15 hours ago –.icon+span]:ml-2 [&>span+.icon]:ml-2 gtmContentClick !inline ml-0.5 hover:underline focus:underline” href=”https://www.axios.com/politics-policy”>Politics & Policy

• .icon+span]:ml-2 [&>span+.icon]:ml-2 gtmContentClick” href=”https://www.axios.com/authors/zbasu”>Zachary Basu

Tucker Carlson used a highly promoted livestream Wednesday to unveil a 10-point vision for America — defining the worldview of a breakaway MAGA faction increasingly at odds with President Trump.

Why it matters: After vowing last month to “help build a third party,” Carlson fueled further speculation this weekend by hosting MAGA dissidents at his home in Maine, where they urged him to run for president in 2028.

The former Fox News host stopped short of a formal launch, instead presenting the manifesto as the foundation for “whatever comes next” — a new political order he said could “find all kinds of expressions.

“Zoom in: Carlson said any successor to America’s faltering political system should begin with a shared understanding of what the country “should be,” which he distilled into 10 points.

Fair: The same rules should apply to presidents, federal agents and elites such as Jeffrey Epstein, whose impunity Carlson cast as emblematic of an “Epstein class” enriching itself through a corrupt system.

Sovereign: Carlson claimed Israel pushed the U.S. into the Iran war through “bribery or threat or both,” while describing foreign lobbying, corporate control of government and high-interest debt as forms of “slavery.

“Productive: America should rebuild farming, manufacturing and craftsmanship while rejecting an economy dominated by finance, real estate speculation, surveillance systems and weapons.

Beautiful: Carlson alleged that urban planners deliberately “uglified” American cities, and portrayed brutalist architecture, graffiti, public drug use and violent crime as deliberate attacks on the public.

Healthy: Carlson embraced RFK Jr.’s food agenda, called for universal sobriety and said widespread use of drugs such as Xanax, Adderall and SSRIs had left Americans “half-addled.

“Honest: Government officials should be punished for lying to citizens, and most classified records — including on the JFK assassination and 9/11 — should be opened.

Optimistic: Carlson argued that having children is a biological imperative and the foundation of long-term thinking, while blaming aging and childless elites for policies that disregard future generations.

Wise: Schools should teach how the physical world actually works and what he called unchanging facts about human nature — including innate differences between men and women — rather than credentials, screens and technological fads.

Decent: The U.S. should apologize and pay restitution for killing noncombatants, reverse Trump’s “Department of War” rebrand and stop funding allies that commit what Carlson called genocide, citing Israel.

United: Carlson called for halting immigration until the effects of AI become clearer, ending benefits for undocumented immigrants and making English the sole language of federal documents and ballots.

The big picture: Carlson has become the intellectual hub for a small but vocal faction of MAGA exiles who say Trump abandoned the “America First” agenda by launching the Iran war, mishandling the Epstein files and allowing Israel to exert too much influence over U.S. policy.The loose group includes former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Thomas Massie and Joe Kent, who resigned as Trump’s counterterrorism chief in March to protest the war.The White House dismissed them as an “embarrassing collection of mostly whiny turncoats who dramatically overestimate their influence and relevance,” while declaring Trump the “unequivocal leader” of the Republican Party.

The headlines focus on negotiations, but the war’s real story is this: Iran is steadily being broken by sanctions, isolation, and relentless military pressure.

By Victor Davis Hanson

August 6, 2026

One day, the United States seems ready to unleash a Curtis LeMay-style devastating bombing campaign of Iran. The next, it appears trapped in endless haggling with Iranian dissimulators.

Of the roughly 150 days since the first strike, about 90 have passed without major military operations.

Iran believes time is on its side. The Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, gas prices are too high, and antiwar House Democrats seem poised to win the midterms and bring Trump’s war to a halt.

Trump, by contrast, believes Iran can talk all it wants while sanctions, embargoes, and military pressure steadily weaken the regime.

The war has become so politicized in an election year that several basic realities have gone largely unnoticed by the media.

First, the cycle of bombing, pausing, negotiating, and bombing again may seem endless. But the confusion obscures the continuing effects of the embargoes, sanctions, blockade, and financial isolation imposed on Iran. Together, they are costing the theocracy more than $400 million a day in lost revenue, money that it can ill afford to lose. By haggling, Iran believes it can run out the clock until the midterms, but it may be only prolonging its own miserable situation.

