National Review’s David French Analyzes Trump Emails: ‘I Could Not Believe My Eyes’

July 12, 2017

Writer

On Tuesday, Donald Trump, Jr. confirmed a report that he had emailed and met with Russian contacts to try to get information about Hillary Clinton because the Russian government wanted to support the Trump campaign. He tweeted screenshots of the exchange, in which he was promised "high level and sensitive information" from the Kremlin that would help his father beat Clinton in the 2016 election. Is colluding with foreign governments illegal, and what comes after this startling revelation?

National Review’s David French, a veteran, author, and Harvard Law graduate, joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to analyze the story.

Based on what we know, the emails show “attempted collusion,” French explained, saying that he wouldn’t have believed such an email exchange existed just a week ago.

“I would have thought that’s a bad ‘House of Cards’ episode,” French said incredulously. “That’s just too on the nose.”

French listed the three things we can learn from what we know so far. First, the Trump campaign is still culpable even if they didn’t gain information about Clinton from the meeting; second, an independent investigation is still needed because we don’t know what actually happened in that meeting; and third, we should wonder if there’s more information waiting to come out.

“As somebody said, if you’re thinking you’re buying drugs, and they turn out to be fake drugs, that doesn’t make you any better of a person,” French noted.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Rand Paul just announced that the G.O.P. is -- has decided to keep Obamacare. I mean, how are you going to get Obamacare through with any of this? And they weren't going that direction anyway.

We want to talk to David French from the National Review. He's a senior fellow. He's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Author of several books and a graduate from Harvard Law School.

So, David, I want to start there, with what you know legally.

Were any crimes committed at all?

DAVID: It doesn't -- there doesn't seem to be the crimes that have been committed. I mean, at least I haven't identified any yet.

You know, there's been a word that's been thrown around a lot, and that's "collusion." And collusion isn't really a legal term. It's more of a political term. And it means cooperation, I would say. It means participation. And it's -- it's -- obviously -- obviously, no one would want to see Americans cooperating with, participating with a hostile foreign power, as it tries to influence an American election. So calling something "collusion," regardless if it's illegal is still very damaging. It's still very, very problematic.

But as of right now, if you look at the decision of Donald Trump Jr. to take that meeting with Jared Kushner, with Paul Manafort, that doesn't seem to be illegal. It still seems to be -- but that doesn't mean that it's not highly, highly problematic. And we can't say the definition of right and wrong is defined by what's legal or illegal.

GLENN: Correct. And we don't have collusion, per se,, but we do have just in the email, at least -- we do have the willingness to coordinate. When he wrote, "Hey, this is great. But it would be better if it was released maybe later this summer," that is the beginning of cooperation. Is it not?

DAVID: Well, right. Absolutely. The way I phrased it is it looks like based on the available evidence -- what you had was like attempted collusion. If you had asked me a week ago -- or if you had told me a week ago that there exists an actual email sent to high-level Trump officials that says, "We're offering that -- we're offering to provide the Trump campaign with official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father, and it's high-level and sensitive information, but it's part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump," like that's actually in an email, and then a high-level Trump official, no less high-level than Trump's son responds with, "If that's what you say, I love it," I would have thought that's a bad House of Cards episode. That's just too on the nose, that people can actually --

GLENN: Yeah. And there's no -- there -- I didn't think that there was collusion. I didn't think any of -- you would have said to me last week, if there was just emails between the Russians and the Trumps, I would have said no. I mean, I just -- I didn't believe any of this by any stretch of the imagination. And so now we get to the repeated lies. I think we counted 38 or 48 lies, where they are saying none of this happened. One of those, which is stunning -- and I'm trying to get the tape of it, is from Jake Tapper, where he had Donald Trump Jr. on, at the time of the convention, and he said, "You know, they're saying that the -- that the Russians are targeting Hillary Clinton in favor of your father."

And the answer from Donald Trump Jr. is astounding now that you know what he knew, where he rolls his eyes and he said, "This is just pathetic. They will say anything to win."

I mean, where do you go with that, David?

DAVID: Well, one of the things you do, where you go with that, is you don't believe a word they say anymore. And that's really, really important. Because one of the major defenses that we heard yesterday was, okay. Well, we took the meeting. But the meeting was nothing. Nothing happened. There was no collusion. They didn't offer us anything. We didn't give them anything.

And, you know, that may well be true. That may well be true. It may well be that they took a meeting under false pretenses. But there's two things that flow from that. Or, really three things. One, it still doesn't mean that their intent wasn't terrible. As somebody said, if you're thinking you're buying drugs and they turn out to be fake drugs, that doesn't make you any better person.

GLENN: Yeah. And you're not calling the police. I've been ripped off!

DAVID: Right. Exactly.

And, number two, it says, we don't need to believe a word that you said what actually happened in the meetings. So that means independent investigation should continue.

And, number three, it should make us very, very, very curious about whether there's anything else here. There's no reason for us to believe that this is the last shoe to drop right now.

GLENN: Well, especially since on Saturday -- you know, two weeks ago, it was nothing. Then Saturday, it was a meeting about adoption. And then it was, oh, there's a little more.

And then by Monday, it was the most amazing Hollywood-written email we've -- any of us have ever seen.

DAVID: When I saw that email -- I could not believe my eyes, when I saw that email.

GLENN: David, you have -- you have been watching the conservative movement for a long time. But you've been watching it now for the last 18 months. And I have to -- I have to ask myself and you, all right. People are really hurting. They're really struggling. They don't believe the press. They don't, really, in anything anymore. They reached out to Donald Trump because he spoke their language and said, look, I'm going to bring your jobs back. I'm going to help you with health care.

