Anita Calls to 'Set the Record Straight' on Trump

Anita called The Glenn Beck Program Monday for a fiery discussion on Donald Trump, hoping to show her support for the real estate mogul was based on issues rather than his authoritarian personality.

What was the main reason for Trump getting Anita's vote of confidence? His stance on protecting the border and everything that entails---from crime to job loss in America. Anita also expressed her belief that Glenn hadn't covered the border issue enough, but Glenn quickly countered with the facts.

"I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border," Glenn explained. "So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border."

The discussion took a turn south when Anita got personal. She complained about co-host Stu personally attacking Trump and followed it up with several personal attacks on Stu. Huh? Complaints about personal attacks followed with personal attacks?

In addition to the border issue, the topics of Donald Trump's clothing, Stu's high school graduation, abortion, the Holy Spirit and gang rape came up.

"These are the kind of circular arguments that you get," Glenn said about discussions with many Donald Trump supporters.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Laurie is in Delaware, and she's quite upset. And we want to lead with this. Hello, Laurie. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Yes, hi, Glenn. It's Anita. Thank you for taking my call.

GLENN: Oh, I'm sorry.

CALLER: That's okay. And I really want to start out -- the reason why I called was when you were talking about the people that like Trump because he's an authoritarian figure. And I just want to set the record straight on that, Glenn. Because I think you're fair. I think Stu is the ringleader of hating Trump, and everyone else has fallen into -- right in behind him like little soldiers.

PAT: That's us. Yes.

CALLER: However, what Trump is doing right now to Cruz saying that he isn't liked because he can't get along, that's total deception. Cruz actually honors the oath that he took when he was elected into office. He actually obeys our laws, and he does want to serve we, the people.

And the reason why I haven't crossed Trump off the list has nothing to do with him being an authoritarian figure. It had everything to do with the fact that 94-plus million legal citizens are jobless. We are living below poverty level. I don't think that it's fair for people to be here illegally, ignore our laws, which they can't do in other countries, commit a crime, gang rape people -- and Hannity went into great depth on a lot of those people -- and then they're able to flee to sanctuary cities. I don't agree with that.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

CALLER: And I don't think you would agree with that.

PAT: Of course not.

GLENN: Hold on, Anita. Of course we don't agree with that. We never have agreed with that.

PAT: And we've been talking about this --

GLENN: Since George Bush was in office. Early on.

PAT: Longer than Donald Trump. That's for sure.

GLENN: Yeah, we've been on this --

CALLER: Honestly you haven't, Glenn. That's why I get so upset.

GLENN: Excuse me. Hold on just a second. I gave you a chance to talk. Give me a second, please. Let me finish what I was saying.

I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border. So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border. None of us are against any of that.

The question is, how do you get it done? Are you going to follow the Constitution, or are you just going to use the pen and the phone, as Barack Obama says?

CALLER: But, Glenn, honestly, I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit. And I feel because Stu is such a ringleader of hating Trump and making it personal. That's how he started. He started with putting down Trump's clothing line, his hair, his businesses, his TV show. When Glenn, you're a business owner. You have a TV show. You're going to be making movies. You have a clothing line. You can't -- Trump over those things.

GLENN: Okay. I have no problem -- okay. Laurie -- or, Anita --

PAT: I don't remember Stu ever saying anything about a clothing line. I own one of his ties. I don't have a problem with the clothing line.

CALLER: I'm talking about Stu.

STU: What did I say about his clothing line?

CALLER: Stu, that's one of the first things you said! That's when I thought, "Stu, you're making this personal. Why!"

STU: Wait. Can you explain to me what you're talking about?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: What have I said --

GLENN: Can you remember what he said specifically so we can track it down?

CALLER: Yes. And honestly, please, if there's any way that you can digitally type that in and bring that up.

GLENN: Yeah, if you can quote it, we can.

CALLER: Glenn, that's when I started posting on your Facebook.

STU: Stop.

