From the article -- Hanson points out that Donald Trump is not a 1930s “isolationist.” Rather, he is in the Jacksonian tradition, reluctant to go to war but, once aroused, fierce. This attitude, Walter Russell Mead explained some years ago, represents the normal American posture in foreign affairs, but it was replaced by containment in the post World War II years when nuclear weapons brought about a risk of mutual assured destruction, a way of saying victory in warfare was impossible, or meaningless.
The strategic doctrines that grew out of this conventional wisdom produced an almost textbook case of diminishing returns for U.S. engagement in global affairs. Observe in passing that such engagement was by no means novel, nor was it in contradiction with the Founders’ prudence. No entangling alliances, said they, no searching for dragons to destroy. Yet the early presidents kept their eyes on international affairs, alert to dangers and opportunities.
2) “Is J.D. Vance Right about Europe?” (Christopher Caldwell, Imprimus)
From the article -- Vice President J.D. Vance’s first major assignment from Donald Trump was to join a bunch of European leaders who thought of themselves as our close allies—and to read them the riot act. This happened at the Munich Security Conference on February 14. Instead of discussing armaments and armies, Vance said: “The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia. It’s not China. It’s the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” Europe, according to Vance, had become hostile to free speech. It was hostile to free speech because it was hostile to democracy. And you could measure its hostility to democracy by the fact that for 50 years European voters had kept asking for less immigration and had kept getting more of it. Vance admitted that it reminded him a bit of the United States.
Is Vance right about Europe and the West more generally?
3) “The arc of history does not simply bend toward justice” (Adrian Wooldridge, Jewish World Review)
From the article -- The illusion of history begetting justice is terrifying for two reasons. The first is it encourages a false sense of confidence that is often counterproductive. The Democrats' confidence that history was on their side led them to underestimate Trump so badly that they stuck with Joe Biden even though it was obvious that his powers were fading. This confidence also led the party to endorse a collection of unpopular causes, which might be conveniently lumped together as "wokery," on the grounds that they were the contemporary equivalent of the civil rights movement. To hell with the people who question these causes even if they happen to be the numerical majority.
Before that, the same confidence persuaded the U.S. establishment, Republican as much as Democrat, to embrace China with open arms, subcontracting much of America's manufacturing to the People's Republic, even though the Leninists who ran the regime were determined to replace the U.S. as the world's leading military and industrial power.
The second reason it's terrifying is it encourages people to subcontract their moral judgments to history. Most progressives did not treat the problem of transgender people's rights as a nuanced moral issue that involved the careful balancing of the rights of biological women against trans women or an even more careful consideration of the potential harms of powerful drugs or invasive surgery. They simply rushed to be on "the right side of history." The notion of the moral arc encourages groupthink and all the blindness and bullying that comes with it.
It is far healthier to treat history as an open-ended process that is made by individuals who have to wrestle with their own moral judgments rather than go with the supposedly progressive flow.
4) “A Failed Worldly ‘Strategy’: Shallow Entertainment And Compromise Isn’t Keeping Young People In Churches” (Ken Ham, Harbinger's Daily)
From the article – “I’ve often shared the statistic that two-thirds of young people will leave the church by the time they reach college age—and very few return. I was reminded of this recently when I saw a post someone shared on social media that said:
“Fact: 70–88% of youth born in evangelical homes leave the faith after one year in a secular college. Maybe. Just maybe. We start to focus on more doctrine, more ability to explain what and why they believe, and less performance, less trend, less show, less entertainment.”
Now, I’ve basically been saying the same thing for years—decades! There’s been such a focus in American churches on entertaining young people so they’ll want to come to church and very little emphasis on doctrine, theology, apologetics, and the gospel.
So many young people grow up with a shallow faith, no answers to the skeptical questions of our day, and a worldview foundation that says man determines truth (the same foundation our culture has). But what’s ironic is that when I speak to young people, I find they are so hungry for answers! They love the rich and authoritative teaching from God’s Word. They’re tired of the shallow entertainment they’ve been fed—they want “meat”!
5) “Zionism Has Been Vindicated” (John Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine)
From the article -- The Zionist “experiment” is no longer an experiment. Israel is now a reality. It will endure, as the Jewish people have endured. The meaning of the attack on Iran is unmistakable. Israel will not allow itself to be wiped off the earth, and it will not allow the Jewish people to cower in terror at their future. And it will thrive, as successful nations that defend themselves from evil and prevail in the wake of it always thrive.
Consider: Israel has gone from being one of the poorest countries on this earth to one of the richest over the course of its nearly 80 years of existence. It is all but alone among the advanced societies to be replenishing and reproducing itself with a birthrate more than double that of Western Europe. Israel sees a future and is building that future, and one of the ways it is ensuring that future is by eliminating the threats to its future.
From the article -- Students who miss at least 10% of the school year, or roughly 18 days, are considered chronically absent. Malkus goes on to explain that in 2018 and 2019, about 15% of K–12 public school students in the U.S. were chronically absent—a number so high that numerous observers and the U.S. Department of Education are labeling it a “crisis.” In total, nearly one in twelve public schools in the United States has experienced a “substantial” enrollment decline over the last five years.
The problem is especially egregious in our big cities. In Los Angeles, more than 32% of students were chronically absent in the 2023-2024 school year. In Chicago, dwindling enrollment has left about 150 schools half-empty, while 47 operate at less than one-third capacity. Additionally, schools identified by their states as chronically low-performing were more than twice as likely to experience sizable enrollment declines as other public schools.
In February 2025, FutureEd disclosed that data from 22 states and the District of Columbia for the 2023-24 school year show significant differences across grade levels, with absenteeism particularly severe in high school.
Other important reads:
* “The SAT’s Trust Fall: Legacy standardized-testing firms are cutting rigor to please students.” (Michael Torres, James G. Martin Center)
* “The Persistent Presence of Absence: The public school exodus continues unabated.” (Larry Sand, American Greatness)
* “Battle for Free Speech: EU -- Europe Deploys Its Artillery: Mainstream media and European elites collude to silence dissent.” (Thomas Kolbe
* “Britain has fallen to the technocratic death cult. In backing ‘assisted dying’, MPs have given the state a licence to kill.” (Brendan O'Neill, spiked!)
* “Green Energy: Terrible For the Environment” (John Hinderaker, Power Line)
