Since 1900, the United States has been at war or engaged in major military conflicts for roughly 100 to 115 years. A few nations have participated in more conflicts, but that does not diminish the extraordinary amount of resources the United States has devoted to warfare over this period. These estimates come from reliable sources, including the Library of Congress and other authoritative conflict records. Some of these wars can be argued as justified. In my view, World War II, the Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan had legitimate grounds to some degree. Yet many other conflicts might have been resolved peacefully—or avoided entirely—had different choices been made. This does not mean the United States, or any nation, should retreat into isolationism. Global problems require global participation. When a nation removes itself from the table, it leaves space for authoritarian actors or non‑state armed groups to step in and shape outcomes. Beyond material costs, many sources estim...
Some time ago, I shared my belief on social media that the United States Constitution itself is not the problem; rather, it is the individuals who create and enforce laws who are misusing their power. However, a law professor challenged this view, arguing that there are indeed issues within the Constitution itself. He pointed out that the current political climate in the United States, particularly the actions of the President and his party, illustrates these constitutional shortcomings. When voters enter the polling booth, their choices are typically limited to two major parties. The dominance of these parties makes it difficult for third-party candidates to have a realistic chance of winning, except in some local elections. As a result, voting for a third-party candidate often feels like wasting a vote. This is a reality that many, including myself, have accepted on a personal level. For example, when William Buckley, a prominent conservative commentator many years ago, was asked...
The follow is my list of the grievances I have with President Trump and the Republican party. 1. Executive Overreach President Trump has asserted direct control over areas traditionally and constitutionally reserved for Congress. He uses executive orders as de facto legislation, directing agencies to implement the President’s personal agenda and not an agenda that is beneficial for the country. This expansion of unilateral authority bypasses the legislative process and weakens the separation of powers. 2. Failure of Congressional Oversight Congress has not exercised adequate oversight of the executive branch, enabling expansions of presidential authority in emergency powers, tariffs, immigration, and the use of acting officials. This neglect weakens the rule of law and undermines democratic accountability. 3. Misuse of National Emergency Powers The President has declared national emergencies without legitimate justification, using them to bolster executive orders rathe...
Comments
Post a Comment