NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has appointed my Brooklyn College colleague Alex Vitali to his advisory committee on public safety. The author of The End of Policing, the right-of-center press has seized on his consistent position of “abolish the police.” As someone who extensively helped edit his manuscript, I feel that I can make some judgments on his views, how they have evolved, and what his position on the advisory committee may foretell. I fear that Alex and the anti-police crowd will fight for policies that will try to force Tisch to resign. I was sympathetic to his project because Alex decisively identified structural problems with policing: its inadequate ability to deal with homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction, and domestic violence. In all of these cases, social workers have the skills to better navigate conflicts that arise than police officers acting alone. And police are not in the best position to take preemptive positions to forestall street violence; community violence-disruptor organizations are ideally better suited. Unfortunately (from my perspective) since publishing the book in 2017, Alex no longer believes that there are simply these structural issues that weaken the ability of the police to be effective. He increasingly has become more focused on what he believes is the inherent evil of policing: its need to suppress a rebellious underclass, creating unwarranted adversarial approaches to police departments. The 30 percent increase in urban homicides in 2020 was not uniform. I identified three cities — Newark, St. Petersburg, and St. Paul — that had only a minimal increase, especially compared to their neighboring cities — NYC, Tampa, and Minneapolis, respectively. In all three successful cities, the police commissioner had personal ties to the black community and was willing to use non-police personnel in tandem with police. I spoke with Aqeela Sherrills, who led the Newark Community Street Team — a group that aims to curb violence by sending social workers and ex-offenders into struggling neighborhoods. The organization was housed on police property and had a positive relationship with Newark police. Alex, however, rejects coordination and instead stresses the ability of social workers and violence-disruptors to operate independently of the police. This seems to dovetail with Mamdani; why he only envisions social workers assigned to the homeless but not to domestic violence situations. Vitali and others cite studies that seem to demonstrate that social workers and violence-disruptors acting independently can be effective. The problem is that in almost all cases cited, the social workers are not available in evenings when the more serious cases arise; and the violence-disruptor studies have uneven findings as the ex-offenders employed are often problematic, especially when able to act independent of police departments. Clearly, tensions would be created if policing is not coordinated with all social worker and violence-disruptor NYC activities. Will Police Commissioner Tisch insist on coordination? There are other tensions that Alex might accentuate. One is the continued use of the gang data base, a listing of individuals who have ties to street gangs. Alex has consistently attacked its use, particularly for its inappropriate inclusion of some individuals with no gang affiliation, generating unjustifiable stops and harassments. Another flashpoint is the way complaints against individual policing actions are adjudicated. These complaints alleging police misbehavior are heard by a Civilian Review Board that then makes recommendations to the police commissioner.  Critics believe the commissioner is too lenient, watering down the recommendations where many violators are just given a slap on the wrist. These critics would like to see the Review Board have final say over punishment for police misconduct. Finally, there are so-called quality of life crimes, including illegal vending, substance use, abandoned vehicles, illegal mopeds, and reckless driving. In April 2025, the police department initiated a new policy focused on these issues. “Thanks to the incredible work of the women and men in blue, we’ve seen historic declines in major crimes across the city,” Commissioner Jessica Tisch said. “Now, we’re turning our attention toward the issues that New Yorkers see and feel every day — the things that don’t always make headlines but deeply impact how people live. Every New Yorker deserves to feel safe.”  Critics like Alex have long been against these policies and will they demand that Tisch reverse her stance on them? I fear that Alex and the anti-police crowd will fight for policies that will try to force Tisch to resign. It will then be up to Mamdani to decide which side he is on.  It would be a shame if this tension is unresolved because Newark really does show the way: coordination with the police when using non-police personnel. Let’s hope that this is what Mamdani chooses. READ MORE from Robert Cherry: The Gaza Famine Myth: Refuting NYT’s Kristof’s Libelous Claims False Claims Made by Globalist Anti-Israel Forces The Hypocrisy of Zohran Mamdani’s Liberal Apologists Robert Cherry is an American Enterprise affiliate and author of the forthcoming book, Arab Citizens of Israel: How Far Have They Come? (Wicked Son Press, January 2026).

