Category: Politics

Justice or Order?

The Real Meaning Behind Hamilton’s Famous Quote

“I think the first duty of society is justice.”

It sounds like a modern plea for equity or fairness. You might expect to see it on a protest sign or in a civil rights essay. But when Alexander Hamilton wrote these words in August 1794, he wasn’t calling for social reform—he was calling for the army to march on American citizens.

To understand this quote, we have to look at the crisis that gave rise to it: the Whiskey Rebellion.

The Crisis

In the early 1790s, the young United States was fragile. To pay off war debts, Hamilton (as Treasury Secretary) had instituted an excise tax on distilled spirits. For farmers on the western frontier, whiskey wasn’t just a drink; it was a currency. They viewed the tax as tyranny.

By 1794, protests in Western Pennsylvania had turned violent. Tax collectors were tarred and feathered, and armed insurgents threatened to burn Pittsburgh. The authority of the federal government was crumbling.

The “Tully” Essays

Hamilton wrote a series of essays for the American Daily Advertiser under the pseudonym “Tully.” His goal was to convince the public—and President George Washington—that the government had a moral obligation to use military force to crush the insurrection.

In this context, Hamilton’s definition of “justice” was strictly legal and political. He wasn’t talking about fairness; he was talking about the Rule of Law.

Hamilton argued that:

  • In a republic, laws are made by representatives elected by the majority.
  • If a violent minority can simply choose to ignore those laws, the government has failed.
  • Therefore, the “first duty” of society is to enforce its laws (justice) to protect the peace and liberty of the law-abiding majority.

The Legacy

Hamilton’s argument won the day. George Washington personally led a militia force of nearly 13,000 men into Pennsylvania—the first and only time a sitting U.S. President has led troops in the field. The rebellion dissolved without a major battle.

When you quote Hamilton today, remember the context. He wasn’t arguing for the government to be nicer; he was arguing that a government that cannot enforce its will is no government at all. For Hamilton, justice was the iron wall standing between civilization and anarchy.

Primary Source: “Tully No. III” by Alexander Hamilton

Today’s Comic

Minnesota Democratic leaders, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have strongly condemned the shooting and rejected the DHS narrative. Walz called for a full state investigation, stating he’s seen footage that contradicts the federal account, and criticized the Trump administration’s approach. Frey went further, saying ICE is “causing chaos and distrust” and demanding they leave the city. Protests have ensued, with the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association calling for all leaders to tone down their rhetoric to prevent escalation.

Upholding the Supremacy Clause

Trump’s Bold Deportation Actions in Chicago and Charlotte Are Restoring Law and Order

In a time when America’s immigration system has been strained to the breaking point by years of lax enforcement, President Trump’s second administration is taking decisive action to secure our borders and protect our communities. Drawing on the ironclad authority of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the Trump team is overriding obstructive local policies in sanctuary cities and states, ensuring that federal immigration laws are upheld nationwide. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent operations in Chicago and Charlotte, where targeted deportations are not only legal but essential for public safety, economic fairness, and national security. Let’s break it down and see why these moves deserve our full support.

The Supremacy Clause: The Constitutional Backbone of Federal Immigration Power

At the heart of Trump’s deportation strategy lies Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution—the Supremacy Clause. This foundational provision declares that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land,” binding on all states regardless of conflicting local rules. In simple terms, when the federal government acts within its authority on immigration—a field the Supreme Court has long recognized as exclusively federal—states and cities cannot stand in the way.

This isn’t just theory; it’s been affirmed time and again by the courts. In landmark cases like *Arizona v. United States* (2012), the Supreme Court struck down state attempts to create their own immigration enforcement schemes, emphasizing federal preemption. Similarly, rulings during Trump’s first term, such as *United States v. California* (2018), clarified that while states can’t be forced to assist federal agents, they absolutely cannot obstruct them. This principle is now powering the administration’s efforts to dismantle sanctuary policies that have shielded criminal aliens and undermined public trust in the rule of law.

By invoking this authority, the Trump administration is fulfilling its mandate under federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and § 1231, which require the detention and removal of certain undocumented individuals. Recent court decisions, including those enjoining Biden-era non-enforcement policies, further reinforce that the executive branch has a duty to act—not an option to ignore congressional intent.

