Harvard Professor: Watching Donald Trump, I Understand How Hitler Came to Power

The Context

Danielle Allen, a liberal political theorist at Harvard University, recently wrote an article for The Washington Post urging fellow Democrats to register as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump. Why would she propose such a drastic measure?

Understanding History

There are people from all over the political spectrum sounding the alarm about Donald Trump, and Ms. Allen captured it perfectly in her article:

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

The Republic Is at Stake

Ms. Allen makes the point that Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country, split by strong partisan ideologies. She also believes we have reached the moment of truth.

Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Noting that Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, Ms. Allen urged Kasich and Carson to leave the race if they care "about the future of the Republic."

A Suitable Candidate

While Ms. Allen makes the case that Rubio is best suited to beat Trump head-to-head, Glenn explained why he doesn’t believe that to be the case.

“She says here that Marco Rubio is the one, but she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Marco Rubio is not ahead in any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday. ...But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.”

Common Sense Bottom Line

The chorus against Donald Trump is growing. Even the outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s.

What happens to our nation when we have a totalitarian leader? After seven years of division, look at the difference in our civility toward one another. What will happen when we have a president that pits people against each other even more than Barack Obama?

"I have news for you," Glenn said. "When I said a few years ago, 'Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy.' I'm warning you now, you will say after two years of Donald Trump, 'I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama.'" I know that sounds crazy, but mark it down.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Give you my analysis on what is coming here in the next week coming up in just a second.

JD in Nevada. Caucused in Nevada last night.

Hey, JD, what happened?

CALLER: Yes. I was at Silverado High School. I want to -- what I found interesting. I got there at about 4:30. I'm 71 years old, and I've been active since the Eisenhower administration in politics. So I think I know what I'm talking about.

There was 1400 yards of people in line, which you can calculate how many people. It went rather smoothly. They were running out of ballots. I sat with a woman, who was a Trump supporter, about 45 years old. She lived in Manhattan. And she had been in Vegas for 14 years. Very nice gal.

I think what Trump has tapped into, Glenn, is that we're winners. It's American nationalism. I'm 71 years old, like I said. My father won the Second World War.

STU: Wow.

CALLER: My grandparents got through the depression. All my life, I've been a winner because of this country. And I heard the chants in the last three or four times that I've seen Trump on TV, and it's, "USA, USA," like the 1980 Olympics against the Russian hockey team.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

CALLER: I voted for Cruz. I'm a Cruz supporter. And I believe in Ted Cruz. But Trump doesn't have to say anything about how he's going to do anything. I believe the last pollster was 72 percent of the American people are against illegal immigration. So he taps into that. He taps into building the wall. He taps into making America number one again and making sure that he's a solid businessman that's going to make the government work and eliminate our debt.

I believe those are the things that Trump -- that is driving the Trump campaign. He doesn't have to talk about specifics. We're number one again. We're Americans.

He's appealing to patriotism. Build a wall. Stop the illegals. Stop paying for the schools. The police. The hospitals that all the illegal services eat up.

GLENN: I think you're exactly right. Thank you for your call, JD. He is attracting -- and it is the scariest form.

And this is why -- this is why the press is so out of control. Because they know this. Nationalism is extraordinarily dangerous. And it's why they made fun of everybody in the Tea Party: They're nationalists. They're Nazis.

You haven't heard them say this about Donald Trump, have you? And yet, let me give you this. This is from the Washington Post, written by Danielle Allen. She is a political theorist at Harvard University.

This is what she wrote: Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

I have to tell you, that's what I was feeling this morning when I got up. And all I kept hearing in my prayers was silence in the face of evil is evil itself.

She goes on. We can see both of this phenomena unfolding right now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump's mouth and, thereby, help acculturate all of us and what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican frontrunner? Have we not already been trained to hear these things by 30 years of popular culture becoming more and more offensive and inciting comments?

Yes, both of these things are true, but that doesn't mean journalists ought to be Trump's megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensive. Turn the mic off when somebody tries to shout down others. Reestablish some standards on what counts as worthwhile for the public debate.

That seems counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He still has plenty of access to the freedom of expression. It's time, America, to draw a bright line.

One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations at dinner party dialogues. Yes, it's terrible. Can you believe what he said? Have you ever seen anything like it? Have we really as Americans come to this?

I know, it's terrible.

Then somebody says, "But what are we going to do?" And silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile.

Are we joking about moving to Canada? Yes, but more seriously than usually. But over the course of the past few months, I've learned something else that goes beyond the ideas that were expressed in the 1940s in the Banality of Evil and the feelings of impetus in the face of danger.

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is, the vast majority of voting Americans think Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate. But we're split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him.

In the same way, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too thus far have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, just as he did the right thing by being first alongside with Rand Paul to challenge Trump. The time has come. John Kasich. Ben Carson, leave the race. You expressed a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. But if you care about the future of the republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio.

Kasich, there's little wind in your sails, but it's not enough. Your country is calling on you. Do the right thing.

