On the morning after the midterm elections of the third of November, 2026, while the votes were still being counted and the chiefs of the GOP were still taking the measure of their ruin, the Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, set down a message upon X. It will be quoted in every history of this season. “The reason we lost is the war,” wrote JD Vance. He then added: “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”
We take up that challenge without reservation and without apology. We say that the war with Iran has been worth the fighting; and let no American who finds himself condemned for standing by that war bow his head merely because the Vice President discovered his courage to “speak up” twelve hours after the polls had closed. Twelve hours too late, and not one hour too soon. In a strange and bitter fashion, the Vice President speaks the truth. The war is indeed the reason the Republicans lost. But he is the last man in the Republic who should say so, because he is one of the men who made that war a losing cause.
The Events, As They Happened
Let the facts be set down plainly. The Democrats now hold complete command of both Houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives they have gained roughly 28 seats and stand at 237. In the Senate, by the reckoning of the Associated Press, they hold 54. They have taken seats in Texas, where Talarico has overthrown Paxton; in Kansas, where Hamilton has overthrown Marshall in the first Democratic victory for a Senate seat in that state since 1932; in South Carolina, where Andrews has overthrown Graham; and in North Carolina, where Cooper has overthrown Whatley. And in Mississippi, a state which Trump carried by 22 points, the Democrat, Scott Colom, stood ahead of Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith by a few dozen votes. That is a flashing red light upon the Republican machine.
Yet, the Republicans did not lose the House by any remarkable margin. The loss is smaller than that of 1994, when Clinton lost 54 seats, and smaller than that of 2010, when Obama lost 63. It is in the Senate that the blow fell with its full weight: 7 seats lost, against the 6 which Obama lost in 2010. That defeat ends the Republican majority outright.
But the Republican Party should not despair. Instead, it should think. Bill Clinton lost both chambers in 1994 and won comfortably in 1996. Barack Obama lost the House in 2010 and won easily in 2012. What President Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement do in the next 24 months will matter infinitely more than any single November.
That is because this election was not, in fact, a repudiation of Donald Trump. It was not a mandate for the Democratic Party. It was not a verdict upon the MAGA agenda. It was a referendum upon the Iran War: a war which the men who surround Trump have refused to explain, refused to finish, and refused to defend. The President’s loss in the House was lighter than the losses of 1994, of 2010 and of 2018. His own supporters did come to the polls, and the voters who crossed over to the Democratic Party are not suddenly about to become ardent Democrats for the remainder of their lives. They crossed because the Iran War and the cost of living had made them furious, and because not one official in a position to answer their grievance ever rose to speak for them.
These midterm elections were about the Iran War before they were about anything else, and the figures leave no room for doubt. A Fox News poll found 75% of voters extremely or very concerned about the war, and 60% opposed to military action altogether. Among those opponents, support for Democratic candidates ran 56 points ahead of the Republicans. An AP-NORC poll found 62% of voters naming the Iran War among the most important issues. The President’s approval upon foreign policy stood at 35% in one Fox survey, his lowest since his return to office in 2025. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 69% of voters, and 40% of Republicans among them, unconvinced that the President had clearly explained the goals of the Iran War.
We must be precise. The Iran War is not being opposed as a war in and of itself. It is being opposed as a war without explanation, without declared purpose, without meaning. And it is a war whose burdens are not imaginary. The Pentagon’s estimate of the cost has climbed past 47 billion dollars. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the war depleted up to two thirds of America’s missile-defense interceptors, and that the rebuilding will take at least five years. At least 23 American troops have been killed and more than 860 wounded. Gasoline, throughout August, stood above $4 a gallon, and the price continues to climb.
And now, observe the fact which the losers of this election would least wish the country to notice. The Democrats who won often voted for the war themselves. They did not gain their victories by repudiating the war’s aim. They gained them by persuading the American people that they were opposed to the manner in which the war was being run. The national Democratic Party made the election about the Iran War, and in so doing it stole the anti-war mantle from the Republicans, although many of its own candidates had voted for the very measure they now denounced.