Second, so far the bombing has not descended into a ground war. There are no embedded reporters and few Western journalists in Iran. So the world knows little about the true extent of the damage to the Iranian regime and its military-industrial-nuclear complex.

Nor do we know the mood of the once-restive Iranian street. But whether or not there are future allied military attacks, tensions will only increase as Iran runs out of money and basic goods. Whatever the outcome of negotiations or further combat operations, the Iranian military and economy have already been wrecked and will take years to rebuild.

Third, however the war ends, Iran will remain at a terrible disadvantage for years in dealing with the neighbors it has so gratuitously attacked. The regime currently has no effective combat aircraft or air defenses—and no allies.

In contrast, the Gulf states can field more than 700 combat aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Rafales, Mirages, and Tornados. Israel has another 300, including late-model F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s. U.S. bases in the Middle East are home to some 300 more, including F-22s, F-35s, F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s—not counting carrier-based aircraft.

In sum, the United States and its allies have some 1,300 late-model combat aircraft in the region. They should therefore be able to hit Iran hard for years to come if it resumes drone and missile attacks against its rivals.

Fourth, Iran’s problems will not end when the United States declares victory and sends most of its forces home. The regime has lost a half-century and half a trillion dollars in military and nuclear investment. Until the United States lifts its sanctions and embargoes, Iran cannot rearm. And if it eventually does rearm and again tries to supply its Arab terrorist clients in its “ring of fire” around Israel, its destitute people will grow furious at a disgraced and humiliated regime for diverting the nation’s wealth abroad.

Fifth, several unforeseen developments ahead of the impending midterms—more favorable gerrymandering in red states than in blue ones, the Supreme Court’s ruling against racial redistricting, a substantial Republican fundraising advantage, and the capture of the Democratic Party by near-lunatic radical socialists—may offer Republicans a narrow path to retaining control of Congress. That possibility has added urgency to the administration’s choice: negotiate one final time or use overwhelming force to inflict still greater damage on the Iranian economy.

Sixth, air supremacy and the normal rotation of U.S. naval forces through the Middle East, together with help from the Gulf states and naval contingents from European and Asian oil-importing nations, could keep the strait open if they decide to do so. And they may need to do so for only another year or two, by which time the strait may become far less important to oil exports.

Iran’s efforts to close the strait have already accelerated the expansion of existing pipelines and the construction of new ones that will bypass the strait and connect the oil fields directly to the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean.

Bottom line?

Iran is losing whether it is being bombed, sanctioned, or embargoed—or all three. Its ultimate fate now rests with the Trump administration, which apparently has not yet decided what, exactly, that fate will be.

Victor Davis Hanson

“Democrats have no intention of indulging this political creepshow.”

Hank Berrien•Aug 5, 2026

Democratic members of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee announced Tuesday that they will refuse to participate in a hearing on Wednesday focused on Muslim Brotherhood networks within the United States.

The boycott targets a session organized by Federal Courts Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX), titled “Hidden in Plain Sight: Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood Network in America.” The proceeding aligns with broader initiatives by national and state Republicans aimed at cracking down on the group, which includes proposals to classify its various branches as terrorist organizations.

In a joint statement, Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Peter Welch (D-VT) sharply criticized the panel’s focus, writing, “Scapegoating Muslims may be a Texas Republican strategist’s idea of ‘solid gold’ to whip up their voters, but Democrats have no intention of indulging this political creepshow, particularly after the recent violence targeting places of faith. Our focus is the costs families face thanks to rampant, non-stop Trump corruption.”

Responding to news of the planned walkout, a spokesman for Cruz dismissed the Democrats’ decision, indicating that the boycott was expected.

The hearing’s scheduled witness list features several counterterrorism and legal policy experts, including former FBI Special Agent Lara Burns, who is currently with George Washington University’s Program on Extremism; Arielle Klepach, senior counsel at the National Jewish Advocacy Center; and Kyle Shideler, a homeland security analyst at the Center for Security Policy.

In January 2026, the Trump administration officially designated three Middle Eastern branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist entities: the Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood.

Last year, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy published a landmark report and companion analytical briefing titled “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Entryism into Western Society: A Systematic Analysis.”

The report examined how the Muslim Brotherhood executes a long-term, non-violent strategy aimed at embedding Islamist ideology within Western social, political, and academic institutions.