Chicago: Cracking Down on Sanctuary Obstruction and Protecting American Lives

Chicago, long a bastion of sanctuary city policies under Democratic leadership, has been a prime target for Trump’s renewed focus on deportations. In November 2025, the administration launched “Operation Midway Blitz,” a coordinated effort involving ICE and other federal agencies to apprehend and remove undocumented immigrants, many with criminal ties.

This operation has already led to the detention of hundreds, with a strong emphasis on those posing threats to community safety—despite misleading claims that “nearly all” had no criminal records, data shows a significant portion did, and all were in violation of federal immigration law.

Critics, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, have protested these actions, demonizing federal agents and the National Guard while leading chants against deportations.

Tragically, this rhetoric coincided with the heartbreaking loss of two National Guardsmen in the line of duty, underscoring the dangers of politicizing law enforcement.

But the Supremacy Clause cuts through the noise: Chicago’s sanctuary ordinances, which limit cooperation with ICE, cannot block federal operations. The administration has rightfully pushed back, using tools like withholding grants and direct federal intervention to ensure compliance.

The results speak for themselves. With over 500,000 deportations nationwide since January 2025, including many from high-crime areas like Chicago, violent incidents are declining—Chicago’s shootings are down 33% and homicides 25% compared to 2024.

By prioritizing the removal of violent gang members and other threats, Trump’s team is making streets safer for law-abiding citizens. This isn’t about politics; it’s about enforcing laws that protect Americans first.

Charlotte: Boosting Jobs, Easing Burdens, and Demonstrating Efficiency

Shifting south to Charlotte, North Carolina, the Trump administration’s “Operation Charlotte’s Web” has been a resounding success in demonstrating how federal supremacy can deliver tangible benefits.

Over just a few days in mid-November 2025, federal agents arrested more than 250 undocumented individuals, surging resources to target those straining local economies and infrastructure.

While some reports highlight that not all arrestees had criminal records, the operation aligns perfectly with federal priorities: removing those here illegally, regardless of additional crimes, to free up jobs and resources for Americans.

One unexpected upside? Charlotte’s notorious traffic woes are easing as construction sites and businesses, previously reliant on undocumented labor, now stand ready for American workers.

Entire job sites have opened up, creating opportunities for citizens and legal residents—proving that Trump’s “America First” approach isn’t just rhetoric; it’s revitalizing local economies.

Even as North Carolina Republicans express concerns about the scale, the operation’s swift conclusion shows the administration’s commitment to targeted, efficient enforcement without unnecessary disruption.

Here again, the Supremacy Clause reigns supreme. North Carolina’s more cooperative stance allowed for seamless federal action, but even in resistant areas, the Constitution empowers the president to bypass local hurdles. This operation has removed burdens on taxpayers, reduced competition for entry-level jobs, and sent a clear message: illegal presence won’t be tolerated.

Why These Actions Are Essential—and Why We Should Stand Behind Them

President Trump’s deportation initiatives in Chicago and Charlotte aren’t radical; they’re a return to constitutional order. For too long, sanctuary jurisdictions have flouted federal law, harboring individuals who drain resources and, in some cases, commit crimes that devastate families. By leveraging the Supremacy Clause, the administration is reclaiming control, deporting over 527,000 people since taking office, and aiming to deport even more.

This isn’t cruelty—it’s justice, ensuring that our laws apply equally and our communities thrive.

Opponents may cry foul, but the facts are clear: these operations are reducing crime, opening jobs, and upholding the rule of law. As Americans, we should applaud this courage and support the Trump administration’s efforts to make our nation safer and stronger. The Supremacy Clause isn’t just a legal tool—it’s the shield protecting our sovereignty. Let’s keep America great by enforcing it fully.

North Carolina Ends Cashless Bail

A Victory for Public Safety and Common Sense

On December 1, 2025, North Carolina officially shut down the dangerous experiment known as cashless bail. With the stroke of a pen, Governor Josh Stein signed “Iryna’s Law,” ending the practice of letting violent and repeat offenders walk free on a simple promise to show up in court later.