Every major question in American public life ultimately returns to a single source of authority: the Constitution. Whether the issue concerns abortion, the scope of federal agencies, the death penalty, or the structure of elections, the answer always depends on what the document allows the government to do or forbids it from doing. More than two centuries after its ratification, the Constitution remains the most powerful legal instrument ever created, not because it adapts to every cultural trend, but because it restrains every branch of government according to principles fixed in its text. If the Constitution’s meaning could shift with changing values, judicial review would dissolve into judicial supremacy. The Supreme Court’s central responsibility is to apply those principles faithfully. That responsibility, however, depends entirely on how the justices interpret the Constitution, and for most of American history, the debate has been defined by two competing philosophies: originalism and living constitutionalism. Neither philosophy is anywhere close to perfect, but as  the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, “Originalism is not perfect, but it is the lesser evil. The real alternative is rule by judges.” Scalia understood what most critics of originalism rarely acknowledge: When judges abandon fixed meaning, the Constitution ceases to function as a Constitution at all. Living constitutionalism rests on the idea that the Constitution’s meaning evolves alongside society’s values, allowing judges to reinterpret its provisions as moral norms change. Many progressive justices embrace this approach because it gives the judiciary greater flexibility to align constitutional law with modern expectations. But this view collapses the moment one asks a basic question: whose values guide evolution? American society is deeply divided, and there is no single set of moral commitments that all Americans share. To say the Constitution “changes with society” is to say, in practice, that it changes with the values of five justices. The Founders spent months designing a system to prevent the concentration of power in any single institution. Living constitutionalism circumvents those safeguards by transforming the judiciary into an undemocratic legislature, and as Scalia once warned, “If the Constitution means only what the judges say it means, we are no longer governed by the people but by the courts.” That result may appeal to those who want certain political outcomes imposed nationally, but it undermines the very logic of a written Constitution. Originalism, despite its many imperfections, preserves the distinction between lawmaking and judging. As legal scholar Robert Bork, widely considered as the father of Originalism, explained during his confirmation hearings, “The judge’s authority comes from the fact that he is applying the law, not his own moral preferences.” Bork’s originalism emphasized the Constitution’s original public meaning — the understanding shared by the people who ratified its provisions. Originalism is often described as rigid or backward-looking, but the Constitution’s framers deliberately wrote broad principles that could apply to future circumstances. They understood that society would change, but also believed that change must occur through the democratic process, not through judicial invention. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, emphasized that the judiciary’s role was to exercise “judgment, not will,” because the moment judges exercise will, they become legislators. He argued that the Constitution’s fixed meaning alone prevented the judiciary from becoming, in his words, “superior to the legislative power.” James Madison likewise warned that “the discretionary power of judges” posed a threat to republican government if it was not restrained by constitutional text. Originalism is the only interpretive theory that respects those warnings. Judicial review itself — the power to strike down unconstitutional laws — only makes sense if the Constitution has a discoverable meaning. The Supreme Court did not even possess this authority until Chief Justice John Marshall articulated it in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall wrote that it was “emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” but he was equally clear that judges could not reshape the Constitution according to political desires. The Court’s authority depended on its ability to apply the Constitution as written, not to revise it. If the Constitution’s meaning could shift with changing values, judicial review would dissolve into judicial supremacy. Marshall understood that a written constitution only binds government actors if its meaning is fixed. Once judges begin to treat it as a set of flexible suggestions, the restraints it imposes evaporate. Marshall never claimed the Constitution should be updated by judicial interpretation; he claimed that the Court must enforce the meaning the people themselves ratified. Living constitutionalism turns the logic of Marbury on its head. Originalism, by many, is viewed as unrealistic because 18th century authors could not have predicted modern technologies or social norms. But this objection misunderstands how originalism works. The Constitution does not prohibit applying old principles to new circumstances; it prohibits changing those principles. The Fourth Amendment protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” That principle applies to digital surveillance and cell-phone tracking just