Consider the record of the Blue Dog Coalition, the moderate Democrats who more than doubled their numbers in this election. They have not yet won the coverage they deserve, yet they represent, nonetheless, a rising tide within the Democratic Party. On the fifth of March, 2026, the House rejected the first war powers resolution by two hundred and twelve votes to two hundred and nineteen. Four Democrats voted against ending the war: Jared Golden of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Greg Landsman of Ohio, and Juan Vargas of California, two of them Blue Dogs. Landsman and Golden had introduced an alternative resolution which would have given Trump a 30-day window in which to wind down the conflict, a middle path which was rejected by the leadership of their own party. On the fourteenth of May, 2026, the House failed to advance the third war powers resolution on a tie of 212 to 212. The lone Democrat to oppose the measure was the Blue Dog, Jared Golden, who cast the deciding vote while members of his own party chanted “one more” in a plea for a single defector.
One must mark this as the heart of the matter. Many of the Blue Dogs who won this year won upon affordability and kitchen-table issues, not upon opposition to the war. They won because the Vice President of the Republican Party had already surrendered the purpose of the war to its opponents. That is the space which JD Vance left open. That is why these midterms were not, in truth, a repudiation of the war in and of itself, but the repudiation of the men who failed to explain it to the American people.
Was It Worth It?
Vance has sneered at his critics, and dared them to say that the war was worth the loss of the Senate. We answer that the aim was worth it, and worth it a hundredfold. The Islamic Republic of Iran has chanted for the destruction of America, and has enriched uranium far beyond any civilian need. It must be stopped. For this purpose Operation Midnight Hammer destroyed the Ardakan yellowcake plant, the Arak heavy-water facility, and the very production lines at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The IAEA counted a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% before the conflict, and its inspectors have been unable to verify the location of that stockpile since June of 2025. A real agreement between the United States and Iran would have to carry that uranium out of the country, and, so far as all public knowledge at this hour extends, Iran has kept it.
So far the Iran War has proceeded in a manner far from ideal. But let the blame fall where it belongs. The men who failed in the Iran War were not our men and women in uniform. The failure was in the Situation Room, in the chambers of negotiation, and upon the airwaves.
And they failed for a plain and terrible reason: the Vice President of the United States did not wish for America to win.
The Dark Truth
JD Vance wished to be out of Iran from the beginning. He is, and has always been, an isolationist by instinct, and he has been one through the whole of his political career. In October of 2024 he said that “our interest, I think very much is not going to war with Iran.” According to the New York Times, at a meeting in the Situation Room on the 18th of February, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine, laying out the options, JD Vance argued that a limited strike would be a mistake, and opposed military action of any kind.
Then, on the second of March, 2026, he went before the cameras of Fox News and said that the objective was “clearly defined,” that the country was “not going to get into the problems we had with Iraq and Afghanistan,” and that “there’s no way Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight.” But observe what was missing from that appearance. He gave no argument for why the program of the Islamic Republic must be stopped. He did not summon the people to the purpose. Instead he managed their expectations in advance, and put a ceiling upon the war before the war had well begun. That is not the language of a man who intends to conquer. It is the language of a man who intends to be able to say, in the aftermath and fallout, that he never believed in it.
When the bombs fell, JD Vance fell silent for weeks, dispatched instead to give talks upon energy prices, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio drew praise for juggling at once the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Palestine Conflict, the Iran War, the decapitation of Venezuela, and the situation in Cuba. When JD Vance at last spoke, at a TPUSA event in April, hecklers shouted him down over the deaths of Iranian civilians, and his answer conceded the point rather than defending the war or answering for its aims:
“I recognize that young voters do not love the policy we have in the Middle East, OK. I understand.”
And there lies the whole difference between a leader and a spectator. There is an old and simple rule of command:
“Set a man to a task; arm him with the authority to perform it; hold him to account for the result; and dismiss him when he fails.”
By that rule the Vice President has been set to a task, armed with authority, and held to account by nobody, until the electorate performed that office for the Republic on the 3rd of November.
In June, JD Vance personally led the American delegation to Switzerland to negotiate with Iran. As the talks opened, the President was threatening on Truth Social that “We’ll hit Iran very hard again.” The two sides had a 60-day window. What came out of those rooms was no agreement and no answer to the question of Iran’s uranium enrichment.
