As America goes, so goes the world.

Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his upcoming resignation after months of political turmoil inside the Liberal Party. This seemingly went public after Trudeau’s Finance Minister/Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland resigned, due to conflicting beliefs on Trudeau’s handling of the Canadian economy. In a letter Freeland sent to Trudeau which later was published to social media, Freeland stated that Trudeau’s handling of the economy included “costly political gimmicks” and that the two had been “at odds” recently on how to handle the upcoming Trump administration. Additionally, the public polling for the Liberal Party in general has been at a record low. It is now predicted that the Liberal Party has a less than 1% chance of winning the majority of seats in Parliament. According to The New York Times, the Liberal Party’s popularity problem, even in liberal strongholds such as Montreal, is Trudeau himself. He has essentially become the poster child for the unpopular policies that Canadians see as contributing to higher prices of living and the current housing crisis. In his departing press conference, Trudeau recognized the political turmoil in which his party was currently residing. He believes the country will be best served if he is to stay on as prime minister until a new Liberal Party leader is elected, which is expected on March 24. Most fascinating during the speech is how Trudeau listed his administration’s COVID-19 policies as being among one of his greatest achievements in office. His COVID-19 policies led to the months-long “Freedom Convoy” in 2022, causing major disturbances in the supply chain between Canada and the U.S. Trudeau’s administration, in congruence with the Biden administration, required anyone crossing the border (including semi-truck drivers) to be vaccinated. The Canadian courts across the country denied numerous requests for religious or conscientious exemptions. What was most egregious during the COVID-19 pandemic was Trudeau’s apathy towards Christians. His most blatant public display of this was in 2021. In June 2021, there was a mass grave site of First Nations children found at a residential school run by the Roman Catholic Church in southeastern Saskatchewan. Just a few weeks prior, a similar mass grave site was found in British Columbia. This set in motion the summer of fire. In 2021 alone, 90 churches across the country were burned to the ground. Being such a nationwide epidemic, one would think Trudeau would have strongly condemned such violence. However, in his statement after the height of these attacks, he discussed that he understood the anger the arsonists were feeling. He went on to apologize for the government and then called on the schools and Pope Francis himself to apologize. Speaking of the arsonists he said, “It’s real and it is fully understandable given the shameful history we are all become more aware of.” This all happened as Trudeau’s administration imposed COVID-19 lockdown restrictions upon churches as well. While most of the world was locking down to prevent the spread of disease, Canada was also jailing pastors, fining them, and seizing properties and assets if these congregants tried to worship together. Pastor James Coates of Edmonton, Alberta was jailed for 35 days and his church property was seized by local police and barricaded. GraceLife Church was trying to meet outside to ensure social distancing but afterward had to meet in clandestine underground services. Pastor Tim Stephens of Calgary, Alberta was jailed for 21 days for holding an outdoor worship service. Despite his efforts to comply and bring a semblance of health and safety to his congregants, he was still arrested in front of his wife and children at his home. Pastor Artur Pawlowski of Calgary, whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, was jailed for 50 days and put in solitary confinement for at least a week for holding church services. Pastor Tobias Tissen of Steinbach, Manitoba, along with four lay pastors, were arrested and then the government prosecutor in the case sought fines in the amounts of $18,000 and $42,000 per person plus court costs and fees. Again, this pastor did try to ensure the health and safety of parishioners by hosting church services outdoors. Pastor Michael Thiessen of Alliston, Ontario was fined $300,000 and a potential three years in jail for keeping his church open—all the while grocery stores, liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and other “essential” businesses remained legally open. These are just a sampling of the violations of religious liberties across Canada under Trudeau. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., called for Canada to be put on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s Watch List, stating, “I am troubled that our Canadian neighbors are effectively being forced to gather in secret, undisclosed locations to exercise their basic freedom to worship.” One of Canada’s neighbor states, Ohio, recommended this as well in Ohio House Resolution 194, sponsored by former Rep. Reggie Stoltzfus and former Rep. Timothy Ginter. Over 50 pieces of written testimony were originally received to present to the Ohio House State and Local Government Committee. These included stories from students, nurses, pilots, food service workers, soldiers, and even local elected officials about how they were systemically denied religious freedoms regarding COVID-19. For brevity, some of the testimonies were condensed into a statement by Liberty Coalition Canada, headed by Pastor Michael Thiessen. Pastor Pawlowski was still imprisoned at the time of the committee hearing and dictated his testimony over the phone to his family. His written testimony details a much longer history of religious liberty violations he has suffered than just due to COVID-19 restrictions. His testimony demonstrated a systematic intolerance on behalf of the Canadian government for his Christian activity such as: feeding the poor, handing out Bibles, holding traditional biblical views of marriage, and preaching in the local park. The resolution was to urge the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to put Canada on the Special Watch List of countries whose governments “engage or tolerate in severe religious freedom violations, but do not rise to the CPC (countries of particular concern) standard of “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations. If they had indeed been added at the time, they would have been named alongside countries such as: Egypt, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and other serious human rights violators. Importantly, the State Department would have had more diplomatic tools at their disposal in relations with Canada to help correct this behavior. While they were not added to the Special Watch List at United States Commission on International Religious Freedom and many have moved on from the COVID era, there are some who have not forgotten. Some of us still remember Trudeau’s campaign beginning with promises of freedom of choices, most prominently a woman’s right to choose abortion and a person’s right to choose the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. However, his policies did not include protecting the freedoms of those who believed in upholding Christ and Christian values. Thus, as he steps down, let us not forget his legacy (lest we become doomed to repeat it). Let us remember the Trudeau legacy as one of true religious bigotry and persecution and vow to not let it happen again, either on Canadian or American shores. Originally published by The Washington Stand. