning the pads.    Flynt, who grew up in Odessa, Texas, graduated from Permian High School and starred on the school’s first state championship team. Permian is the same school that later inspired the book, a film, and then the television series, “Friday Night Lights.” Flynt attended Sul Ross State University on a football scholarship where he became team captain and earned All-Conference honors at linebacker.  After his tenth campus fight in three years, Flynt proved he wasn’t just a menacing linebacker on the field but also a walking personal foul.  That final brawl is what benched him for good, costing him his spot on the team, his senior season, and his biggest lifelong regret. “I never stopped thinking about the loss of that year,” Flynt conceded to me last week.  At a 2007 reunion, a friend challenged Flynt to return still having one semester of eligibility. So, 35 years after getting the boot, Flynt re-enrolls and walks on to prove to his family, former teammates, and himself that it is never too late to tackle your regrets. The film explores Flynt’s relationship with his wife and son, echoing genuine tensions and support that shaped his comeback. It’s a tale of redemption, faith, and the kind of stubbornness that only comes with age. Along the way, he battles self-doubt, skeptical teammates, and physical pain that results in becoming the oldest linebacker in NCAA history.  Poetic license allows the omission of one important biographical element. Flynt was in exceptional condition upon his return.  Prior to his comeback, he was a pioneering figure in collegiate strength training. He served as the first strength and conditioning coach in the PAC-10 at the University of Oregon, and did stints at Nebraska and Texas A&M.    The football is more “slow-motion Rocky” than “Friday Night Lights,” but so is life after 50. The Senior proves you’re never too old to chase your dreams or to get tackled by someone half your age. The film may not win any awards, but it scores big on spirit. In an age obsessed with youth, speed, and instant success, The Senior offers a quiet resolve of  camaraderie and the power of second chances.  The story would seem unrealistic if it weren’t true.     Christian tenets are woven throughout without being heavy-handed.  The story arc is framed as a grace-filled opportunity, suggesting that Divine Providence plays a role. Angel Studios will distribute the film for theatrical release as it aligns with their mission “to promote uplifting, purpose-driven stories about the unshakable power of faith.” Michael Chiklis gives a restrained yet powerful performance as Flynt, capturing a man burdened by regret but driven by determination, navigating the fractures of aging and forgiveness without tipping into melodrama. Such things do not expire with your AARP card; rather they mature and are harvested. The film is a unique snapshot of intergenerational respect in a society that prefers its wisdom in memes. As teenage athletes chase scholarships and land flashy NIL deals before they’ve even mastered shaving, Flynt’s story strikes a chord. His kind of comeback is refreshing—no Instagram page, no staged press conference, no need to announce which school is footing the bill for his talents. Flynt’s story is a reminder that athletic prowess is not always livestreamed. Flynt is no superhero, far from it. He’s flawed, reflective, and intense. Flynt is not chasing glory, he is walking with grace, orthopedic inserts and all.   Sometimes the most meaningful plays happen long after the crowds have departed, and the scholarships have dried up. That is why the film works.   The Senior kicks off in local theaters on Friday, September 19, 2025. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: Figures Flip the Field Faith Under Fire: Persecution of the Church — At Home and Abroad Defying Mr. Softee: The Return of the Presidential Physical Fitness Test  

There is increasing support for claims that Israeli policies are causing widespread malnutrition in Gaza.  And many of the Ivy League schools amplify these claims to fortify their beliefs that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. These anti-Israel claims are strengthened by large foreign student enrollment and Qatari-Saudi funding at these schools, as well as biased legacy media. Just as important at creating a hostile environment for Jewish students … has been the dramatic increase in Qatari and Saudi funding. Part of the Gaza food problem was that the UN has refused to allow its aid to be handled through the new distribution sites Israel instituted to free them from Hamas extortion. As Seth Mandel documents, UN distribution relied on Hamas intermediaries who would syphon off much of the cargo as payment for their services.  None of the legacy media criticized the UN decision despite substantial documentation that Hamas is well integrated into their relief organization. But most telling is how they chose to characterize the situation. As a number of media sites, the New York Times printed a photo of 18-month-old Mohammad Motawaq, whom the paper claimed was born healthy but was now wasting away.  