as easily as it applies to British soldiers ransacking colonial homes. The First Amendment’s protection of speech extends to social media posts and online platforms, not because the Founders foresaw the internet, but because they established a principle that applies universally: the government cannot restrict expression simply because it disapproves of the message. Constitutional provisions endure not because they evolve but because their principles remain stable. As Scalia put it, “The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake. It’s a legal document. And like all legal documents, it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.” There is a big difference between constitutional “literalists” and Originalists. Literalists interpret the constitution for what it says and what the framers, and only the framers, intended. This view would mean that if there is a debate regarding the censorship of an online platform by the government, that censorship would not be protected by the constitution since it does not mention social media. Literalism is not to be confused with originalism. Originalism does not prevent society from advancing, it simply applies the constitution’s principles to a modern day situation. The danger of abandoning fixed meaning becomes clearest in cases such as Roe v. Wade. When the Supreme Court held in 1973 that the 14th Amendment protected a right to abortion, it created a constitutional right without any grounding in the text or the amendment’s original meaning. At the time of its ratification in 1868, most states criminalized abortion, and nothing in the historical record suggests that the amendment’s ratifiers understood it to silently abolish those laws. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a staunch defender of abortion rights, criticized Roe’s reasoning, arguing that its constitutional foundation was “heavy-handed judicial intervention” rather than principled interpretation. Roe became the clearest example of what happens when the Court substitutes living constitutionalism for constitutional text: seven unelected justices imposed a national policy that the Constitution did not require and that the people never voted for. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization corrected that mistake by returning abortion policy to the democratic process. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion relied on an extensive historical record showing that abortion was widely restricted when the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Court concluded that because the Constitution did not confer a right to abortion, the issue must be resolved by voters. Alito was explicit that “the Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.” That conclusion did not end abortion; instead, it ended the idea that nine justices could impose a uniform policy nationwide. Even Justice Stephen Breyer, in his Dobbs dissent, conceded that people who view abortion as “akin to homicide” will inevitably believe the law must protect fetal life. His point was not to endorse the majority’s conclusion, but to recognize that abortion is a question of profound public morality — and therefore one that cannot be settled through constitutional interpretation separated from text and history. Dobbs did not restrict democracy; it restored it. Therefore even if one views abortion as an unconditional right, one can still support the overturning of Roe for the sake of the constitution. This return to democratic decision-making is essential to understanding why originalism strengthens—not weakens—self-government. When the Constitution is interpreted based on its original meaning, judges have an external standard to guide their decisions. They must justify their rulings by reference to text, structure, and history. They cannot declare new rights or invalidate laws simply because they personally believe a policy is wise or just. Living constitutionalism, by contrast, compels judges to project their modern-day values onto the Constitution. As Bork warned, this approach “turns the Constitution into an empty vessel into which each generation pours its own beliefs.” Once judges gain the authority to update the Constitution, it becomes impossible to distinguish legitimate interpretation from judicial policymaking. With this, we would have a country run not by laws but by judicial preferences. In a democracy as large and divided as the United States, that is untenable. In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia authored the majority opinion holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. Some claimed his analysis relied too heavily on selective historical sources, and many professional historians disagreed with parts of his reasoning. But as Scalia recognized, perfect historical consensus is impossible. The question is not whether every historian agrees but whether the best available evidence supports a particular public meaning. In Heller, that evidence included the grammatical structure of the amendment, the common law understanding of the right to bear arms, and early American legal commentary. Justice John Paul Stevens offered a different historical narrative, but as Scalia later noted, “The battle is not between historians; the battle is between interpretive theories.” Originalism forced Scalia to tie his reasoning to the text and structure of the Constitution. Living constitutionalism would have required only that judges decide whether handgun possession aligns with contemporary values. It is far