The report cited authenticated internal documents (notably the 1982 “Project” and the 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum” recovered during U.S. law enforcement actions).

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy identified four primary arenas where the Muslim Brotherhood tries to gain entry:

Influencing government and politics: They build connections with government officials and lawmakers by presenting themselves as normal civil rights, religious, or human rights groups. They also team up with progressive or non-religious political groups when they share common goals, helping them gain trust and political power.

Targeting colleges and students: They try to shape what is taught in universities, who gets hired as professors, and what research gets done. They use hidden money from Middle Eastern countries (like Qatar) to fund college programs and influence classes on world politics. They also work with student activist groups to make anti-Western and anti-Israel ideas seem normal on campus.

Using the legal system: They use democratic laws and anti-discrimination rules to fight against police oversight and government terrorism investigations. They also use lawsuits to quiet their critics by claiming that any criticism of their political movement is just religious hatred or bigotry.

Controlling the media and storyline: They try to control public opinion by making people feel that criticizing political Islam is the same thing as being prejudiced against all Muslims. At the same time, they build their own network of community centers, private schools, and charities to keep control over local Muslim communities and preserve their identity.

A growing anti-Muslim movement is gaining traction in Japan.

When most people think of Japan, they don’t picture a country with a significant Islamic presence or a growing number of mosques. But the reality may surprise them.

Japan has long been viewed as one of the few remaining countries willing to fiercely protect its national identity, traditions, and culture.

What many of us didn’t realize was that the left had been quietly working its way in all along… just take a look at these numbers.

East Asia Forum:

Japan’s Muslim community has grown rapidly to around 420,000 people

What Japan is experiencing now is similar to what the United States and other Western nations went through decades ago. The country is only beginning to feel the effects of growing Islamic migration, and the political battle lines are already being drawn between the right and the left.

The blip below shows how Japan’s left is now borrowing very familiar Western talking points to promote “diversity” and push for a permanent migrant population.

East Asia Forum:

[…] but intense opposition to a mosque construction in Fujisawa in 2025 illustrates how anti-Muslim sentiment is becoming more organised and politically emboldened, fuelled by social media misinformation and right-wing politicians seeking electoral advantage. Without a coherent national approach to immigration that equips local governments to manage diversity and counters hate speech effectively, Japan risks allowing local flashpoints to define its relationship with an increasingly permanent migrant population.

When you research this topic, you find one article after another that uses these Western left-wing buzzwords and talking points regarding Japan’s concerns over the Muslim invasion.

Manichi:

Discrimination toward foreign residents in Japan has expanded from Koreans and Kurds to Muslims as their population has estimated to have nearly doubled in recent years, according to observers and community members.

Misinformation and hate speech are spreading on Japanese social media, and mosques are receiving a barrage of abusive phone calls and emails.

Some are asking why they are suddenly being targeted. Others are afraid to leave their homes.

Muslims in Japan, including foreign residents and Japanese believers, numbered roughly 420,000 at the end of 2024, up from 230,000 in 2019, according to Hirofumi Tanada, a professor emeritus at Waseda University who studies the faith in Japan. There are now over 160 mosques nationwide.

It’s almost as if the people of Japan don’t stand a chance. Just like everybody in the West, they’ll be guilted, bullied, and threatened into accepting “diversity.”

But as we said earlier, the backlash is growing louder and stronger.

Many Japanese citizens, including a surprising number of young people, don’t want mosques or Muslim cemeteries built in their communities, and they’re now taking to the streets to fight back against this failed “diversity” scheme.

VIDEO AT LINK………………….

Japanese citizens asking what’s happening to their country have every right to be heard.

There’s nothing hateful about loving your own culture, protecting your traditions, or wanting the country your children inherit to remain yours. Japan has spent centuries building a distinct national identity, and many people are now asking why preserving that identity is suddenly treated as something shameful or “racist.”

Why is every nation being pushed toward the same borderless, blended, global culture?

And why is Japan now facing the same political battle over mass migration and Islamafication that has already transformed the Western world?

To many of these protesters, it feels like an experiment that started without their consent. Japan remained one of the few countries that fiercely guarded its traditions, social cohesion, and national character. Now, some are wondering whether that very resistance made it the next target.

