Connect with us

Politics

“America Is An Idea” And “Not Defined By Its People.” – Lindsey Graham

Published

on

(Via NewsWars)

Friday on Fox News, Tucker Carlson questioned Lindsey Graham’s claim that “America is an idea” and “not defined by its people.”

“According to Lindsey Graham, you could take our entire population and swap it out for 320 million, I don’t know, Chinese or Indians or Africans or Canadian or people from New Zealand, and the place would be no different, so long as the idea was still there,” Carlson said. “Does anyone actually believe that?”

Washington, D.C. is a divided city, but today saw a moment of rare political unity. Lawmakers in both parties came together in grave agreement that it was unfortunate, unacceptable, indeed threatening, that President Trump would refer to poor and dangerous countries as in effect poor and dangerous.

Now, some of the outrage was tactical, obviously. A way to score political advantage, but a great deal of it was entirely real. It was authentic rage.

So, why are the people in charge hysterical about this? Is it because Trump said something racially insensitive?

Let’s see. Just yesterday, Nancy Pelosi dismissed the DACA negotiation because there were too many white people involved and most people here didn’t even notice. So, left-wing attacks on the basis of race are now common. Very common.

So, could it be they found it shocking the president would criticize an entire nation? Maybe. But then, the left has no problem bashing huge parts of this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You can put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them.

NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: The five white guys, I call them. I said, “You’re going to open a hamburger stand next or what?”

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, they don’t have a problem dismissing entire populations. So, what is the real reason for the panic you are watching right now on cable television?

Maybe it’s because Trump’s remarks are forcing precisely the kind of conversation our leaders don’t want to have. He didn’t do it on purpose. It was accidental, but he still raised questions they’d rather not answer, like who exactly are we importing into our country and how are they doing once they get here?

The answer, of course, well, they are all valedictorians and war heroes and, in fact, way more impressive and way more American than you will ever be, so shut up. That’s what we’re told. That’s what we are required to believe. What if it’s not true?

Last year, the U.S. accepted 23,000 people from Haiti and 172,000 from Mexico. Immigration from El Salvador have been so brisk in recent years that one in three Salvadorians now lives in the United States. Has America become a better country as a result? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we ought to talk it through and decide before we continue with our current immigration policy.

Leaders who actually cared about their people would do exactly that. And yet, our leaders just yell at us until we stop asking questions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina released a statement today that neatly summarizes how most of official Washington thinks about this subject. In a statement, Graham dismisses the idea that America should even think about what kind of people it lets in.

“I have always believed that America is an idea,” Graham wrote, “not defined by its people, but by its ideals. Diversity has always been our strength, not our weakness.”

America is defined by its ideals, OK. So, what are those ideals? It might be useful to know considering how important they are. Well, diversity is our strength is the only one our leaders seem to agree on. The less we have in common, somehow the stronger we are. Is that true? We better hope it’s true because we’re betting everything on it.

But there’s a deeper problem with what Sen. Graham said. “America is not defined by its people.” Really? What do its people think about that? Are they pleased to learn their leaders consider them merely a commodity, a set of interchangeable parts?

America’s actual people with their actual families and towns and traditions and history and customs may be surprised to learn that they are irrelevant to the success or failure of what they imagined was their country.

According to Lindsey Graham, you could take our entire population and swap it out for 320 million, I don’t know, Chinese or Indians or Africans or Canadian or people from New Zealand, and the place would be no different, so long as the idea was still there. Does anyone actually believe that?

How about we test that idea starting with the U.S. Senate? Would South Carolina get the same representation from someone randomly selected out of the phone book? As Lindsey Graham would say, the Senate isn’t defined by its people. It’s really just an idea. And as soon as you start defining things by ideas rather than individuals, people become irrelevant.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.