It later emerged that he was born with cerebral palsy. What was most appalling was the paper’s decision to crop out from the photo Mohammad’s well fed slightly older sibling because it would undermine the desired narrative. Many of the pro-Palestinian activists have little interest in any evidence that contradicts their anti-Israel stance. They rarely criticize post-October 7th Hamas actions or policies. They totally ignore the deprivation suffered by descendants of 1948 Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon and Jordan. Rula Alhroob, a former member of the Jordanian Parliament and chair of the Jordanian human rights committee, said her advocacy for extending benefits to Palestinian refugees was met with fierce opposition within the government: When we talk about civil rights, political rights and so on, they would say “Well, we don’t want to help Israelis achieve their goals by giving those people access to all types of activities and normal living so that they could forget about their right of return.” Critics also dismiss the dramatic improvement in the lives of the two million Arab residents of Israel and East Jerusalem. They ignore the fact that more than 20 percent of the Technion graduates are Arab citizens, enabling Nazareth to become a hi-tech hub, that Arabs comprise 30 percent of Israeli doctors with many in senior hospital positions, and that an Arab party was a partner in the ruling coalition during 2021-22. Critics also ignore the dramatic improvements in East Jerusalem: a rail line connected it to West Jerusalem shopping, a large industrial complex that is providing Arabs hi-tech jobs, and there is a dramatic increase in attendance at Israeli universities. Indeed, recent polls find that more East Jerusalem Palestinians would rather be part of the Israeli state than any West Bank Palestinian one. The Ivy League activists, particularly at Columbia University, are the most vocal, and those at Cornell and Harvard are not far behind. What explains why campus support for illegal activities, like tenting on campus and taking over buildings, is most pronounced at these schools?  At every Ivy League school, foreign students comprise at least 20 percent of the student body. However, it is over 25 percent at Cornell and Harvard and almost 40 percent at Columbia. While most foreign students are not political activists, many are. Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia is not an isolated example. They give legitimacy to the mostly well-off, white students that form the backbone of the anti-Israel opposition. Just as important at creating a hostile environment for Jewish students who support Israel’s right to exist — which is not the same as being a Zionist — has been the dramatic increase in Qatari and Saudi funding; each providing around $2 billion in university funding during the most recent four years. Harvard and Cornell rank first and second in receiving foreign donations. These funds often go to Middle East studies institutes and departments, whose faculty are often the most vocal anti-Israel individuals at their colleges. Foreign students and foreign funding create a globalist anti-American environment, recently exemplified by the way NYC mayoral candidate Zohtan Mamdani justified his desire to eliminate Israel bonds from NYC’s pension portfolio.  He claimed that he was just following some unspecified international law. Mamdani neglected to mention that he has supported this action for many years as part of his embrace of the BDS movement: boycott, divest from, and sanction anything to do with Israel. However, most interesting, Mamdani implicitly believes that international laws trumps U.S. law, and that globalist perspective is what many of his Ivy League supporters embrace. None of this is to say that Israeli policies are without criticism. As wars continue, the humanitarian concerns of the combatants wane, and abuses if not atrocities are more likely to occur.  And the Gaza War is no different. There are unlikely to be any military benefits from continued IDF actions. If Hamas had any concern for Gazans, it would surrender and if Israel had any concern, it would allow some international force, including the Palestinian Authority, to replace its presence there. An ending is more likely if the international community put as much pressure on Hamas as it is on Israel.  However, none of these criticisms justify many of the anti-Israel claims made by the legacy media and elite university protestors. READ MORE from Robert Cherry: The Hypocrisy of Zohran Mamdani’s Liberal Apologists The ‘BBB’ Brings Accountability to the Food Stamp Program — Not Catastrophe The Real Experience of Palestinians in the Middle East Robert Cherry is an American Enterprise Institute affiliate and author of the soon to be released, Arab Citizens of Israel: How Far Have They Come? (Wicked Son Press, Winter 2025).