And now this. On the fourth of November, with the votes barely finished being counted, the Vice President publishes a post which blames the Iran War for the electoral defeat, dares anyone to argue that it was worth losing the Senate, and lists four reasons for which voters had defected: ending the Iran war, the cost of living, “America First,” and changing the American relationship with Israel. It was the soft launch of his campaign for 2028. And nowhere in it did Vance, the man who led the peace talks, account for how the peace talks had gone. Instead he assigned the defeat of the Republicans to the policy itself rather than to his own ineptitude in carrying out the task assigned to him, and he used the occasion to argue for a realignment against the State of Israel.
Vance is not MAGA. He never was. He is a corporate Republican who has used isolationism as a ladder to his own career, and he has spent two years building a presidential campaign upon the wreckage of his chief, after handing his electoral opponents their victory upon a silver platter.
Vance: Preparing for 2028
In June, Vance released Communion, a memoir about his conversion to Catholicism. The New York Times called it "a running start on defining his political philosophy just as the 2028 presidential race… begins to take shape." HuffPost described it as "a preamble to a potential 2028 presidential bid." Vanity Fair reported that his press tour was "auditioning a kinder, gentler persona—one that he's probably hoping will clear the runway for a presidential run in 2028." And The New Yorker was bluntest of all: Communion was "a declaration of independence from Trump." The playbook is not new. Jimmy Carter, another familiar conservative isolationist from a rural countryside background, similarly launched his own autobiography in 1975, prior to running for President in 1976.
While the president was fighting the Iran War, JD Vance was off publishing a book designed to build his own brand independent from the MAGA movement, with the clear intent of softening his image for a general election electorate, and simultaneously to position himself as the heir of MAGA. In other words, rather than defending the case for the war, Vance spent his summer building the scaffolding for a presidential campaign that could follow the end of the Trump era.
Vance’s ruthless careerism is precisely why the men surrounding him (Rubio, Waltz, Hegseth) are counting on him. Because they know that he will sacrifice the Republican Party’s credibility for his own nomination. The Washington Examiner reported the quiet fear among Republicans: "JD Vance could cost us 2028." Newsweek reported a "Vance vs Rubio succession fight" that "could cost Republicans the White House." The Daily Mail reported that Rubio is "hiding from the spotlight on the Iran negotiations, quietly waiting to see whether JD Vance self-destructs."
According to Press TV, a "simmering power struggle has erupted between Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio amid serious policy disagreements." The report states that "Vance has grown increasingly suspicious that Rubio is operating behind the scenes with US envoys Jared Kushner and possibly Steve Witkoff to undermine his 'diplomatic achievements' and marginalize his influence within the administration." It goes further: "The vice president and his inner circle now reportedly believe that Rubio, Kushner, and hawkish pro-Israel senator Lindsey Graham have formed an 'informal alliance' aimed at sidelining him ahead of the 2028 presidential contest." And The Daily Beast reported that "Donald Trump has been asking friends and advisers how they would compare JD Vance and Marco Rubio, both potential contenders for the 2028 GOP presidential nomination."
The Domestic Sabotage
Vance and his clique, including Steve Witkoff, have not confined their sabotage to foreign policy. Since taking office in January of 2025 they have, with a unanimity that is itself instructive, undermined the MAGA domestic agenda in ways that are less discussed than the Iran War, but no less damaging.
On taking office, President Trump designated illicit fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction, and to that end he ordered strikes upon the cartels which have poisoned the American people. When the Senate took up the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, JD Vance voted against it, because the bill was attached to a sixty-billion-dollar foreign aid package in support of Ukraine. Vance, the self-proclaimed spokesman of Appalachia, a region hollowed out by addiction, voted against the very legislation that would have helped to stop the poison from crossing our border. Ever since his time in Congress, Vance has been busy doing nothing but betraying the Americans who are dying in Ohio, in Appalachia, and in the countless other small towns which Vance claims to represent.