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trudeau’s Legacy Towards Christians Was Indifferent at Best, Hostile at Worst appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Donald Trump hasn’t even retaken the office of the presidency yet, and he’s already drastically reshaping American foreign policy. At a Tuesday press conference, which covered a wide range of topics, President-elect Trump announced that his administration would be renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” The once and future president also doubled down on his aims to acquire Greenland, retake control of the Panama Canal, and put pressure on Canada to change its trade relations with the United States. One reporter asked Trump whether he would rule out using “military force” to take Greenland and Panama. “I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said. “It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country.” Trump added that the United States needs Greenland for “national security purposes.” When he was later asked whether he would use military force to make Canada a part of the United States, Trump said he wouldn’t, but instead would employ economic pressure. Trump Not Use Military Force to Annex Canada. But He’s Considering Economic Force. Reporter: Are you considering using military force to annex Canada?Trump: No. Economic force.President-elect Donald Trump has floated the idea of making Canada the 51st state in the past.… pic.twitter.com/pf4g5KXNwR— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) January 7, 2025 As you might expect, there was an instantaneous liberal meltdown in response to Trump’s comments. Checking in on the libs pic.twitter.com/yVOzkUk79P— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) January 7, 2025 There’s no question that Trump occasionally “spitballs” ideas at news conferences on all kinds of subjects, but I’d argue that he’s developing a clear agenda for his second go-around in the White House. Trump’s foreign policy outlook, if viewed holistically, clearly aims to be much more limited and realistic than the dominant “make the world safe for democracy” and U.S. global primacy ethos that’s dominated Washington thinking in the post-Cold War world. Trump 2.0 foreign policy, at least from the perspective of his public comments, appears to be shaping up into something akin to a neo-Monroe Doctrine. Its focus will be on shoring up the most important American interests at home and close to home, avoiding needless conflicts and adventurism in far-off places with marginal ties to American interests, and most importantly of all, restoring America’s confidence as a great country with a bright future. For a little refresher, the original Monroe Doctrine was once the defining foreign policy attitude of the United States in the 19th century. It was initiated under President James Monroe, but is often attributed to John Quincy Adams, his brilliant secretary of state (and successor as president). The Monroe Doctrine’s goal was limited, but profound, for the development of the United States. America wouldn’t be unleashed on the world seeking monsters to destroy. It would instead secure its freedom at home with the threat that any great power abroad—especially a great colonial power from the Old World—would be looked upon with suspicion or hostility if it intruded in the New World. Historian Walter McDougall wrote in his book, “Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter With the World Since 1776,” that the principles of the original Monroe Doctrine “were conceived narrowly, and in terms of vital, nearby American interests.” It was best understood, McDougall wrote, “as a purposefully vague proclamation of U.S. determination to defend whatever vital national interests it had, or might in the future, identify, in the Western Hemisphere.” Later iterations of the Monroe Doctrine became perhaps a bit more expansive under Theodore Roosevelt and others, but the general principle remained in place. American interests expanded with the nation. What Trump is doing with his recent remarks about the Panama Canal, Greenland, and even Canada is bringing back this traditional way of thinking of America as a country rooted in the Western Hemisphere. It even comports with his attitude toward national borders and immigration controls. Why is the U.S. more committed to defending the border of Ukraine than its own border with Mexico? Trump doesn’t rule out that the U.S. may have interests that stretch across the globe, but he insists on putting vital and immediate interests at our own national doorstep first. That includes the Panama Canal, which is no longer under American control—even though we built it and paid for it—but is absolutely connected to American economic and military security. China’s de facto control over the canal would be an enormous long-term threat to the United States. China making massive inroads into Panama and elsewhere in Central and South America is the kind of great power threat that the Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to counter.  