U.S. lawmakers are sounding the alarm after Spain awarded Huawei a contract to store judicial wiretap data — a move critics say hands sensitive information to a company with documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party. A report by the U.S. House Intelligence Committee warned that Huawei telecom equipment and networks on foreign soils could “provide a wealth of opportunities for Chinese intelligence agencies.” Congressional leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently called on the Department of Commerce to “investigate the Spanish government’s decision, and similar actions by EU governments, that negatively impact U.S. digital trade, data security, and telecommunications interests, as well as the interests of American workers.” They’re right to be concerned. The United States and Communist China are currently engaged in a significant power competition, with the country that leads in technology and innovation poised to emerge as the victor. The U.S. has maintained a comfortable lead in the tech sector for many years. However, the Chinese Communist Party’s relentless pursuit to close this gap and ultimately surpass the U.S. in technological supremacy by any means raises serious concerns. Instead of focusing on genuine innovation, Beijing has implemented a state-sponsored espionage campaign to steal intellectual property (IP) from Western companies, a strategy that dates back to 1978. The rise of the internet has facilitated this systematic IP theft, with Chinese hackers infiltrating Western firms to steal valuable trade secrets. This stolen technology is then directed to state-run enterprises or “private” Chinese businesses, granting them an unfair competitive advantage. A prime example is Huawei, founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei, who has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Huawei initially assembled low-margin products like phone switches. At that time, the global telecom industry was largely dominated by Nortel, which accounted for about 70 percent of worldwide internet traffic relying on its equipment. Yet, in a dramatic turn, Nortel filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Investigations revealed that Chinese military hackers had infiltrated Nortel’s systems in 2000 or earlier, spending nearly a decade stealing its intellectual property. This stolen information was relayed to Huawei, enabling the company to produce similar telecommunications equipment at significantly lower costs, ultimately outbidding Nortel on key global projects and leading to Nortel’s downfall. Nortel’s fate was not an isolated incident. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Huawei, alleging that the company had been misappropriating the intellectual property of U.S.-based firms for commercial purposes since the early 2000s as well. Huawei has not only benefited from the Chinese government-sponsored IP theft, but it has also garnered substantial financial backing from the CCP and the PLA. Today, it dominates the global telecommunications market, commanding nearly one-third of the share, far surpassing the 6 percent its next closest competitor has. Additionally, Huawei is a dominant force in the 5G mobile core network, a technology set to underpin critical infrastructures, including energy supply. Huawei’s extensive reach and its close connections with the CCP and the PLA present alarming national security threats. Reports have surfaced indicating that Huawei’s network equipment has inherent security flaws, potentially facilitating state-sponsored espionage by transferring sensitive data back to China. Compounding these concerns is China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which requires all entities operating in the country, including Huawei, to comply with the government’s data sharing requests. This law creates an environment where utilizing Huawei’s technology could lead to severe security risks for nations that deploy their services. A report by the U.S. House Intelligence Committee warned that Huawei telecom equipment and networks on foreign soils could “provide a wealth of opportunities for Chinese intelligence agencies to insert malicious hardware or software implants into critical telecommunications components and system.” In scenarios of military conflict between the U.S. and China, the Chinese government could leverage Huawei’s technology to “deny service” and “exert control over essential infrastructure” in the U.S. and allied nations. This underscores an urgent need to address these pressing security threats. Throughout President Trump’s first term and continuing under former President Biden, the U.S. government has taken a series of actions against Huawei, including blacklisting the company and restricting American technology firms from providing critical components to it. Moreover, Washington urged key allies to exclude Huawei equipment from their telecommunications networks. These measures had only temporary effects. Although Huawei initially faced declining sales, it has since rebounded due to Beijing’s financial support and its “self-reliance” policy, which requires Chinese companies to gradually replace foreign technology with domestic alternatives. In 2023, Huawei made headlines by launching a groundbreaking smartphone featuring made-in-China semiconductor chip that purportedly supports 5G connectivity. A year later, the company reported record revenue of over $118 billion and profits exceeding $8 billion. Huawei’s ongoing success underscores the need for the U.S. government to move beyond sanctions on Chinese tech firms to lead in the technology race and protect national security. Here are two key recommendations. To boost technological advancement and innovation, the U.S. government must take decisive action by eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers and allowing businesses to operate independently, free from government interference. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the rest of the Trump Justice Department already took a massive step in this regard by approving a deal that allowed the merger between U.S. telecom companies Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper to move forward. The U.S. intelligence committee told the DOJ that this merger is imperative for national security, and it’s correct. The new combined company, with its increased size and influence, will be able to compete better with Huawei on the national stage, giving the U.S. a far better shot at keeping the predatory company at bay. Still, much more must be done. The U.S. government must adopt a robust approach to combat cyber espionage sponsored by the Chinese government. Prompt and meaningful actions are crucial. The U.S. government must also prioritize sharing crucial cybertheft intelligence with American businesses and rigorously prosecute those engaged in these illicit activities. These measures will send China message that IP theft is unacceptable, while instilling confidence among American businesses and the general public. By championing free market principles, removing excessive legal roadblocks, while holding those who commit cyberthefts accountable, we can solidify our leadership in technology and innovation. This, in turn, will enhance national security, maintain our economy’s competitiveness, and ensure America prevail in the strategic competition with Communist China. READ MORE: Trump’s Intel Holding: Will It Help US Defeat China, Inc.? ‘All Under Heaven’: The CCP’s Distortion of Chinese Philosophy How Deep Is China in America’s Ballot Box? Helen Raleigh is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She has authored five thought-provoking books, including the award-winning autobiography Confusius Never Said and her latest work, Not Outsiders: Asian Americans’ political activism from the 19th century to today. You can find columns and interviews at HelenRaleighSpeaks.com or her Substack newsletter, Confucius Never Said. Follow Helen on Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.