Senator Ted Cruz, in leaked audio, blamed Vance and the White House adviser Peter Navarro for blocking the India-US trade deal. Vance was one of the men who sabotaged the very agreement that could have made the tariff strategy work. The interim framework, announced on the 7th of February, 2026, would have had India eliminate or reduce its tariffs on all American industrial goods and upon a broad set of agricultural products, including dried distillers’ grains, red sorghum, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits. In return the United States would have applied a reciprocal tariff rate of 18% upon Indian exports, down from 50%. India would have protected its wheat, its rice, its soya, its dairy and its meat. The target was to double bilateral trade from $191 billion to $500 billion by 2030. India intended to purchase $500 billion of American energy products, aircraft and parts, and precious metals.
The deal would have been a rare thing. It would have opened the largest untapped export market in the world to American farmers and American manufacturers. It would have been a signature achievement of the administration: a concrete and measurable victory upon which Republicans could have gone to the country in the midterms.
And Vance killed it. He killed it, first, to signal to the far right that he was one of them, that his wife’s heritage did not make him soft on India. He killed it, second, to undermine Trump. Trump went to the country as the master negotiator, the dealmaker who would bring home victories. The India deal was exactly the kind of victory he had promised. It would have demonstrated that his tariff strategy was working. By blocking it, Vance denied Trump his win, and made the President appear a man who could not close a deal. He undermined the very brand that elected Trump.
But why should Vance do such a thing? Because Vance’s political project requires Trump to fail. If Trump succeeds, the nomination of 2028 goes to whoever can claim the mantle of Trump’s success. But if Trump fails, the nomination goes to whoever can claim to be the true heir, the one who will finish the work, the one who will be more Trump than Trump. Vance is positioning himself as the heir to a failed presidency, which is the only way he can possibly win.
Turn now to Ukraine. Following his return to office, President Trump approved the Ukraine-US minerals deal, extended sanctions on Russia, authorized the transfer of Patriot air defense systems from Israel to Ukraine, and greenlit fifty million dollars in defense hardware sales. On the fifth of May, 2025, the Senate moved forward with the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, introduced by Lindsey Graham and co-sponsored by seventy senators. Trump publicly endorsed the bill.
Vance, by contrast, has subverted the Ukraine policy of the Trump administration. A New York Times investigation revealed that Vance “surrounded the Pentagon with people who share his views.” His key ally, Elbridge Colby, was installed as the Pentagon’s top policy official. Colby and another Vance ally, Dan Caldwell, were described as “eager to start withholding munitions” from Ukraine. Colby quickly announced that future military support for Ukraine “must not rely on significant US contributions” and that Europe must assume “primary responsibility” for its own defense. Vance’s factional allies recommended that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth withhold 155mm artillery shells, the “workhorse” of Ukraine’s arsenal, which the Biden administration had promised. Hegseth, unannounced, and under the persuasion of Vance’s allies, ordered the freeze. For three and a half months, thousands of shells sat upon pallets in Germany while Ukrainian forces faced Russian offensives.
The freeze was lifted only after General Jack Keane spoke directly with President Trump, who had no idea that it was happening. Think upon that. The Commander-in-Chief did not know what was being done in his own name. A senior American military officer described the cumulative effect of these actions as the creation of a “de facto anti-Ukrainian policy” within the Pentagon. Another officer stated that Vance’s allies “believed that Ukraine was on the verge of failing” and that empirical evidence to the contrary “didn’t seem to bother them; if anything, they seemed to think it meant that they should help Ukraine fail faster to get it over with.”
Rubio: The Man in the Arena
Secretary of State Marco Rubio was the only man in the room attempting to save the midterms.
Rubio stayed largely off the campaign trail this year, and yet Republicans clamored for him, seeing in him the party’s strongest messenger in a bruising cycle. When Trump personally coaxed Rubio onto the stage at a rally in Corpus Christi, Texas, on the twenty-seventh of October, the Secretary of State spotlighted the administration’s success in toppling Venezuela’s Maduro and opening its oil supply, a political winner in a hotly contested battleground state. Rubio appeared at both the Corpus Christi and the Lubbock events. One GOP official said: “News of Rubio simply being in the state could potentially boost the GOP’s chances in places that they need it.” Bill Cortese, another GOP operative, stated: “Rubio is Trump’s best asset, and they know they are in a dog fight to win in Texas.”
Rubio was set to join Trump in Ohio on the 28th or 29th of October for a second day of rallies, and then abruptly withdrew, as the GOP scrambled to avert a midterm bloodbath.