Breitbart News

During Tuesday’s National Night Out Against Crime on Staten Island, Mamdani received loud jeers and profanities as he approached to speak, lasting under a minute before leaving. The chilly welcome contrasted with warmer receptions in other boroughs, where he polled stronger than his 23.1 percent on the Island. Amid the tension, activist Scott LoBaido suffered cardiac arrest onsite, revived by NYPD officers and volunteers before hospitalization. Mamdani continues citywide events, highlighting record-low crime stats with police leaders.

X

I don’t believe most Democratic voters have a problem with this kind of thing. Many of them cheer it. That’s why the overtly psychotic tyrants are taking the Democratic Party by storm, across the country. Even if some Democratic voters dislike it, they will still vote for ANY Democrat, including these, over any Republican. All they care is that we don’t get Trump, or any Republican who actually keeps his promises. Once enough of these deranged, evil individuals are in power, it will be too late to avoid the civil war or similar breakdown that’s likely coming. Republicans: Don’t be so sure Republicans will start winning blue states as Democrats move more left than ever seen in human history. Do not underestimate just how much Democrat voters despise Republicans, not just Trump.

NO THANKS (from Newsmax, more on the future Governor Wong): Wisconsin Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong defended her past call to “cancel Thanksgiving,” saying the holiday remains “a time that’s incredibly painful for many people in our communities.”

Exactly what would canceling Thanksgiving look like? It’s not mandatory. You are free to ignore Thanksgiving. Does this Democratic Party candidate seek to send the FBI into people’s homes and seize their turkeys and candied sweet potato? Will people be fined or arrested if they post on social media, or say out in public, “Happy Thanksgiving”? Once the precedent is set for this with Thanksgiving, who or what will be next?

Democrat voters: This is your party. These are the people you are supporting.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

I’m not what you’d call a keen observer of the political climate in our country, but I do pay attention, broadly, to what’s going on within our two parties. Watching the latest from Bill Maher, I was reminded of how we struggle to reconcile our support for an idea we might like, if it’s promoted by a politician we hate. And vice versa. Here though, we have an opportunity – Democrats, in particular – to speak out loudly and clearly against an ideology that has been proven, demonstrably, to be a really bad idea.

It’s alarming to see how quickly communism has been embraced by so many, but it’s even more alarming, to see how many have yet to condemn it, in favor of sheltering under a “big tent.” This week, Gavin Newsom dismissed concerns over Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and progressive candidates winning key primaries, stating he would gladly campaign for them. He argued that the party must be in the “addition, not subtraction business” to retake control of Congress.

Not that anyone asked me, but…wow. The candidates that Newsom is referring to here are not subtle. They have clearly articulated precisely what they want, and exactly what they will try to accomplish if they gain power. No borders. No police. No prisons. No Senate. From each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities, and so forth. They are literally quoting Karl Marx, and they are literally on the record as desiring to completely dismantle our government and replace it with actual communism. And the Governor of California says he will campaign on their behalf, if doing so will result in a Congressional win. Truly amazing.

Seems to me, that this is best opportunity Democrats will ever have to make some kind of reasonable appeal to Independents, and those not on board with this administration. This is a chance to affirmatively distance themselves from an ideology that has caused more human suffering than any other scheme dreamt up by man. And yet, they have not.

I understand how unpopular President Trump is in the eyes of many. But if the DSA continues to grow in popularity, and the Democrats actually campaign on their behalf, I think it’ll be the largest political blunder in my lifetime. Unless of course, I’m wrong, and the DSA expands to swallow the Democratic Party, and communism winds up on the ballot. In which case, Ronald Reagan’s warning will haunt us all.

“Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.” Ronald Reagan

The Real Mike Rowe, X

Dearborn mosque leader threatens to resign. Niraj Warikoo. Updated Jan. 25, 2015. The religious leader of the Islamic Center of America — a landmark religious institution in metro Detroit that’s one of Michigan’s biggest mosques — said Friday he would resign unless the board of trustees dissolves.

The dramatic announcement by Imam Hassan Qazwini to his packed congregation was met by cries of support from members pleading for him to stay and reflects an intense debate in one of the most notable mosques in the United States over finances and what is permissible under Islam.

Imam Hassan Qazwini’s opponents have accused him of using donations to the mosque for family projects and of having an illicit relationship, charges he strongly denies.

A nationally known Muslim leader, Qazwini announced he was stepping down during his Friday afternoon sermon, the most popular gathering time for Muslims. Afterward, when members asked him to stay, Qazwini said he would reconsider if the board dissolves.