Well, it appears that Tucker Carlson has finally gone medieval. In a recent conversation on The Tucker Carlson Show between Carlson and Auron MacIntyre, podcaster at TheBlaze and author, Carlson made the claim that the feudalism of the Medieval Ages was far better than what we currently have today. “I completely agree, feudalism is so much better than what we have now,” Carlson states, “because at least in feudalism the leader is vested in the prosperity of the people he rules, right? You know if all your serfs die, you starve.” Whether it’s feudalism or neo-feudalism, both fundamentally reject the ideals of our nation’s constitutional republican order and the principles of the free market. Carlson’s unusual embrace of feudalism came during his talks with MacIntyre over what they see as the collapse of the “American Empire,” whose elites have manipulated the system in their favor by engaging in various exploitative measures. These actions — including forever wars, multiculturalism, the opening of mass migration, and unrestrained free trade — in the eyes of Carlson, have allowed the elites to exploit the average American at the cost of losing control of the nation they rule. But how do all these grievances tie back to Carlson’s unusual support for feudalism? Well according to Carlson in his introduction, it’s simply a lie told by the elite that feudalism is bad. “Today, I want to talk about how they lie to you,” Carlson said in his introduction, “They just lie. [cackles] You’ve probably been told, for example — I certainly was, this is just how it is in America — that feudalism was a bad thing. But is it?” Carlson went on to state, “England’s famous villain, King John, may have been a bad guy — who isn’t? — but he didn’t import 10 million illegal immigrants, did he? He didn’t kill anyone with fentanyl.” Though Carlson’s embrace of feudalism appears to come from a place of deep frustration with the status quo, his sentiment about feudalism is not something incidental. Interestingly it is tied to a rather peculiar notion that has taken root in recent years. For some time now, there has been a growing concern within some political and intellectual circles about the notion of an apparent rise of neo-feudalism. Now some of you might be asking yourself, “What is neo-feudalism and what distinguishes the old feudalism with the new? Well,  feudalism, arising around the 5th century and lasting through the 13th and 14th centuries, was the dominant social, political, and economic system of the Medieval period. Under the feudal system, the ruler (the king) would distribute his land (known as fiefs) as rewards to the nobility (lords, dukes, barons) in exchange for their loyalty and services such as protection, counsel, collection of crops, and money. This nobility would then have peasants or serfs who would live on the land, pay rent, and farm it in exchange for protection, a share of the crops, and small amounts of money. Though this quick recap of feudalism offers a basis for understanding Carlson’s statement, we still haven’t addressed what neo-feudalism is nor its differentiation with the old one. Well fortunately for us, Joel Kotkin sought to address both these questions. In his 2022 article “Our Neo-Feudal Future” for First Things, Kotkin describes how today’s conditions regarding an “emerging class structure” has enabled a new feudal order to arise. “In this new order,” Kotkin writes, “there are two ­ascendant classes: the oligarchs and the clerisy. And there are two classes struggling to serve the ­ascendant classes, and to maintain for ­themselves a decent standard of living: the ­yeomanry and the new serfs.” Kotkin highlighted the wealth gap between today’s rich and middle class which has grown significantly since the 1970’s, allowing for the “oligarch class” to rise, much like the nobility of old. Who are the Oligarchs? According to Kotkin, they are the likes of Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates and these oligarchs have aligned themselves with today’s secular clerisy. Who are the new clerisy? “They are journalists, entertainers, credentialed professionals, and teachers,” Kotkin states, “they provide the images, narratives, arguments, and artworks that reinforce the binding outlook, and they police dissenters as vigilantly as did the Inquisitors of old.” Like the ways in which the Catholic clergy supported the landowners of the Middle Ages, today’s oligarchs and secular clerisy have managed to secure an alliance. This alliance, as stated by Kotkin, is “unified in their progressive outlook on all things social and cultural.” Kotkin makes clear in his analysis that this rising neo-feudal order threatens the very foundations of today’s political order, as well as those being exploited, the middle and working classes. Though the notion of returning to feudalism or embracing neo-feudalism may be alluring to those, like Carlson, who believe that such an hierarchical arrangement may serve as a means to solving the chaos of today, it would no doubt be as devastating for today’s society as it was then. Was feudalism the vibrating society as Tucker may think it was? Well history shows that wasn’t the case. For starters, there wasn’t any social mobility under feudalism. As Paul Meany from the Foundation for Economic Education wrote, “under feudalism, wealth was decided by birth and status.” In simple