Upon the war, Rubio has kept a discreet public distance. He is not the face of the failed Iran negotiations, and has indeed played more of a tactical, behind-the-scenes role. The Financial Times reported that Rubio “deliberately distanced himself from the American-Iranian conflict in order to avoid responsibility for a possible failure in negotiations and preserve his position ahead of the 2028 elections.” When he did speak, he gave an impassioned defense of the war, calling it “a favor” to the United States and to the world.
And his polling for 2028 surged from 20% in early 2026 to 35-38% by May to July, creating a virtual dead heat with Vance. By October, the NYT/Siena poll had Vance at 33% and Rubio at 24%, but Rubio had closed the gap dramatically and was widely seen as the “adult in the room” who avoided blame for the Iran War. Newsweek, on the fifth of November:
“Rubio, who largely stayed off the campaign trail and has mostly avoided blame for the Iran war, watched his closest rival stumble and blame the party’s losses on the conflict.”
The Democratic Victory: Congratulations & Condemnations
The New Nationalists of America is not a Republican organization, nor a Democratic one. We ask one single question of every candidate for office:
Does this person fight for the American producer, the worker, the farmer, the family, and the country, or for the donors and managers?
By that test, and by that test alone, we congratulate the Blue Dog Democrats upon their victory. Their coalition entered the cycle with 10 members and has emerged with at least 22 endorsed candidates victorious, more than doubling its numbers. Rebecca Cooke, a small-business owner with roots upon a dairy farm, won Wisconsin’s Third District by more than six per cent. She ran on expanding Medicare, on lowering the cost of insulin, and on anti-trust enforcement to protect family farms from corporate monopolies, even if we must register our sharp opposition to her support for lax drivers’ license rules for undocumented immigrants. Bobby Pulido won Texas’s Fifteenth by more than 24%, running as a conservative Democrat who puts border security first and who refuses to let federal enforcement destroy the regional economy. Johnny Garcia won in a Texas district which the Republicans had redrawn to rig their own victory, running as an old-school law-and-order Democrat who put the finances of working families before the divisive culture wars, though we fundamentally disagree with his opposition to tariffs.
These patriotic men and women are proof that the things we have argued for since our founding do indeed win the hearts of the American people.
We congratulate David Crowley and Amy Acton. These two won the Midwestern statehouses that most clearly told the country what the voters wanted, because they ran upon the kitchen table. Crowley, a pragmatist who cut county property taxes and worked with Republicans to strike bipartisan deals, promised to “lower costs for housing, utilities, healthcare, and childcare” and to deliver “real meaningful property tax relief that doesn’t place the burden on our local communities.” He called for the full funding of K-12 public schools, the creation of a universal childcare program, and a cap upon annual rent increases. He also backed a twenty-dollar minimum wage and the expansion of union rights. Acton’s “ActOn Lowering Costs” agenda includes a working families tax cut; a child tax credit of $1,000 for children under seven and $500 for those aged seven to eighteen, for families earning up to $85,000; and a refundable earned income tax credit. She proposed targeted property tax relief, with rebates of up to $1,000 for homeowners whose bills rise by more than 4% year over year, and an expanded homestead exemption for seniors and people with disabilities. Her requirement that data center companies cover their utility costs, use union labor, and build upon brownfields rather than farmland is exactly the kind of producerist policy that protects ratepayers and American workers from corporate externalities.
This is the kind of thing a producer’s party ought to propose.
We do not agree with all of their positions. Crowley has embraced racial-equity budgeting, expanded Milwaukee County’s equity bureaucracy, and urged the Wisconsin attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies. These are the very policies that make a state unaffordable and American culture unrecognizable.
But when a Democrat runs on the price of housing and wins by nearly 10 points, those who should have run on that platform, the Republicans, have only themselves to blame. The lesson of these midterms is that the kitchen table beats the culture war, and that a party which cannot speak to the cost of living will lose to one that does, no matter how radical its other commitments.
We congratulate Dan Osborn in Nebraska, who made it a tight race in a state which has not sent a non-Republican to the Senate since 2006. He is a union man who wants to push big money out of politics and to protect Social Security, though his refusal to support strong border legislation is a fatal flaw in his platform which we cannot overlook.