better for Justices to debate how to interpret a historical document in order to determine the original meaning of a constitutional provision than to debate their own political beliefs about modern society. Under originalism, Justices at least ground their decisions in text, history, and established meaning. Under living constitutionalism, they instead rely on their personal views about what they believe is best for society, which gives them no principled basis for constitutional interpretation. Originalism ensures stability because it makes the Constitution predictable. Citizens and lawmakers know what the document requires, and they know that its meaning cannot shift based on the political views of a temporary Court majority. Living constitutionalism creates precisely the instability the Constitution was designed to prevent. One Court may discover a new right to abortion; another may discover a new right to physician-assisted suicide; another may discover a new limitation on speech. The question ceases to be what the Constitution says and becomes what judges believe it ought to say. As Scalia warned repeatedly, “If you abandon textual meaning, you empower the interpreter.” That empowerment undermines democratic legitimacy because the interpreter is not elected and not accountable. The claim that originalism is “impossible” because we cannot know the original public meaning of constitutional text ignores how interpretation works in every other area of law. Courts interpret statutes, treaties, contracts, and wills based on the meaning their authors attached to the language at the time of drafting. They consult dictionaries, historical usage, legal documents, and public commentary to understand how specific terms were used. As Scalia observed, “Nobody would interpret a will according to the desires of the living rather than the intent of the dead.” The Constitution is no different. Its age does not render it meaningless. Its status as supreme law requires that its meaning be discoverable, even if history is complex. The alternative is to allow judges to mold constitutional text to fit their policy preferences — the very problem a written Constitution was adopted to prevent. The Constitution has also become an extremely difficult document to change, and Originalism contributes to that. But that difficulty is intentional. The Constitution is designed to require overwhelming consensus before its foundational principles change. If society cannot agree broadly on a constitutional amendment, it means the proposed change lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy to justify rewriting the nation’s foundational law. James Madison defended this structure because it ensured the Constitution reflected the considered judgment of the people rather than momentary passions. “Frequent appeals to the people,” he warned, “would carry an implication of some defect in the government.” The Constitution’s endurance is the precise feature that allows the United States to maintain political stability, even as other democracies collapse under the weight of rapidly changing norms. Originalism respects the amendment process; living constitutionalism attempts to bypass it. Another recurring argument against originalism is that the Framers themselves could not agree on every constitutional provision. That is undeniably true, but those disagreements were resolved through ratification. Once ratified, the public meaning became authoritative. Hamilton and Madison disagreed on many issues, yet the meaning of the Constitution did not remain suspended between their opposing beliefs. It was fixed by the understanding adopted by the ratifying public. Moreover, the Framers anticipated that future generations might interpret provisions differently, which is precisely why they embedded broad but durable principles rather than enumerating every conceivable application. As Scalia wrote, “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead — meaning it does not change.” But he immediately added the point most usually ignore: “My Constitution is a living document in the sense that it lives in the democratic process.” The danger of abandoning that process becomes sharper when considering rights that genuinely are not mentioned in the Constitution. Many Americans, for example, support same-sex marriage. But that does not change the Constitution’s text. The Constitution does not address marriage at all, and therefore it does not create a national rule governing marriage policy. Under an originalist view, this question belongs to the democratic process, not the judiciary. That does not mean the Court cannot strike down laws that violate explicit constitutional guarantees — such as laws criminalizing speech or restricting religious exercise. But it does mean the Court cannot fabricate new rights simply because it believes society has shifted. As Scalia wrote in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, “When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman. That resolves these cases.” One can support same-sex marriage and still believe the Constitution does not require it. That is the essence of originalism: judges apply the law as it is, not as they wish it to be. Living constitutionalists sometimes respond that originalism would have prevented landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. This argument misrepresents both original meaning and the history of Reconstruction. The framers of the 14th Amendment adopted a broad principle of equal protection intended to