By Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson highlights the COVID policies in Australia, and discusses how they may be coming to the United States. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By John Mac Ghlionn

In the United States, millennials and gen Zers get a bad name. They are little more than narcissists and snowflakes, we’re told. Although I loathe the term “millennial,” I must admit that I am indeed one. Do I happen to be a narcissistic snowflake? Here, I must plead the fifth.

However, all is not lost. A new generation composed of conscientious, morally upright individuals has emerged. This generation, aptly labeled generation N, puts the concerns of their country, rather than their own, first. The “N” here stands for nationalism. Sadly, these nationalists are located in China, not the U.S.

In an intriguing piece for the South China Morning Post, Jun Mai and Amber Wang discuss these nationalists in great detail. Young and unapologetic, this generation is hyper-vocal and hyper-nationalistic. Inspired by the Chinese Communist Party, generation N are loyal disciples, staunch defenders of their country, and they don’t care who knows. In fact, they want the world to know how great China really is.

For millions of people outside of China, “nationalist” has become one of the dirtiest words imaginable. To voice one’s support for nationalist policies is to be deemed irredeemably racist. Only xenophobes and “deplorables” could ever utter it in a positive manner. The president of Germany, no doubt aware of his country’s rather controversial past, once called nationalism an “ideological poison.” It’s not. The only “poison” involves the misconceptions around nationalism.

After all, what is nationalism but one’s desire to identify with his or her own nation? It is possible to love your country without loving those in power. I’m sure many readers love the U.S. but have no intention of sending President Biden a Christmas card. By love, I don’t mean a crying John Boehner, flag-hugging kind of love. Perhaps pride is a better word. One can be proud of one’s country without being proud of its leaders.

Nationalism, by its very definition, involves loyalty to one’s nation, rather than any particular ideological group. Contrary to popular belief, nationalism, in its purest form, involves unity, rather than division. Here, it is important to differentiate between national conservatism and national populism. The latter I have little interest in discussing, as in my judgment it is low-hanging fruit, where demagoguery merges with opportunism. By emphasizing and exploiting an us versus them narrative, populists divide a nation.

National conservatism, on the other hand, is certainly worth discussing, as it seeks to promote traditional values. It appeals to the most human of qualities: the idea of traditional family values, religion, the importance of marriage, and the importance of community. With the atomization of society, all of these values are disappearing from American society. Now, everything appears to be viewed through an intersectional prism. Secular sectarianism reigns supreme. Who benefits when the U.S. is so divided? Not your average American, that’s for sure.

In the aforementioned South China Morning Post piece, Mai and Wang document the ways in which this …read more

Via:: American Conservative

By David Marcus With the negotiations over the $3.5T spending plan, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona is very much in the news today. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By David Bossie President Biden is determined to ram his risky spending program down the throats of the American people on rigid partisan lines, no matter the fall out. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By Joe Concha The Fox News contributor breakd down some of Texas Lieutenant Governor candidate Matthew Dowd’s now-deleted tweets. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By David Ditch Speaking of the tax-and-spend package being pushed through Congress, President Biden on Friday said, “It is zero price tag on the debt.” This is flatly wrong, and it isn’t even close. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By Michael Merkley Every president of the United States is faced with critical decisions. Nominating individuals to serve in government is among the most consequential. In order to be confirmed and to be effective, nominees must gain the trust of the American people. President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violates that trust. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By Karol Markowicz It’s surprising that blue Palm Beach County is involved in such a passionate fight regarding the masking of children in schools. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By Greg Gutfeld We’re in a destruction loop. Government creates a problem, then demands money to pay for it. It’s like the guy that breaks 50 storefront windows and then opens a glass company the next day. That’s our government. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

By Ted Galen Carpenter

A festering disagreement between the United States and several European allies, especially France and Germany, about whether to make Ukraine a member of NATO is yet another issue producing a chill in transatlantic relations. The disagreement is long-standing, and Washington’s behavior exemplifies its barely concealed contempt for even the most significant NATO partners. Even though opposition from Paris and Berlin (as well as some other European capitals) continues to thwart Kiev’s bid for formal membership, U.S. policy has made NATO’s relationship with Ukraine functionally equivalent to a security guarantee under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The United States is pursuing an arrogant, unwise, and potentially very dangerous policy.

The split between Washington and both Paris and Berlin about admitting Ukraine to NATO emerged clearly in 2008 when President George W. Bush lobbied ferociously for extending such an invitation. French and German leaders firmly opposed that step at the NATO summit. In her memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was especially outspoken, dismissing Ukraine as a “corrupt mess” and warning that a membership offer would dangerously provoke Russia. The allied opposition held, and the best that Bush could come away with was a summit declaration affirming that “someday” Ukraine would become a NATO member. However, there was no timetable, and even more important, the summit did not approve a Membership Action Plan (MAP) that would lead to such a timetable.

U.S. leaders did not give up, however, nor did Kiev. Barack Obama’s administration continued a campaign to admit Ukraine to the alliance, and although Donald Trump displayed less overt enthusiasm for that step, his administration remained officially committed to the position. Kiev’s lobbying effort continued as well. In 2018, then-President Petro Poroshenko pressed NATO to approve a MAP promptly.

Since Joe Biden became president, the efforts by Ukraine and its admirers in the United States to secure membership have increased. In February, the slavishly pro-Ukraine Atlantic Council of the United States highlighted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s plaintive question: “Why is Ukraine still not in NATO?” The Council featured an article by Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dymytro Kuleba, making the case that correcting that situation was long overdue. In September, Zelenskiy pressed Biden to increase his efforts to secure NATO membership for his country. “If we are talking about NATO and the MAP, I would really like to get (from Biden) specifics – yes or no,” Zelenskiy said. “We must get clear dates and the likelihood of this for Ukraine.”

As did his two immediate predecessors, Biden has tried to dodge the issue of Ukraine’s formal membership in the Alliance. One of his reasons is the same one that Merkel cited 13 years ago: Ukraine is still a corrupt mess. Indeed, not only is corruption in Ukraine at least as bad as it was at that time, but the current regime in Kiev exhibits …read more

Via:: American Conservative