terms, it was the luck of the draw for you the moment you were born that determined where you’d end up in the hierarchy of things. If you’re born to the king, you won the jackpot. If you’re born in the nobility, you’re still in a good place. If you’re born as a peasant or serf, well you’re outta luck. “In a society dictated by caste and status,” Meany wrote, “one’s condition in life is beyond his or her control.” If one’s conditions are outside their control, there isn’t any incentive to pursue higher goals or advance in status. Secondly, feudalism was an incredibly violent system. Adam Smith in his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, wrote about how the feudal system led stronger lords to use violence to control weaker nobles, challenge the rule of kings, and claim more power and wealth. “After the institution of feudal subordination, the king was as incapable of restraining the violence of the great lords as before,” Smith said, “they still continued to make war according to their own discretion, almost continually upon one another, and very frequently upon the king; and the open country still continued to be a scene of violence, rapine, and disorder.” Thirdly, feudalism brought about economic stagnation. Unlike today’s market economy that enables property to be transferred freely and new markets to arise, the feudal system restricted ownership and prevented new markets due to the feudal practices of primogeniture — the act of the firstborn claiming all the inheritance of the parents — and entails — the prevention of the selling or transferring of land to anyone else. It was the stagnation caused by these practices that eventually led to the Founders and Framers to abolish the practices of primogeniture and entail as a means to defend private property rights and expand economic opportunity. Carlson forgets that even if we returned to the feudal system under neo-feudalism, it would create a system of more exploitation not less. The late historian Clarence Carson, in 1967, warned of the detrimental and exploitative nature of neo-feudalism. “The New Serfdom comes in many ways: in heavier and heavier taxation, in restrictions and con­trols upon property, in the manip­ulation of the money supply to impel us to use it in ways the bu­reaucracy has determined are ben­eficial,” stated Carson, “the rigidities and inflexi­bilities of feudalism are revived and promise to become permanent features as government control and regulation.” Whether it’s feudalism or neo-feudalism, both fundamentally reject the ideals of our nation’s constitutional republican order and the principles of the free market that have allowed Americans to decide their own destiny and prosper unlike any other people. It’s because of the free market that allowed those that once lived under feudalism to achieve a level of prosperity and human flourishing that was unprecedented. Even more so, it’s because of the Founder’s vision of a civil society ruled by a free and independent people, using the wisdom of Western civilization, to launch the greatest experiment in mankind’s history. No one is saying what we have is perfect, yet its far superior to the Feudalism that Tucker defends so much. So, to answer Tucker’s statement, was or is Feudalism better than what we have now? Absolutely not.   READ MORE from Hunter Oswald: The New Marxists and the Red Menace Restoring America’s Constitutional Order: Article V Remembering the Christmas Truce of 1914

Recently, I had the honor of signing a coalition letter recommending President Donald Trump award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Patrick J. Buchanan. The call to honor Mr. Buchanan with this high honor is not new but accelerated when Representative Riley M. Moore (R-WV) sent a letter to President Trump urging him to honor Buchanan with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This effort is also being supported by Dr. Kevin Roberts, President of The Heritage Foundation. What I admired most about Buchanan was his respect for and defense of American history. In The American Conservative, a journal co-founded by Buchanan, Rep. Riley and Dr. Kevin Roberts,  argue that Buchanan is “one of the most prophetic voices of conservatism.” Buchanan is the great defender of our republic and heritage. Buchanan, who is now retired, served as a presidential adviser and speechwriter to Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He also was a journalist writing a twice-weekly column and the co-founder of several news programs, which included Crossfire, The McLaughlin Group, among others. Riley and Roberts are correct in stating that this record alone qualifies Buchanan to receive the nation’s highest civilian honor. “But what sets Buchanan apart, what makes him uniquely deserving of this recognition, is that he is one of the great pioneers of what we now call America First conservatism. He foresaw, long before others, nearly every political crisis and cultural challenge that animates the country today,” wrote Riley and Roberts. It was Buchanan’s traditional conservatism that paved the way for President Trump’s America First movement. Buchanan was a voice of one calling in the wilderness, warning the nation about unrestricted immigration, free-trade agreements that were decimating the middle class and outsourcing our manufacturing base, and the consequences of the