dismantle racially discriminatory state laws. There is substantial evidence that segregation was inconsistent with that principle. The Court in Brown interpreted equal protection in light of its historical purpose, not in spite of it. As Michael McConnell — one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars — has shown, the Reconstruction Congress repeatedly took actions inconsistent with segregation, including integrating public schools in the District of Columbia. Nothing in Brown required abandoning original meaning. It required enforcing it. The deeper truth is that originalism is not “conservative” or “liberal.” It is a method of constitutional interpretation. A justice committed to originalism may reach conclusions that conflict with their policy preferences because loyalty to the text demands it. Scalia often voted in criminal procedure cases in ways that angered conservatives because he believed the Constitution’s protections for criminal defendants must be enforced as written. In Crawford v. Washington, Scalia authored an opinion expanding Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, relying heavily on historical evidence that the Framers rejected judicial discretion in favor of strict procedural guarantees. His originalism did not consistently yield conservative results; it yielded results grounded in history and text. That is precisely why originalism has credibility: it anchors judicial decision-making in principles external to the judge. Breyer himself, who favored a Living Constitutionalist approach, acknowledged that judicial power requires limits. “We must guard ourselves,” he wrote, “against the temptation to substitute our own moral beliefs for the principles embedded in the Constitution.” Even he recognized that the judiciary becomes dangerous when unconstrained by text. The United States is one of 96 democracies in the world, but few democracies have maintained constitutional stability as successfully. That success comes from a written Constitution that channels political conflict through democratic processes rather than judicial improvisation. Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary as an independent guardian of that Constitution, but Marbury only works if the Constitution’s meaning is fixed. If judges can revise meaning through interpretation, the power of judicial review becomes indistinguishable from legislative power. That collapse would place the nation in the same position the Framers feared: governed not by laws but by the will of nine individuals. The entire system of checks and balances — the Presidency, Congress, the Court — depends on the assumption that the Constitution constrains all three. The final reasoning for Originalism comes down to one fundamental question. Who governs the country: the people or nine unelected judges? In practice, Living Constitutionalism ultimately answers that judges govern. Originalism answers that the people do. It restores constitutional authority to the democratic process by ensuring that judges interpret the Constitution rather than rewrite it. As Scalia said repeatedly, “The Constitution belongs to the people, and the people have not authorized the courts to change it.” A Constitution that can be rewritten by judicial interpretation is not a Constitution. Far from killing the Constitution, originalism is what keeps it alive. READ MORE from Gregory Lyakhov: Trump Broke the Economic Consensus on Trade — and Won Conservative News Is Being Buried by Search Engines Mamdani’s Victory Proves the Dems Have Abandoned Jews

America has some demographic and economic headwinds facing it. In short, the U.S. needs to boost its birthrate and better secure a retirement system that is running out of means and therefore money to fund it. In the next decade, Australia’s retirement savings pool is set to become the second largest globally, surpassing Britain and Canada, but still falling short of the US. President Trump’s administration is exploring ways to address both concerns. In fact, it is  “seriously” considering an Australian-style retirement plan for Americans in an attempt to do just that. According to the latest annual report from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, the trust funds face significant financing challenges, and without major reforms, Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program will only be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2033. Roughly 70 million Americans relied on Social Security benefits in September. Addressing the sustainability of retirement security has become a central policy challenge amid concerns over the U.S. birthrate and national savings levels. The retirement system in the U.S. differs starkly from Australia’s: the latter system is based on compulsory employer superannuation payments, amounting to 12 per cent of workers’ salaries, to generate a “nest egg” that is generally accessible at retirement. How Australia’s Superannuation Works Superannuation, or “super” for short, is Australia’s flagship retirement savings program. Employers are required to fund employees’ savings accounts, which are invested in select funds (i.e. “super funds”) that are restricted until retirement. Employer-funded contributions are made in addition to paying employees their wages, and the latter may contribute to their own savings account. Employers must contribute the equivalent of 12 percent of an employee’s income into these super funds — up from 3 percent in 1992 when the superannuation program was established. “There