The question isn’t why Trump is suddenly bringing the issue up. Why haven’t American leaders already made it a priority? Maybe Ronald Reagan was right about the Panama Canal, that we never should have let it go. Greenland, too, is important for American defense. It not only has abundant natural resources, but is in a prime location for exerting power over the Arctic and defending the U.S. against potential threats from Russia, China, or any other great power in the region. Obviously, the nature of our relationships with Canada and Mexico should be a priority. But the right kind of relationship that serves America best won’t always come through gentle words and platitudes. Trump is a New York real estate man. Ultimately, he doesn’t care about niceties to get a deal done, though he’s clearly willing to use his own brand of soft power in negotiations. He’s sending many of his allies, including son Donald Trump Jr. to Greenland to win them over. Don Jr arrives in Greenland.pic.twitter.com/ZXy6Ht2BRY— The American Conservative (@amconmag) January 7, 2025 The bottom line is that Trump is signaling that his policy will be both more constrained and more focused on narrow American interests. If we make threats, they certainly better be seen as threats and not mere bluster. This will certainly be a change from outgoing President Joe Biden’s strategy, which amounted to “holler loudly and incoherently about everything while nobody listens.” Or just “don’t.” If Trump does revive some form of the Monroe Doctrine, it could represent a much-needed return to tradition and to a stronger foundation for U.S. security in an increasingly dangerous world. The post Trump’s Modern-Day Monroe Doctrine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Jimmy Carter’s personal service to the poor after he left the White House in 1981 is remembered as Christian charity in action. What is not so well remembered is his role, albeit unwitting, in bringing evangelical Christians into the political process. Without Carter—who died Dec. 29 at age 100, and who will lie in state at the Capitol until Thursday—the Religious Right might not have come into existence. In 1976, Carter was elected with the support of evangelical Christians. Four years later, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected with their overwhelming support. What happened? In the first days of his candidacy, Carter threw the mainstream media into a tizzy by proclaiming himself a “born-again Christian.” As reporters scrambled to find out what that meant, Carter’s self-revelation gave heart to born-again Christians: Finally, after years of being isolated from the political process, here was somebody they could identify with, one of themselves running for president. Once elected, however, instead of dancing with the folks who brought him, Carter ignored or disavowed his Christian base, and instead followed the lead of his appointees, who were on the Left. First came the attack on parents’ rights, then came the attack on the traditional family itself.  In between was silence on the life issues, which evangelicals had come to embrace, and the steady advancement of the feminist agenda. A couple of years into Carter’s presidency, a proposed regulation was promulgated by the IRS in the Federal Register to preemptively deny tax-exempt status to new private schools.  In 1978, Catholics were not opening new schools; they were struggling to keep existing ones open. Who then was the target of this proposed regulation?  Independent, evangelical churches. The IRS didn’t spin it that way, of course.  Instead, it played the “racism” card. The stated purpose of the proposed regulation was to deny 501(c)(3) status to schools that had opened within five years of a desegregation order from a court. But for years, parents had been sending their kids to Christian schools because they wanted order, discipline, traditional curriculum, and morality, which were rapidly disappearing from the public schools. Parents and pastors saw that as an attack on parental rights and religious freedom. Eventually, the White House had to back down—but not before Christian leaders realized that their deep concerns were of no concern to the White House. In the process, Christian leaders made friends among Capitol Hill conservatives. The seeds of the Christian Right were first planted in defense of parental rights and religious freedom. In 1980, those seeds blossomed into full flower as a pro-homosexual agenda took over the White House Conference on Families. In the 1976 campaign, Carter had gone to the National Catholic Welfare Conference to shore up his Catholic flank, and he promised, if elected, to hold a White House conference on the family. As reelection time drew near in 1979, his advisers dusted off that promise, and created a commission to implement it.  Hundreds of letters came to the White House asking that James Dobson of Focus on the Family be named to the commission, but nobody at the White House had ever heard of Dobson. The disconnect with Christians became more obvious when the commission, following the lead of its staff (John Carr, formerly of the Catholic Welfare League and later of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was executive director), decided that instead of a White House Conference on the Family, it had to be the White House Conference on Families, plural.  Furthermore, “family” was never actually defined in documents of record, but the working definition was a group of people who share living and cooking arrangements and aspirations for the future. In an era when homosexual “marriage” was still only theoretical, that was understood as a step along the way to allowing homosexual couples to be a “family.” Things went downhill from there. The staff designed a system under which “stakeholders,” by which they meant social services professionals, would control the outcome. Some had some good ideas, but the bottom line of the social work-industrial complex is to throw federal money at problems by creating new programs. For Christians, however, the real stakeholders were parents in intact families who were struggling to preserve a society that supported their goals. But they were dismissed as sentimental and their ideas branded as outdated. As the process dragged on into the summer of 1980, Christian leaders watched and hoped that the born-again president would hear their concerns and send some signal of support for traditional marriage and family. But he never did. And conservative Christians kept organizing and registering new voters. On Aug. 15, 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan spoke to 15,000 Christian pastors in Dallas, brought together by the Religious Roundtable.  “I know you can’t endorse me,” he said, “but I endorse you.” The auditorium burst into a sustained standing ovation.  The rest, as they say, is history. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Jimmy Carter’s Little-Known Role in Political History: Giving Rise to Religious Right appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Gallup: Biden Is The New Nixon

Office of Refugee Resettlement Ignores Trafficking to Ask Migrant Children Their Pronouns Instead

Sunny Hostin's Hubby Caught in Massive NYC RICO Scandal: Doctor's Oath Meets Fraud Allegations

Biden Admits He Always Had Power to Secure the Border by Bragging About Decreased Crossings

Mass Evacuations in California As Wind-Driven Wildfire Scorches Pacific Palisades

Trump Tells Hamas What They Must Do ASAP or 'All Hell Will Break Out'