Many people will look at this and say, this is a distraction. And we have to stop it because we need to get the things done that he promised he was going to get done.

How do you -- what does this do to the conservative movement, if we play this like the left played Bill Clinton in the 1990s?

DAVID: Well, I think what happens is we become that which we despise. You know, I was -- I was -- you know, I remember the 1990s very, very vividly. I remember being appalled at the Democrats, not just -- not just that the Democrats were willing to excuse Bill Clinton, but the extent to which they would attack other people to cover for Bill Clinton and to distract from Bill Clinton.

And you begin to see a lot of the same things happening in the -- you know, what we would still call the conservative movement, that not only are they excusing, they're attacking other people. Sometimes unjustly. Sometimes these other people do wrong things. But attacking other people to excuse Donald Trump. And then at the end of the day, you're looking at it. And, yes, Donald Trump has done some good things. The Gorsuch nomination was very good. The Mattis nomination was very good. But on a lot of things on his agenda, he's not even moving in any direction on those particular things.

And so you, at the end of the day, you're going, "Well, I'm attacking on his behalf. I'm excusing things I never would have excused" -- I mean, could you imagine two years ago, Glenn, that there would be Republicans talking about a meeting like this, with the intention of meeting with foes of the United States to influence an American election -- two years ago, saying, "Oh, that's not a big problem. Here's the real problem?" I could have never imagined that.

GLENN: I could have imagined Hillary Clinton -- honestly, I think so lowly of Hillary Clinton, that I could imagine that.

DAVID: Well, yes.

GLENN: But I couldn't imagine this with --

DAVID: From our side.

GLENN: From our side. No.

How serious is this, David? Where does this go?

DAVID: That's a great question. I would say, it's very serious. We don't know how serious it will get because we don't know what else is there. If this is -- if there is no other shoe that drops in all of this, if this is the story, this is very, very serious, but it's not going to lead to a change in the administration. It's not going to lead to impeachment. But it should be -- it should be deeply alarming, and it should be deeply damaging. But we just don't know. We're at a point right now where -- as Jonah Goldberg put it well, we know so little that we should trust no one and defend no one because there are a lot -- so many facts that we don't know. We have to wait. We have to be patient. And I know that's really hard in the Twitter news cycle. But we really do have to be patient. There are actual credible investigations ongoing.

And what this has shown us is that these investigations aren't a, quote, unquote, witch hunt. For a while -- and I was beginning to believe it. I was beginning to believe that the collusion narrative was utterly false

GLENN: Me too.

DAVID: And now I'm seeing that maybe that's not right, and we need to really -- we need to really leave no stone unturned.

GLENN: So I'm going to talk to the audience here in a few minutes about some of the things that I'm worried about. I mean, any time in American history, that the United States government has become unstable, that's when our foes move. We are -- we are in a situation where one of our foes is Russia. I mean, we are entangled with Russia in North Korea. We're entangled with them in ISIS in the Middle East. In Europe -- I mean, the president just gave a great speech about not -- having Europe not entangled with Russian oil.

I am concerned about things like Kim Jong-il. Is there something on the horizon that we should watch for and be very careful and watch this administration and how they move? Because we know that there might be some deep connections with Russia.

DAVID: Well, you know, we just have to look at very carefully what's happening both in Europe and the Ukraine. The Baltic States. And also Syria. You know, look, people don't realize what a flash point Syria is and what a flash point Syria could become. Because we're moving towards a de facto partition of that country, where we're the guardian and protector of our allies, Russian is the guardian and protector of their allies, and our allies and their allies are often in direct military conflict with each other.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

DAVID: And that's extremely volatile. And that requires a very steady hand at the wheel. Or a very steady hand at the -- you know, at the helm of the ship of state. And this is something where -- things like this, where you're realizing, could there have been such inappropriate contacts behind the scenes that even today there might be some possibility that there the Russians have leverage that they shouldn't have? That's where it gets very, very troubling.

Because this kind of news cycle -- if there exists other context, this kind of news cycle can erupt again, just at the whim of the Russian state. And that's what a lot of people don't realize when they say, oh, well, what's wrong with taking a meeting about opposition research? Well, what's wrong with it is that the person who meets with you, in this case, if they're agents of the Russian government, has the information that they met with you. They have the knowledge that they met with you. And they have the ability to deploy that knowledge at will to harm you. And that creates leverage. And that's just one of the problematic aspects of it. But it's a very problematic aspect when that leverage is on behalf of our chief geopolitical foe.

GLENN: I have one more minute to answer this question: We're -- we're sitting here and looking at the House and the Senate. They're trying to get health care through. Et cetera, et cetera. They're trying to get a bunch of judges through.

What do our listeners need to do to not -- to have a chance of not losing the House in 2018?

We -- the way we react as the G.O.P., if we bury this, there's a lot of independents that will say, "I want checks and balances on this guy."

DAVID: Right.

GLENN: More so than they already did. What -- how should we be reacting now? What should we be saying?

DAVID: I would say three words: Do your jobs. And your jobs include getting through good legislation. Because there's nothing that says administration chaos can't mean that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't put good legislation on the president's desk that could help Americans. And, number two, do your job in holding this president accountable. Because if you're seen entirely as carrying his water -- and any positive agenda is stalled while you're carrying his water, to say that that puts the House -- makes the House vulnerable and the House majority vulnerable is an understatement. And I think "do your jobs" is the message.

GLENN: Yeah, I agree.

Great. Thank you very much. David French from the National Review. Good talking to you, David. Stay safe.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

National Review’s David French Analyzes Trump Emails: ‘I Could Not Believe My Eyes’

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

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

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

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

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.

Willful blindness

Monthly attacks

Democrats are radicalizing