neoconservative internationalism that resulted in endless wars. Buchanan also defended traditional values such as marriage and the life of the unborn, and he fought against the progressive attacks upon American history. Just as many conservatives are influenced by William F. Buckley, Jr., President Ronald Reagan, or even Senator Barry M. Goldwater, my conservatism was influenced by the ideas and writings of Buchanan. It was in high school that I enlisted in the “Buchanan Brigades.” My introduction to public policy started with an internship at The Heritage Foundation. My time at Heritage was filled with valuable experience not only learning about public policy, but more importantly learning about the foundations of what makes good policy. I also had the opportunity to listen and learn from individuals who were influenced by and worked alongside Goldwater and Reagan. During the 1990s, even though I could not participate in presidential caucuses, I was a supporter of Buchanan’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and in 1996. Growing up, we did not have cable television, but I became a regular viewer of The McLaughlin Group. Once in college, and finally able to  have cable television, I was able to watch Buchanan on many of the debate programs. Most of all, I looked forward to his columns and his many books that he wrote. It was also through Buchanan that I was introduced to conservative intellectuals such as Russell Kirk and publications such as Human Events and Chronicles. What I admired most about Buchanan was his respect for and defense of American history. In addition, he always referenced history in his columns and books to support his arguments. Buchanan has a commanding knowledge of American history and Western Civilization. It was not always popular being a supporter of Buchanan. Buchanan, and other paleoconservatives, had been sent to the “wilderness” when the conservative movement was dominated by neoconservatives and “fusionist” conservatives. Many conservatives in the movement shared President George W. Bush’s assessment of America First conservatism to be based in the “evils” of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. As an example, during my internship at Heritage expressing admiration for Buchanan was frowned upon, while neoconservatives and “Reagan” conservatives were held in higher regard. It was far more popular to be reading and referencing the late Charles Krauthammer than Buchanan. This is why reading Dr. Roberts recommending and arguing that Buchanan should receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom is both surprising but also demonstrates how the movement is changing. The traditional or “Old Right” conservatism of Buchanan not only influenced me from an intellectual standpoint, but also from my personal life. Growing up my family experienced the impact of deindustrialization as a result of free trade agreements. As foreign steel flooded the American market, my father was impacted by layoffs. I also saw small communities that suffered the consequences as they were decimated. Many of these communities had festivals and patriotic parades that my grandparents would take my brother and I, and today many are just a shell of their former selves. During his 1992 address to the Republican National Convention, Buchanan described his fellow Americans as “conservatives from the heart.” “They don’t read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we come from. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams,” stated Buchanan. Buchanan described my family, although at the time they would not agree. My family was blue collar, and my father was a strong and proud Teamster. My family supported the Democrat Party because they believed that the Democrats represented the “working class.” Nevertheless, listening to my father or my grandparents they reflected the philosophy of Buchanan. Whether it was traditional values, opposition to outsourcing of industry, supporting limits to immigration, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a patriotic view of America and our history, were all shared by my family. Today, as a result of President Trump, my family has jettisoned the Democrat Party and are voting Republican. Patrick J. Buchanan was not only prophetic about the many domestic and foreign policy challenges we are confronted with today, but his conservative philosophy will build the foundation to restore the United States. It is my hope that President Trump will honor Buchanan with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. READ MORE from John Hendrickson: Iowa Needs to Constitutionalize Taxpayer Protections DOGE Exposes Waste and Constitutional Drift Budget Hawks v. Tax Cutters: The Republican Dilemma

Reba McEntire and Rex Linn are engaged — and their love story goes way back! Continue reading…

September 14, 2025

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul endorsed Queens Assemblyman communist Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor in an op-ed published by The New York Times. Democrats are communists now, completely on board with the Red-Green Alliance. She’s endorsing a communist Islamist because he has a ‘D’ in front of his name. She has no ethics […] The post New York Gov. Hochul Endorses the Communist for NYC Mayor appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

On any given Sunday