Who is really dividing the U.S. based on race in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict?

The President of the United States rarely if ever now delivers remarks without the assistance of his teleprompter, and when his teleprompter malfunctions, as it did in Germany, things get ugly, and he starts to sweat, and it’s just…well, it’s lackluster at best.

You might remember this awkward encounter from last month when his teleprompters went down.

VIDEO

President Obama: I want to thank everybody who’s here. I think there’s only one problem, and that is that my remarks are not sitting here. People?

He turns to thank the people that are standing there, and he looks at the teleprompter and –

VIDEO

President Obama: I’m going to answer a question at the end of the remarks, but I want to make sure that we get the remarks up. People?

So smooth, nobody would’ve noticed that there was a problem. He’s slick, isn’t he? Now, that’s the way the president is without a teleprompter. We have talked to people who have met with him actually in the Cabinet Room where he had to have a teleprompter with eight people in the room.

But on the flipside of that, just hours last week after the Zimmerman not guilty verdict, the president made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room and gave a controversial yet well-polished speech on race, and this time, he did it without the aid of his trusted teleprompter.

Now, why does this matter? Well, because out of all of the issues that you would want the President of the United States to be fluent in – economics, jobs, foreign policy, individual liberty, the Constitution, any of that, this president cannot speak off the cuff without any kind of teleprompter or notes in front of him. But when it comes to the police acting stupidly or anything to do with identity politics, this man is ready to roll for hours. It’s his lifelong passion.

The man who was supposed to unite the United States of America is an expert on the most divisive form of politics in existence today that pits people against other people, placing them in little boxes and then convincing those people that you’re only in that box because of those people over there. They’re the cause of all of your problems.

Now, the press, many even on the right, are calling this speech that he gave one of the most important in his presidency. They’re singing his praises. What’s new? Even though the Zimmerman trial had nothing to do with race, and that’s not me saying that; that’s both the prosecution and the defense. Both sides said this has nothing to do with race. Still, the president is using this opportunity to further divide us.

He said the outcome of the case could have been different if Martin were white.

VIDEO

President Obama: If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Okay, so is he saying that Zimmerman was guilty, and somehow or another the system broke down? Because I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that the system broke down with any kind of specifics. And once again, he places himself square in the middle of the story.

VIDEO

President Obama: You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me.

I just want you to know, that’s not another way of saying that could have been my son by saying it could have been me. Listen to this.

VIDEO

President Obama: There’s a lot of pain around what happened here. I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

Okay, got it. He said a couple of important things here. The African-American community is looking at this situation through the lens of history and experiences and pain. Okay, well that’s why justice is blind. That’s why we don’t have people involved making the decisions, because you might look at it differently, either with rose-colored glasses or a tainted view from something that went on with your own personal life. That’s why you’re not involved, to keep the verdict pure.

But then you also say that that pain just doesn’t go away. Mr. President, may I humbly suggest that you need the atoning power of Jesus Christ if that’s not going away. What’s happening in your life, Mr. President, where pain does not go away? And why is that pain not going away? Who’s perpetrating this myth that there is still the same amount of experiences for African-Americans today as there was in the 1960s?

And by the way, if the word “myth” sounds harsh, in the same speech, here’s the president:

VIDEO

President Obama: As difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.

I don’t think he believes that, but he’s right. The reality is there are still problems, but believe it or not, even with all of the stuff that’s going on, race relations in America, they are getting better. But Al Sharpton doesn’t let you know that. Jesse Jackson doesn’t let you know that. Anybody on MSNBC or Harry Reid, they don’t let you know that, otherwise, they’d be out of a job.

They’d be out of a few more voters, you know, if they weren’t told to vote for a Republican, I mean, if you voted for a Republican, it’d be like returning to the Jim Crow days. That would put these people out of power. Jackson, Sharpton, and the president have all used their pulpits to make the Zimmerman trial about race.

Again, both sides say that it’s not about race. And they feign outrage. I know this guy. He feigns outrage. But where is the outrage at the dropout factories that are inner-city public schools? How about the churning out of generation after generation of doomed children, slaves? If you can’t read, you’re a slave.

Where is the outrage at the failure of massive government programs, progressive governments, like Detroit, that have left citizens begging for politicians just to give ’em a few more crumbs or begging for the police to show up? Where is the outrage at the Planned Parenthood abortion mills whose founder wanted to eliminate the undesirables of society which were the blacks?

Where is the outrage at the other American war zone, Chicago, where four more were gunned down just this weekend and nine others injured in yet another shootout? Where is the outrage? Where’s the outrage at the mind-boggling and tragic black-on-black crime rates? You don’t hear about it.

