What happened? On the one hand, we know what happened: nothing. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone in his 2016 campaign, family, or businesses “colluded” with Russia or with any other foreign power to steal the 2016 election. But, really, we knew this already. By “we” I here mean anyone not insane and/or in
Over the last three evenings, Americans watched Tucker Carlson refuse to be cowed by the sophisticated, well-funded, coordinated information operation designed to chase him off the air and make him unemployable for life. One of the points he’s raised, not so much in his own defense, but rather as a counteroffensive against his
Let’s be completely clear here. Nobody—least of all the leftwing mobs attacking Tucker Carlson right now—cares what he said on the radio a decade ago. Except to the extent that his words can be wrapped around his neck like a noose. All the feigned outrage is exactly that: feigned. David Brock and his
In September 2016, the Claremont Review of Books published Michael Anton’s essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” which became one of the most controversial and discussed essays of that most extraordinary election year. This month, Encounter Books published After the Flight 93 Election: The Vote that Saved America and What We Still Have to
The silver lining of the Kavanaugh show trial, if one may be allowed to speak of such a thing, is that a great many formerly less-than-reliable conservatives finally understand. They have come to realize what the Left has in store for them, for us, and for the nation. Many, but not all. If
And the “debate” rages on. Mostly in nitpicky and unproductive directions. But a new attack by Robert Tracinski raises the grave and misunderstood question of the social compact, and so provides an opportunity to reorient ourselves around a true understanding of first principles.But first, to Tracinski’s lesser points. He accuses me of “doctor[ing’]” a quote on the
President Trump is, as ever, fortunate in his enemies. Whatever one thinks of what he said in Helsinki, the overreaction is helping him plow through yet another media meltdown. Cries of “treason,” charges that the president is a Russian “asset,” and insistence that remarks at a press conference constitute impeachable offenses fire up
IMMIGRATION CARTOON, 1891--WHERE THE BLAME LIES. JUDGE (TO UNCLE SAM): "IF IMMIGRATION WAS PROPERLY RESTRICTED, YOU WOULD NO LONGER BE TROUBLED WITH ANARCHY, SOCIALISM, THE MAFIA AND SUCH KINDRED EVILS!" Sometimes fate tosses you a softball. Recently, I drafted an op-ed asking whether the United States actually needs more people. Is
As Capitol Hill Republicans attempt for—what, the eighth? ninth?—time in the past two decades to jam through an amnesty that their voters have explicitly, loudly and repeatedly said they do not want, it’s worth asking a question that is rarely raised: Does the United States—population 320 million and rising—need more people? If so,