This reform was born out of tragedy. In August 2025, 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was riding the light-rail train in Charlotte when she was randomly stabbed to death in broad daylight. Her alleged killer? A man with a long rap sheet who had been released just months earlier on a written promise to appear after yet another arrest. No money posted. No GPS monitor. No real consequences. Just another catch-and-release cycle that ended with an innocent young woman murdered in a horrific, preventable attack.

Enough was enough.

“Iryna’s Law” eliminates written promises to appear, requires secured bonds or strict monitoring for violent crimes, and forces judges to put their reasoning in writing when they release dangerous defendants. It also adds mental-health screenings and accountability for magistrates who repeatedly put the public at risk.

The results speak for themselves: violent criminals will no longer be free to re-offend while awaiting trial. Communities—especially in high-crime areas like Charlotte—will finally get the protection they’ve been begging for. A recent Carolina Journal poll found that nearly three out of four North Carolinians support holding judges accountable when their lenient decisions result in more victims.

This isn’t about punishing poverty; it’s about punishing predators. Low-risk, non-violent defendants still have reasonable paths to pretrial release. But if you’re charged with a violent felony or you keep cycling through the system, society has a right—and now a legal duty—to keep you off the streets until your day in court.

Iryna Zarutska came to America seeking safety and a new life. She never got the chance to live it. Thanks to the courage of North Carolina lawmakers in passing this law, fewer families will have to endure the pain she now carries forever.

Rest in peace, Iryna. Your death was not in vain. North Carolina just became a safer place because of you.

Why Islam Is Incompatible with American Democracy

The United States is built on a secular Constitution that enshrines popular sovereignty, individual liberties, separation of church and state, and equality under man-made law. Orthodox Islamic doctrine, as understood by most classical and contemporary scholars, rejects these foundations in favor of God’s absolute rule through Sharia. Here are the core reasons for this irreconcilable clash:

Divine Sovereignty vs. “We the People”

The U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People” as the ultimate source of political authority. In orthodox Islam, sovereignty (hakimiyya) belongs exclusively to Allah. The Quran declares: “Legislation is not but for Allah” (12:40). Thinkers like Sayyid Qutb and Ayatollah Khomeini called man-made constitutions shirk (polytheism—because they place humans in the role of lawgiver. To an orthodox Muslim, swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution” (as required of officials and citizens) risks compromising tawhid if the Constitution ever conflicts with Sharia.

Sharia Supremacy vs. Constitutional Supremacy

Sharia is considered divine, eternal, and superior to any human document. Traditional rulings on apostasy (punishable by death), blasphemy, homosexuality, gender roles, inheritance, and interest banking directly contradict First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections. Even “moderate” applications often demand Sharia’s precedence: many American Muslim organizations (e.g., CAIR, ISNA) have historically supported the idea that the Quran, not the Constitution, is the highest authority for Muslims. A 2011 survey found significant minorities of U.S. Muslims believing Sharia should override the Constitution in certain matters.

No Separation of Religion and State

American democracy rests on the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses—no state religion, no religious test for office. Islam, in its classical form, is a total system (din) where religion and politics are inseparable. The goal of many orthodox movements is to establish Allah’s rule on earth. Implementing full American-style secularism is viewed as kufr (unbelief) by traditional scholars. As one prominent voice put it: “The mosque and state are one.”

Equality vs. Islamic Hierarchy

The Constitution guarantees equal protection and rejects religious discrimination. Traditional Sharia institutes legal inequality: non-Muslims (dhimmi status, jizya tax), women (half inheritance, testimony worth half a man’s), and mandates punishments (hudud) that violate “cruel and unusual” standards. LGBTQ rights, freedom to change religion, and unrestricted free speech (including criticizing Islam) are non-negotiable in America but prohibited under orthodox Sharia.

In short, while reformist or cultural Muslims can thrive under the Constitution by treating faith as private, orthodox Islam—committed to Sharia as Allah’s unchangeable law—views the core principles of American constitutional democracy as heretical. The two systems cannot fully coexist without one yielding to the other.