GLENN: Anita, hold on a second. Please. We're trying to be reasonable. And there's no reason for you to get so upset here. Let's have a reasonable conversation.

If you can give us a quote, we can type it in, and we can find the quote. So do you remember kind of what he said about it?

CALLER: Yes. It was back when all this first started and Trump got in the race. Stu went on about his clothing -- who wants to wear his clothes? And he brought about his businesses. And he also brought up about his TV show. And that's when I actually posted on Facebook and I said, "Stu, you're making this personal. Please pray and ask God to direct you on this." I tried to be reasonable.

STU: Can this be like a debate where I get mentioned and I get 30 seconds to respond? Is that --

GLENN: Let him respond, and I'll talk to you too.

PAT: I need 30 seconds to speak too.

STU: You weren't specifically mentioned, Pat.

GLENN: Come on.

STU: No. The only thing I can ever remember talking about his clothing line, ever mentioning, was when the story came out that it was made in Mexico. That was the only thing I could ever remember --

CALLER: That wasn't the thing you said, Stu. Because that's when I started posting about you being a high school dropout because I got so mad at you over that.

STU: Stop. Hold on.

JEFFY: Am I going to get some time too?

STU: First of all, I made it through high school, clearly.

CALLER: Okay. Then it's wrong about you on Facebook, so you'll want to fix that then. Because that's what they have about you. So just have them fix that for you.

STU: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't where you would see that. But I don't --

STU: Anyway --

GLENN: As we all learned this weekend, you can't always trust things on Facebook.

CALLER: Okay. But, Glenn, please stop saying that people are for Trump just because we didn't hate him because he's authoritarian. That's not true --

STU: That's not what the story said, Anita. That's not what it said.

GLENN: Anita, that's not what I said.

STU: The study said it was a statistically significant difference. It didn't say everyone who supports Trump believes in authoritarianism.

GLENN: It is a study. I am not saying it. It is a study, and it is significant difference between -- in fact, let me -- let me just quote the study.

Right here. Had been buoyed by Americans with authoritarian -- has been buoyed. Not driven by. Not all of them. Has been buoyed above all by Americans with authoritarian inclinations.

CALLER: Okay. And I go back to, again, Ted Cruz is respected because he honors his oath he took when he entered office.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: He obeys the laws, and he's also for we, the people. Now, that's why I like Ted Cruz. The reason why I like Trump is because he actually had the courage originally to stand up against those that were coming here illegally, which it is against the law -- that's illegal.

GLENN: So have a lot of people.

CALLER: And I don't feel that it's right to commit a crime, gang rape. Set people on fire. Then move to a sanctuary city.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Neither does Ted Cruz.

STU: Bernie Sanders for that matter.

GLENN: Bernie Sanders doesn't think gang rapes are good. I was just understand your -- your passion that is so deep, I can hear it in your voice. You're very, very angry, and you're very angry at us. And I understand, okay.

CALLER: I'm disappointed in you, Glenn. That's the thing. Because I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit -- I feel like you're not!

GLENN: Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. You might want to ask, if you believe that I do listen to the Spirit and you're being driven --

CALLER: Holy Spirit.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. It's the same thing. If you believe that I listen to the Holy Spirit and you are being driven here with such anger, that you might want to question if you're hearing the Spirit. Because --

CALLER: Well, again, I don't like when you infer that anyone that was not --

GLENN: I never did. That's what you heard.

CALLER: -- because we like an authoritarian figure.

GLENN: No, that's what --

CALLER: That's so far off base, Glenn. That really is.

PAT: That's not what he said.

GLENN: That's what you heard. And you can have an opinion against this study, but it is a study that shows that -- a number of people, just like Barack Obama, there are a number of people that are the hard-core base -- that wouldn't include you because you say you're not part of his hard-core base. But I would kind of question that listening to your voice.