According to the Bureau of Justice, approximately 8,000 blacks are murdered annually, every single year, 8,000 killed. That accounts for 49% of all of the murders in America – 49%. Twelve percent of the population is 49% of all of the murders? About 93% of black homicide victims were murdered by someone in their own race, so 93%, black on black.

Now, here’s the most shocking statistic. The murder rate among blacks in America is an astonishing 19.5 per 100,000 people. So you have an idea of how astonishing that number is, that’s a tick under Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s a nation mired in constant civil war – again, a city so mired in murder that the murder rates among blacks is 19.5 per 100,000 people. That number is nearly 5 times higher than the murder rate in the Palestinian territories. That’s a real problem.

Now, why isn’t any politician standing up and saying that? Why isn’t anybody saying that? Well, because those are real problems. Those are real problems. They’re undisputed facts. And real problems are going to have to be solved, but to solve them, you need some answers and answers that empower people.

If you want to empower yourself, you’re going to have to manufacture some problems like the Zimmerman trial. It’s not about race, yet half of America thinks it is. Why? Because of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the President of the United States just told them so. And then he has the gall to blame the racial tension in the aftermath of the verdict on that racist jury.

I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen a leader behave this way, ever. Leaders do not blame people. Leaders don’t lie for their own personal gain. Crooks, crooks do. Leaders tell you the truth, the hard truth, and then, just when you think you’re at your lowest, a leader doesn’t lean down to you and say “and you know what, you’ll never, ever make it without me.” They never do that.

They inspire you to reach higher than you ever thought you could. That’s what a leader does but not socialist leaders. Che is a big hero. Che is the leader, of course, you know, with the communist revolution, but who was Che really? Che championed that blacks weren’t doing enough for the revolution. He referred to them as lazy and unwilling to do anything to help.

He said about blacks, “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; The European has a tradition of work and saving…” Well, that sounds racist to me, but you’ve never heard anybody on the left called Che a racist, have you? Every town in America now has a Cesar Chavez Boulevard. Well, what’s his story? Well, he was standing up for the little people. He was standing up for the workers. Was he? Was he?

Do you know that Cesar Chavez blamed the labor woes on immigrants? He was so upset that he said that there had to be a wet line on the border. The UFW, the United Farm Workers Union, they sent their thugs out, and they physically beat any illegal immigrant trying to cross the line. Now, that’s not a story that you hear today, is it? No, but these are the truths about the leftist icons, and they have a lot in common with the leftist icons of today.

Leftist icons generally inspire people to do what, to stand up on their own two feet, pull themselves up, or to riot, to fight, to burn, destroy, to hate, eventually kill people? Che didn’t free people; Che killed people. Martin Luther King, he freed people. He led people towards the promised land, and he did it without playing the blame game.

Quote, Martin Luther King, “A group of ten thousand marching in anger against a police station and cussing out the police chief will do very little to bring respect, dignity, and unbiased law enforcement.” He also said, “We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust.”

If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and yes, Barack Obama, lifted people up instead of pointing fingers, perhaps we’d be closer to that promised land that MLK talked about and that we all know exists. It’s hard not to believe that the Sharptons of the world really don’t want to get to any kind of promised land. They’d rather remain in power, or in the president’s case, want to be your parent, because see, that’s what Progressives do.

They are your parent. They know better. That’s the whole theory behind Progressivism, somebody else knows better for the collective. Now, let’s just assume for a second that that is the right thing for them to do. So who do we have now as our parent in the Oval Office? Who do we have? Are they a good parent? Well, yes, he cares about – okay.

May I ask you, did your parent or any – if you had a good parent – or any good parent that you ever witnessed or you know, Bill Cosby, anybody, any good parent, any mom or dad, did they ever tell you to focus on the past? Did they ever encourage you to take from others because you didn’t get your fair share? Did your mom or dad ever tell you you’re not going to make it? Did they ever continually pick at old wounds and tell you that they’ll never heal?

Now, maybe I’m the only kid that wasn’t raised by Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers, but my parents always told me that it doesn’t matter what others do; it’s what you do that counts. My parents always told me that life wasn’t fair and never would be fair and to get over it. But see, if you have a parent that does that, then they have to follow it with you stay focused on what you know to be true, who you are, where you came from, and that requires you to look at facts.

So let’s look at some more facts. There are racists in America, both black and white. Yep, that’s it, both left and right. Our job, I guess, is to figure out who’s who. Everybody calls each other racist now. Oh, you’re a racist because you – really? Okay, great. But there are racists. How do we tell? Well, somebody who’s trying to use race to gain power, I think, and will only tell the stories that are good for them.