“The entire board has to be dissolved, with the exception of the founding fathers” of the mosque, Qazwini said, according to a recording of his sermon. “The entire system has to be dissolved. The by-laws have to be dissolved.”

Qazwini’s announcement came after a tumultuous past few months that saw anonymous letters accusing him of diverting mosque money for his father’s projects in Iraq. Qazwini’s critics want the money instead to retire the remaining debt of the mosque and to help for projects in other countries, such as Lebanon. A majority of the congregation is of Lebanese descent, while Qazwini is of Iraqi descent.

The letters also accused Qazwini, who is married, of having a relationship with a woman through an arrangement in Shia Islam known as mutah (temporary marriage), which allows a man away from his wife to have sex with another woman that may involve a payment.

At a packed event at the mosque Friday night where Qazwini was scheduled to speak to youth, he strongly denied both of the allegations contained in the letters, which were mailed last year to the homes of Muslims who attend the mosque.

“I’m not going to take it anymore,” he said, adding that some Lebanese board members are racist toward Iraqis and called them “selfish.”

“Remove this cancer,” he said of the those board members. “We need to stand up.”

There were three sets of letters, mailed from October to December, said mosque members. They also appeared on the windshields of cars parked outside the mosque during a religious service in November.

“Qazwini is the main obstacle which prevent the payment of all the debt,” one of the letters reads in part. It said that Qazwini “takes the … contributions and revenues” and gives them to his father, a religious leader in Iraq who runs a hospital and orphanage in Iraq.

The letters also criticized Qazwini for naming Ron Amen as chair of the board, saying he was not an observant Muslim. Amen and Kassem Allie, executive administrator of the mosque, did not return calls seeking comment.

On Nov. 28, supporters of Qazwini held a rally outside the mosque, which sits off Ford Road in Dearborn. It’s one of the oldest Islamic congregations in Michigan and has become known as an icon of Islam in the United States.

After Qazwini announced Friday in Arabic he was leaving, some in the audience started to cry out their support, including Moussa Hamka, principal at Grosse Pointe South High School. Hamka then spoke at the mosque in support of Qazwini.

“The community rallied in support of him,” Hamka said afterward. “There was an unprecedented amount of support at the Friday prayers. … The community supports the imam. We’re not going to allow the status quo to continue.”

In Philadelphia, the country’s second-poorest big city, the demand for deeply affordable rental housing is a constant.

To better meet that need, the Philadelphia Housing Authority launched an ambitious — and costly — plan to remake and expand its vast real estate portfolio. Over eight years, the agency estimates it will spend $6.3 billion to preserve, redevelop, build or acquire roughly 20,000 subsidized units.

That translates to an average unit cost of about $315,000 — more than the market value of many Philadelphia homes.

Labor Costs
* Regulations(Approvals Take 2–3 Years)
* Rent limits (prevent self-funding repairs)
* Because of all the above buildings become so dilapidated rehabs costs have soared.

Artificially inflate costs with taxes and regulations
Artificially inflate labor costs with minimum wage
Increase the need with illegal immigrants
Decrease the available housing via regulation.

Viola! 315000-dollar boxes as living spaces.

History shows that mere dissatisfaction with the government is not enough—and that we can prevent a government collapse through our own constitutional and ethical conduct.

Allan J. Feifer | August 5, 2026

Note: This essay is not a call for armed resistance. Instead, it examines historical situations that justify such resistance, as well as the non-violent values and actions conservatives can immediately use to prevent the need for armed resistance from arising.)

Throughout history, free societies have wrestled with an uncomfortable question: Is there ever a time when citizens have a moral duty to resist their own government? The question matters because America is not immune from decline. We are retreating, overtaken by what increasingly resembles a cult, one built around the destructive moral impulses Gad Saad describes in Suicidal Empathy.

Not only are the barbarians and lunatics at the gate; many now seemingly seek their “leadership.”

Rigor, reason, and resolve can only take us so far. There comes a moment when simply talking about our problems isn’t enough, and our best thinking virtues can no longer ensure our survival. As a society, we preach one thing and practice another when it comes to applying force to defend essential virtues.

Resistance should not be defined as dissatisfaction with elections, taxes, policies, or political opponents. A free society depends upon vigorous disagreement, constitutional processes, and the peaceful transfer of political power. Neither is resistance the refusal to obey laws simply because one believes them to be unjust or disagrees with those charged with enforcing them; we are beginning to see both.