But we will not congratulate Abdul El-Sayed or James Talarico. These conniving deceivers won by speaking into the ear of a grieving people, exploiting real pain to sell a product that would make that suffering permanent.
Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed El-Sayed is not a reformer. He is a party radical who wishes to burn the constitutional order to the ground. He ran on abolishing ICE, erasing the very concept of a secure border and exposing American workers to unbridled competition from cheap, exploitable labor. He wishes to tax billionaires out of existence, not to fund necessary services, but to foment class warfare and to feed a bloated state bureaucracy. He wishes to cut off all military aid to Israel, not to remove their patronage status, but to abandon a key ally and signal America’s weakness to every adversary on earth, while calling Israel’s defensive war in Gaza a “genocide.” And his radicalism goes beyond policy: he wishes to scrap the Senate filibuster, an institution integral to the checks and balances of the United States federal government.
James Talarico is the more sophisticated threat: a demagogue who wraps radical policies in the language of Christian faith and economic populism. He calls himself a “border security Democrat,” but his record is the opposite. He voted against $1.8 billion in border security funding in 2021. He voted against the Texas Border Protection Unit in 2023. He was absent for the vote on border barriers and human smuggling penalties. He voted against Senate Bill 3, another border security measure. The National Border Patrol Union has publicly slammed him for “lying about supporting border security” and noted that he “labeled border security funding as wasted money.” On economics, he wishes to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, to close “loopholes,” and to “tax trillionaires out of existence,” another prime example of class-warfare redistributionism in populist dress. On energy, he wishes to end tax incentives for data centers and to eject them, a move that would drive critical investment and jobs out of Texas. He criticizes tariffs from an agrarian point of view, rejecting the statecraft most fundamentally necessary to rebuild American industry.
Both El-Sayed and Talarico represent the same fundamental threat: the annihilation of the American way of life. The American people deserve better than the elitist rot which these two men have peddled.
The Great Betrayal
What do we say to the good American people who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 and who now ask whether their movement for an American resurgence is over?
We say that it is not over. And we say so, not merely because this defeat was less harsh than those of 1994 and 2010, but because the drive to Make America Great Again was not beaten at the polls by a better idea. MAGA lost this election because the men charged with the conduct of this just war could not make it make sense to the American people, and could not say what it was worth fighting for. One of the only men who might have defended it to the doubters opened the Iran War by reassuring them that it would not last, held himself apart from the President, and upon the morning after this defeat announced, in effect, that Trump was the reason for it.
JD Vance is a putschist; and if he is given the chance, he will someday drive MAGA, and the United States of America with it, straight into the grave. The men who lost this election are not MAGA. They are the obstacle to it, and they are an obstacle to be removed from the councils of the movement.
What is needed now is to refuse the retreat into isolation which the Vice President offers. The country that stands aside while Iran rebuilds a nuclear program is not a safer country, and it will not be safer for your children. It will have this fight again someday, and upon worse terms. The President must finish the job.
And to the Republicans and the Democrats alike who feel that they have been abandoned by their parties: join the NNA. The men who won this election by running on the dignity of American labor are closer to our program than they are to the party bosses who use them. The American people have made their message plain for two cycles. They want goods made here; wages that rise; borders that mean something; a government that cannot be bought at any price; and an explanation of American foreign policy that does not ignore the concerns and the objections of the little man. The movement that provides such a program will win the soul of the country.
For a nation is not saved by those who calculate the hour of their rivals’ fall. It is saved by those who take up the task, accept the responsibility, and carry the people with them all the way. The old men of the managed parties have had their season; they have had the power and have lacked the will. Let a new generation come forward, with the will and without the fear, and let it say to the people what no one has had the courage to say: that the thing was worth doing, that the thing shall be done, and that we shall do it together.
The American flame has passed through far darker hours than this one, through the Revolution, through the Civil War, through the Depression, and it has never gone out, because in every generation, the men and women of America have not allowed it to. We are that generation’s keepers. The Vice President may be a nerveless coward, and this season, for many, must seem as though it is a season lost.
But the flame of 100% Americanism is immortal, and the New Nationalists of America are here to carry it forward.