Ted Cruz, I believe is pulling votes away from Trump. For that reason, he's useful in the race. But Mr. Cruz, you're drawing too close to Trump's policies. You should change course.

Now, she says here that Marco Rubio is the one. But she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday. Marco Rubio is not ahead by any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday.

Marco Rubio will win none on Tuesday. Now, that could change. But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.

But this guy has got to be stopped. That's my commentary.

Let me go back. Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump. But then again, she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You too need to help the Republicans beat Trump. This is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, reregister and vote for Rubio, even if like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee. But pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump will take the nomination, and the republic cannot afford that.

Finally, to all -- see, I disagree with her here because I don't think you beat a Democrat with another Democrat.

But, anyway: Finally, to all of you Republicans who have already dropped out, one more great act of public service awaits you. As candidates, you pledged to support whomever the Republican Party has nominated. It's time to revoke that pledge. Be bold. Stand up. And shout that you will not support Trump if he's your primary nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference. Endorse someone together. It's time to draw a bright line. You are the ones whom this burden falls. And no one else can do it.

Okay. So this is coming from a Harvard person. All right. Good. We don't like Harvard.

Let me give you this. Outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s. So we now have somebody in Harvard that's saying that this is the rise of the 1930s. I think this is the rise of the 1930s. Here is the Greek finance minister saying the same thing.

He ran Greece's economy during the crucial bailout talks and resigned last year. Monday, he spent 90 minutes asking -- asking questions on Quora.

Trump has provoked the left with his comments on Muslims. Blah, blah. But here's what he wrote when you think about Donald Trump's political success in the U.S.

Anger is prevalent. Common folks follow a good instinct when they want to punish an establishment that has lied to them for decades and treated them with contempt and considers them useful idiots to be bought by the highest bidder.

Unfortunately, this good instinct often leads fed-up conservatives to the wrong leader, camp, and campaign. We saw this in the 1930s. We're seeing it today in France with the rise of Le Pen.

Our duty as Democrats is to offer disaffected voters, including conservatives, a way to indulge their impulsive urge to punish the establishment without becoming hostage to people like Trump or Le Pen. We saw the rise of the right-wing autocratic fascist dictatorships in Italy, Spain, and Germany, while France Marine Le Pen leads in the far right national party, which recently enjoyed a boost in popularity.

Yada, yada. This is what's happening, America. And I saw it firsthand. Good Americans standing in line last night. And I talked to a lot of Trump supporters. Some I didn't. Because they were just the most nasty, vile -- I think some of the most dangerous people I've ever encountered. Some of them were reasonable. And I talked to them.

And I said, "Why Trump?" One lady said, "Well, I'm Jewish. And Ted Cruz is just going to baptize all of us." And I said, "That is crazy. That's not who he is. He's a constitutionalist." She

said, well, I am -- I said, "Who are you voting for?" She said, "I'm voting for Donald Trump." And I said, "The guy who said he's going to -- you're Jewish. He's remaining neutral between the Palestinians and Israel." She had just turned off. She said, "In the end, I just want change."

Okay. Next guy. Talking to a guy outside. Reasonable guy. I said, "Who are you going to caucus for?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." And I said, "It doesn't matter. We're all Americans. Who are you caucusing for?" And he said, "Donald Trump." And I said, "Why?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." I said, "I got it. I got it. Why?" He said, "I just want change."

Last night, the anger was more visible in Nevada than it was in South Carolina. The anger in our country is growing.

Donald Trump has already said that he's going to do universal health care. Let me ask the Republicans in the audience, how are you going to feel when Donald Trump puts through universal health care? When Donald Trump tells you to shut up and sit down, he knows what's right? What are you going to do when he starts doing the things that only Democrats would do?

And I know that's crazy. I know that's crazy. But we've seen it happen with Mitch McConnell. We've seen it happen when we have -- under George W. Bush, they have done things because we have to do it.

Donald Trump agreed with the bailouts. He even called for the nationalizing of the banks. When our economy collapses and he bails out or allows the banks to do a bail-in and then talks about nationalizing the banks, are you going to feel betrayed?

What happens when you feel betrayed by Donald Trump? Do you think he allows you to continue to speak out? For the good of the nation, should you be punished?

What do you think happens to our nation when we have a leader -- we've already seen what happens. Look at the difference in our civility to one another, between now and 2006. 2007. We had a guy who pitted people against each other, and look how vile we are to each other now.

What do you think is going to happen when you have a guy who is on the road, pitting people against each other, far more than Barack Obama ever did? I have news for you. When I said -- when I said a few years ago, "Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy" -- how many of us feel this way, that I would give my right arm for Bill Clinton over Barack Obama? We all have said that. I'm warning you now: Donald Trump -- you will say in two years of Donald Trump, "I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama." I know that sounds crazy. But mark it down.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a caucus night watch party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on February 23, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The New York businessman won his third state victory in a row in the 'first in the West' caucuses. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.