In a constitutional republic, lawful remedies must be exhausted before the moral question of resistance can even arise. Not every unpopular law is tyranny, and not every political defeat is oppression. The threshold for legitimate resistance is intentionally set extraordinarily high because violence to reassert our constitutional rights carries terrible consequences.

Only when lawful institutions have ceased functioning according to their intended purpose, peaceful remedies have been exhausted, and government itself has become the principal instrument of systematic injustice, not its remedy, does the moral question of resistance deserve, even demand, consideration.

Across both Scripture and our founding traditions, the ethical use of force is never celebrated but is recognized as sometimes necessary to uphold justice and protect the innocent. The Bible consistently distinguishes between violence driven by malice and violence used to restrain evil: the “avenger of blood” in Deuteronomy, the communal defense of the oppressed in Proverbs 24:11, and in Romans 13 all frame force as a grave responsibility, not a license to trifle with. These principles underpin our Judeo-Christian tradition.

America’s Founders embraced a similar moral logic. Drawing heavily on natural law philosophy, they argued that governments exist to secure the people’s God-given rights and derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When government becomes destructive of those ends through a long train of abuses, the Declaration of Independence affirms that the people retain the right to alter or abolish it. If resistance wasn’t exactly what they had in mind, I’m lost.

This principle is not uniquely American. It runs through centuries of Western political thought. John Locke argued that people possess certain rights simply because they are human—life, liberty, and property. Governments do not create those rights; they exist in spite of and superior to government. Citizens establish governments through mutual consent to protect themselves, not in the reverse, to give up agency.

If government becomes the principal violator of those rights, Locke argued, the people retain the ultimate right to alter or abolish it. That principle is the philosophical foundation of the American Revolution and must remain a present-day expectation.

Our Judeo-Christian traditions reached a similar conclusion. Scripture consistently condemns violence undertaken for conquest, revenge, hatred, or personal gain while recognizing the legitimacy of force used to defend innocent life and restrain evil.

Augustine later developed these principles into Just War theory, arguing that force may become morally permissible only when the cause is just, peaceful alternatives have failed, the response is proportional, and the objective is the restoration of peace rather than revenge. The goal is always justice—not violence. I do disagree with his ideas regarding proportionality; they encourage some bad actors rather than deterring them, but otherwise I concur.

Most people already recognize that rights carry corresponding responsibilities. Parents have a duty to protect their children. Police have a duty to intervene when innocent people are attacked. Soldiers accept a duty to defend our nation. In each case, refusing to act when innocent lives are endangered is itself a moral failure.

That raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question. If individuals have a duty to protect innocent people from violent criminals, does a free people have a comparable duty when oppression originates from the government itself?

History offers interesting corollaries. During the Second World War, members of the French Resistance sabotaged railroads, gathered intelligence, hid Allied airmen and Jewish families, and fought an occupying regime that had extinguished lawful avenues of dissent. Their actions violated the laws imposed by Nazi authorities. Yet history remembers them not as criminals but as the patriots they were, because the government that demanded their obedience lacked moral legitimacy. We honor them today because they resisted tyranny when peaceful alternatives disappeared.

The lesson of both the American Revolution and the French Resistance is not that violence is noble, but that legitimacy matters more. Governments derive moral authority from protecting justice and liberty. When a government becomes the principal instrument of oppression and peaceful remedies have been exhausted, resistance may cease to be merely a right and become an actual obligation.

Some readers will likely misinterpret me, thinking this is a call to arms. It’s not. Real resistance begins long before physical force ever becomes imaginable. It begins with self-government, civic engagement, moral courage, honest speech, faithful citizenship, and a steadfast refusal to surrender the principles upon which constitutional government rests and the kind of principled engagement too few actually undertake.

Government is not a substitute for personal responsibility. We delegate, as appropriate, those decisions best made by representatives acting within constitutional constraints.

Those representatives must remain mindful of their duty to the citizens they serve, but in an even more profound sense, to the constitutional order and the traditions entrusted to them by our Founders and subsequent generations. Our fealty and fidelity must always be to the Constitution and the liberties it protects, because governments exist to preserve those principles—not to supplant them.

If we ever reach the point where resistance becomes morally necessary and defensible, every institution of self-government will already have failed. Our first obligation, therefore, is not to prepare for that day, but to preserve the constitutional order, civic virtue, and moral courage that ensure that day never arrives.

God Bless America.