is no opt out,” Tim Jenkins, partner at consulting firm Mercer adds. “If you are employed, your employer must pay 12 percent of your pay to your retirement savings, and it’s locked up until you’re approaching retirement age with a few ways to access on the way, but very limited indeed.” Employees can choose from different super funds managed by financial institutions, regulated by the government, and invested across a variety of global assets from stocks to private equity. Australian super accounts are transferable between employers and don’t require the same rollover process as with American defined-contribution accounts. The average Australian currently holds a little more than AU$172,000 in superannuation, while those aged 65-69 have an average of AU$420,936. Among the strengths of the system are the fact that it captures nearly all employees with its universal coverage, and it creates a large asset pool, with more than AU$4.3 trillion ($2.83 trillion) in assets as of mid-2025, making it one of the largest pension systems globally. There are also tax advantages because contributions and investment earnings are taxed at concessional rates (15 percent), and retirement-phase earnings can be tax-free. Moreover, since the moneys in the “supers” become the personal property of the employees, Australians can pass on their superannuation (retirement funds) to their children, typically through a super death benefit, which can be paid to nominated beneficiaries upon the account holder’s death. On the other hand, the system involves complex legislative changes, contribution caps, and compliance requirements that can confuse members. Funds are restricted until retirement age, limiting financial flexibility for emergencies. Their defined-contribution structure also means individuals assume market volatility risk, meaning poor investment choices can negatively affect retirement results. In the next decade, Australia’s retirement savings pool is set to become the second largest globally, surpassing Britain and Canada, but still falling short of the US. By 2035, it is forecast to grow to $7.2 trillion in assets. US Model In the United States, employer-sponsored retirement programs like 401(k)s — first established in 1978 — are optional. Employers who offer 401(k) plans can decide whether they will match employees’ contributions. Social Security, which was established in 1935 under President Roosevelt, serves as the primary vehicle for retirement income. U.S. workers pay Social Security tax, which pools into a fund that is distributed to current retirees. Concerns have been mounting that Social Security funds are on shaky grounds as the U.S. population ages. In general, Australia’s compulsory employer-funded investment savings plan stands in contrast to the U.S. system where voluntary 401(k)s are paired with the long-standing Social Security program. As of June, U.S. retirement assets totaled $45.8 trillion, according to the Independent Directors Council. Americans held $18 trillion in individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and $13 trillion in all employer-based retirement plans, according to the council. Unfortunately, millions of Americans are missing out, with many employers not offering retirement benefits. According to the Economic Innovation Group, 42 per cent of full-time working Americans do not have access to retirement plans, 44.1 per cent do not participate and 50.5 per cent receive no employer match (employers’ matching contribution to an employee’s retirement plan are voluntary). Overall, 53.7 million full-time and part-time American workers aged between 18 and 65 lack access to any employer-provided retirement plans. “The United States retirement system is in desperate need of reform,” Economic Innovation Group states on its website. “Tens of millions of workers — especially low-income workers — lack access to any type of retirement account.” Why Superannuation Is So Popular “With an aging population and declining birth rates, a system like this takes the fiscal burden off future generations,” Jenkins said. Australia’s retirement system is ranked B+ on the Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index for 2025. Meanwhile, the United States is ranked C+. There is also an Australian government pension program that serves as a safety net for people who need additional support. However, “super” is increasingly the primary retirement savings vehicle. Trump’s comment about Australia’s retirement system isn’t the first time it has been mentioned in his administration. Australian super funds are major investors in U.S. assets, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke at a superannuation summit in Washington, D.C., in February, where he touted the program’s success. Matthew Linden, executive general manager of strategy and insights at Super Members Council, who attended the summit in February, said: “What has struck U.S. officials and investors is how the strength of Australia’s super system policy settings — automatic super payments, near universal coverage and preservation of savings until retirement — have helped Australians grow world-leading retirement nest eggs.” Supporters argue a compulsory private savings system could ease future pressure on Social Security and give workers larger, individually controlled retirement funds. The White House has offered no timeline or detailed proposal, but Trump described the Australian approach as “very unique,” and stressed that strengthening retirement savings remains “very important” to his administration. “We’re looking at it very seriously,” Trump said. “It’s a good plan. It’s worked out very well.” READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: Thanksgiving — Beyond the First Feast While Humans Were Tuning Their Guitars — AI Created America’s No. 1 Country Song From Orwell to Brussels: The EU’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ Arrives  