CALLER: Listen -- read all the comments on your Facebook page. I mean, you got to look at that.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: That's why I prayed over and over again, Glenn, please read. Please read. Ask the Holy Spirit to direct you.

PAT: I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing us to Facebook.

GLENN: And I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing me -- I don't believe the Holy Spirit would direct me to a man who behaves the way Donald Trump behaves. I'm sorry.

PAT: I don't think so.

CALLER: Okay. Glenn, did it scare you last night listening to the one minute of the opening statements from Hillary and O'Malley and --

GLENN: I don't believe the Holy Spirit plays the game of, "Well, you should be afraid of this person, and that way you should choose this person." The Holy Spirit will always direct you to do the right thing, even if it means your own persecution.

CALLER: Well, again, I believe that the things that Trump is saying about illegals, I'm 100 percent for that. I am. I don't feel that's fair.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: That is good. So, Anita, are you --

CALLER: And go to sanctuary cities. That's wrong.

GLENN: Are you a one-issue voter? And that's fine if you are.

CALLER: Well, number one, for me, not killing our babies and cutting them into pieces when they have a beating heart at 18 days. I'm pro-life.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second, Anita. Anita.

Could you play the audio, please, from Meet the Press on Donald Trump and partial-birth abortion? Listen to this.

PAT: Yeah, listen to this, Anita.

VOICE: Partial-birth abortion, the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?

DONALD: Well, look, I'm -- I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still -- I just believe in choice.

PAT: Oh.

DONALD: And, again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there's some different attitude and some different parts of the country. And, you know, I was raised in New York. And I grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet, I hate the concept of abortion.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: What year was that interview? 1997?

PAT: 1999.

GLENN: 1999. And can tell you me --

CALLER: Okay. Do you know why -- I'm going to be very honest? I was married, and I was 26. And I got an abortion. And do you know why? Until I was in college and I actually saw the film, The Silent Scream, and I actually was educated on the truth about partial-birth abortion, I also was pro-choice until God changed my heart.

GLENN: Anita, I think that's --

PAT: You have a pivot point, what's his?

GLENN: Anita, that is a brilliant statement. And I'm glad God changed your heart. And like Pat just said, "You can tell me what your pivot point is." You can describe it. What was the movie theater like? Or where did you see the Silent Scream? Where did you see it?

CALLER: It wasn't. It was actually when I was a student at the University of Delaware, and I wanted to do --

GLENN: Hold on. Please answer my question. Anita, please listen to me. Please just answer the question. Where did you see it? Can you tell me what the room looked like?

CALLER: It was actually at the University of Delaware. They had it there. The Silent Scream.

GLENN: Where was it? I understand. Please.

CALLER: It was called The Silent Scream.

GLENN: No. I know that. Anita, please listen to me. What did the room look like where you saw it?

CALLER: It was in the basement of the library at the University of Delaware.

GLENN: Okay. Were there a lot of lights or not very many lights?

CALLER: No. It was actually me watching it by myself.

GLENN: You were by yourself.

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: And what was the chair like that you sat in?

CALLER: It was a regular chair that you have at a university setting. I don't remember every detail about that chair. All I remember was --

GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Please listen to me. Please listen to me. You remember pretty much everything about that moment. You may not know the details of that chair, but you remember what that room looked like. You can tell me everything about your pivot point. Can you tell me now, Anita, what the pivot point was with Donald Trump, where Donald Trump, just in the 2000s, and I believe right before the election of '08 was still very pro-choice and still after '08 talked about appointing somebody to the Supreme Court that is wildly pro-choice. Can you tell me what his pivot point was that we should now believe? Because I do believe in redemption. I do believe people change their mind. I do believe in pivot points. But you have to tell me what it was. What changed his mind?

CALLER: Okay. What about Ted Cruz's father?

GLENN: No, no. Can you tell me -- I can tell you his pivot point.

CALLER: -- Jesus his Savior, went and got his son and his wife, and they made it work, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Exactly right. And what was his pivot point? Can you tell me what Rafael's pivot point was? He met a preacher, right?