For instance, why isn’t Al Sharpton talking about this story? Why isn’t the president talking about this 76-year-old man in Milwaukee? He shot and killed this little kid here, 13-year-old black kid. He comes out, and he’s got a gun. Now, look at the kid backing up. This is clearly, this is clearly not self defense.

Eventually, the mom comes out and says hey, hey, hey, what’s going on? And he says, you want to know what’s going on? You want me to stop your kid from stealing? I’ll teach your kid. Any points a gun right to the kid’s chest, shoots him. The kid starts running down the street. He shoots him again. He misses, but it’s already too late. The kid collapses and dies in the hospital a couple of hours later. Why is nobody talking about this?

This is a racist guy, right? How about the 29-year-old mentally disabled Hispanic in Arizona that was walking the dog in the parking lot at a Taco Bell? He was shot dead by a black man. Where were the calls for the justice for Daniel? Or in Chicago, Leslie Freeman, her 22-month-old son, Demonte, gunned down as she was sitting with her child in the lap in a van. She was sitting there with a van, a car full of people.

The child was shot. Just last year, Leslie lost her son, Deon, shot by a gang member. Where’s Sharpton on that one? Or the white baby that was shot in a stroller in Atlanta by two black teens? Why aren’t they talking about that one? I’ll tell you why. Nobody wants to talk about any of those because they know that both black and white agree, and whether it’s for power or for ratings, when everybody agrees, there’s just really nothing there.

They choose carefully the stories that they know divide America. It gives you ratings. It gives you power. That’s what it is. It makes you honestly into a bully. No one in the media is talking about the black guy that shot the white kid or the white guy who shot the black kid or the black teens that shot the baby, but that’s where we need to focus as Americans. We need to find the big issues that bring us together, because there’s a lot more of those stories than of Zimmerman stories.

But we’re just focusing on the Zimmerman story when the real story of all the murder and all the death is going by us at a high speed, and we just ignore that one. We can’t as a people – look, we’re not going to be able to convince everybody, and it doesn’t really matter, but here’s what we have to do. We have to find out the real facts, know what’s going on, and then without anger – and that’s the hard part, without anger – stand up to bullies.

We need to identify first who the bullies are and then stop giving them so much power over us. The Zimmerman trial should have never ever happened. The only reason why it did is because the President of the United States and his Justice Department and the wound pickers like Al Sharpton applied mob justice. I’ve never met a black man yet who actually thinks that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson actually speaks for them.

The Reverend Jackson is out there producing love children, and Reverend Al has literally made things up. I don’t know how he sleeps at night, but he does. He makes things up to promote his own career. Jackson rushed to defend the black stripper who made the rape allegations against the members of the Duke lacrosse team which was completely false. He said his Rainbow PUSH Coalition would pay for her college tuition. It turned out to be false, and he was wrong, but there was no outcry there.

Al Sharpton, he lied about Tawana Brawley. He didn’t care about the truth. He cares about himself. I can’t think of anything more damning than proclaiming to be a reverend, a preacher, and then to use that power and that platform for personal gain. I’ll never forget when I sat down at CNN, and I did an interview with Al Sharpton. And I said “nice watch, Al,” right before we went on the air – nice watch. It was a Rolex. He suddenly became very self conscious. I don’t even…somebody gave that to me as a gift, and he covered it.

Judgment Day…Judgment Day is already scary enough, but I think anybody who claims to speak with the power of the Lord’s words are going to receive kind of a stricter punishment. There are a lot of people that think I fall into this category, and maybe I do. I try, but maybe I do in the end.

I know there are many things that I have done and I’ve said over the years that I regret now, and I think there’s a lot of people out in America that think I shouldn’t be successful. Whatever, I mean, okay, I get it. I understand. Life isn’t fair. I get that, but rest assured, if you’re right about me, justice for me will be swift and severe in the afterlife. It will be; however, if I’m right, the same will be said for Sharpton and Jackson and Wallis and President Obama.

The president is going way out of his way to comment on a single trial, and in doing so, he is – what is that commandment – oh, bearing false witness, and he’s doing it by using race. This isn’t about race. It’s not my job or your job to judge a man’s heart, but it is our job to look at the tree and then look at the fruit of that tree. What is that tree producing? Is it producing good fruit or bad fruit?

This tree is producing lies and anger, division, unrest, violence, poverty, and suffering. When will Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the president rise up at the injustice to blacks and women that has happened in progressive cities like Detroit or currently happening in Philadelphia? Or are they just going to continue to turn a blind eye to the truth in favor of their own political and personal agendas?

And if we continue to be quiet, if we continue just to take it because what am I going to do about it anyway, where do those personal agendas take us as a nation?

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.