Tens of millions of Americans since the founding of our country have served in the U.S. armed forces. From the Continental Army to those currently in training at West Point or Annapolis, legions of young men and women put on a uniform to enlist in our military — some making the ultimate sacrifice as they die in combat. If we are to remain a nation worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we must draw a clear line between scrutinizing policy and scorning those who fought for our safety Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw is among them. Crenshaw joined the Navy while still in college, eventually serving as a SEAL during the War in Afghanistan. In 2012, he lost his eye when hit by a bomb explosion. The congressman is a retired decorated veteran with 2 Bronze Star Medals and a Purple Heart. To any ordinary American, Crenshaw is an American hero and deserves our greatest respect for the years he spent overseas defending our country — even if they may disagree with the foreign policy decisions that led him there. Dan had no say in the intelligence decisions of the Bush administration or Congress’ authorization of military force. Yet comedian-podcaster Dave Smith does not share this same reverence for our veterans. “You fought in a catastrophic 20 year regime change war against the Taliban that FAILED and left a better armed Taliban in power,” Smith tweeted at Congressman Crenshaw, “How the fuck did that make me (or any American) safer to have any opinion? Pure retard boomercon slop.” Insulting those who served our country and putting blame on them for the strategic decisions made in Washington is un-American. Our veterans selflessly fight wars they were called to service. From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, many have enlisted despite bitter disagreements with the executive leadership involving U.S. troops in those conflicts. This is not how we do things. Honor for those sworn to defend our nation is a central pillar to America’s identity. Every year we observe Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July in remembrance and celebration for our military — from those in active service or peacefully retired, to those who passed away. The greatness of this country cannot endure if we allow arguments over foreign policy to spiral into rude spats against our veterans. Dave Smith and others can consciously object to U.S. involvement abroad, critiquing the decision to join wars in the past and warning against doing so again in the future. That is their constitutional right and a cause many feel compelled by. But nastiness and disrespect is unbecoming. Soldiers are not to blame for the lengthy commitment of the United States in Afghanistan — Congress is. While Crenshaw may now be in office, the original deployment of troops in 2001 happened while he was still in high school. His decision to enlist was a choice of service. If we are to remain a nation worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we must draw a clear line between scrutinizing policy and scorning those who fought for our safety. Veterans deserve honor not because every mission was perfect, but because they stepped forward when their country asked. Debate over America’s role in the world must never come at the expense of basic respect for the men and women who served. To forget that distinction is to forget who we are, and the patriotism that has held this nation together since its founding. READ MORE from Sam Raus: COVID Is Over, So End the Obamacare Subsidies Entirely Don’t Confuse the Sims With Harmful Deepfakes Steelmanning Tariffs Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, a political analyst and public relations professional. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1.   

Trump is right about Tim Walz, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous

EU Channeled 500 Million Euros to CIA-Linked NGOs to Promote Mass Migration, Regime Change https://t.co/MI25BtTZNo — Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) December 6, 2025

from Moonbattery: What makes it fun to call Tim Walz a retard is that he gets so mad: Walz said Thursday that individuals have driven past his residence and shouted insults at him after President Donald Trump used the same term in a recent Truth Social post. Most any term that accurately describes Walz would be […]

by M Dowling, Independent Sentinel: The Somali fraud might reach more than $8 billon. It’s still growing as the investigation continues. Gov. Tim Walz, who is credibly accused of covering up the fraud, is taking an aggressive stance against Republicans, while claiming his state is doing great economically and educationally (it is not). He is […]

from PressForTruth: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from The Conservative Treehouse: As the kids say, “this crazy”. If the story surrounding the J6 pipe bomber, Brian Cole, seemed suspicious this set of coincidences takes that suspicion to new levels of interesting. According to the grandmother of suspected J6 pipe bomber Brian Cole Jr, he is a simple-minded man; an “autistic-like” 30-year-old who […]