CALLER: Who actually told him about Jesus. So why don't you give Trump the same opportunity to say --

GLENN: He's had it. He's had it. He's had it.

PAT: We gave him the choice.

GLENN: He's had it.

STU: In 2015, he wanted to appoint a Supreme Court justice that supports partial-birth abortion.

GLENN: 2015.

STU: 2015. Now, I know that's last year. So maybe we're supposed to excuse that too.

GLENN: There was something big that happened, Anita, between now and 2015 last year that was big enough to say, "I'm not for -- not just abortion, partial-birth abortion is what he was for." Now he's not for that. So tell me what it was?

CALLER: I know God changed my heart on the issue of life.

STU: On 2015, even 2015 we have to make these excuses?

GLENN: So let me say this. And Anita, if this doesn't ring to you, nothing will. And we're wasting our time. And we can bid each other a fond farewell. Donald Trump just said last summer that he hasn't done anything where he had to ask forgiveness for God. Nothing.

CALLER: I remember him saying that.

GLENN: You remember that?

CALLER: Yeah, I remember him saying that.

GLENN: He's never had to ask for forgiveness. If you are for and advocating partial-birth abortion and then you have something happen in your life, which we don't know about -- something happen in your life that is so jarring that in a six-month period, you can say, "I am not -- not only am I not for partial-birth abortion, I'm not for any abortion," something happened in your life. And it would drive you enough to your knees to say, "Lord, please forgive me for advocating for partial-birth abortion and all abortion. Please forgive me." If he can't tell you --

CALLER: Well, would you be willing to have Donald Trump on and say that? What you just said -- would you have him on and say that to him?

GLENN: Oh, dear God, Anita.

STU: We've invited him. He's refused.

PAT: He won't come on the show.

GLENN: He's refused. He won't come on. Because he doesn't have the balls to face actual questions.

STU: Obviously.

CALLER: Well, I don't think that's very Christ-like, you just saying that. And, again --

GLENN: Okay. Anita, I appreciate it.

STU: This is the level.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Anita. I appreciate it. These are the kinds of circular arguments that you get. And she claims not to be a Trump fan.

STU: Good heavens.

PAT: Jeez, man.

GLENN: Listen to what she's willing to accept.

PAT: And why?

GLENN: And talk to me about the Spirit.

JEFFY: The Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit.

GLENN: The Holy Spirit. Where he won't even ask for forgiveness from God. I am being lectured about the Spirit, and she has the full armor for him. It's amazing.

Don't tell me it's not about authoritarianism. She wants someone to pay for what's happening on the border. That's it.

(Later in the program)

GLENN: You found the clothing comment that you made?

STU: Yeah, she was right. I actually did talk about the clothing line, and I had not remembered this.

GLENN: This is a listener that just called in a few minutes ago, said she was very upset at Stu because he made it personal because he was talking about Donald Trump's clothing line, which wouldn't make it personal, would make it about his clothing line. But go ahead.

STU: Yeah. And here's what I -- Pat actually started it off talking about how Macy's dropped his clothing line.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And then Pat said, "I mean, none of this legitimate. None of that should be happening." And then I did chime in there saying, "Right. It shouldn't happen. The second he becomes a Republican candidate, they all boycott him. He was saying this stuff before. Just now because he's a Republican candidate, they were all fired up about it."

PAT: So it's actually us standing up for his clothing line.

JEFFY: Listen to that hate.

PAT: Okay.

STU: We were actually defending him against the boycotts.

PAT: I will say this though, if your main issue is gang rape on the border -- and Anita seemed to be all fired up about gang rape -- maybe your guy is Ted Cruz who actually fought to get a guy who had committed gang rape and murder executed in Texas for it, while Bush, George W. Bush fought against him in the international courts.

GLENN: It was the country -- it was the beginning of my breaking point with George W. Bush was what was happening on the border. But that's a different story.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.