These 5 global events show how CLOSE we are to World War III

Bloomberg / Contributor, Getty Images Contributor, Mikhail Svetlov / Contributor | Getty Images

World War III is a hot topic right now. Some are saying it will break out before Christmas. Is it that unrealistic? World War III was trending on Twitter earlier this year when Biden announced yet another of the many billion-dollar aid packages to Ukraine that, as the Kremlin warned, is funding a proxy war with Russia. We have continued to poke the bear, sending over $100 billion to Ukraine, while fueling Russia's campaign to forge a new axis of power with China, Iran, North Korea, and other anti-Western nations to counter the U.S.

We have continued to poke the bear.

Glenn has long warned about the development of this new anti-Western axis of power. Through the BRICS alliance, Russia, China, and Iran have provided developing nations that have been disillusioned by U.S. foreign policy an alternative to the U.S. dollar, severely diminishing its global influence. Moreover, Russia and China have strengthened their military alliance as the U.S. continues to deplete its munitions while neglecting its ever-weakening economy at home. If the anti-Western axis of power were looking for an opportunity to take advantage of America's weakness, it would be now.

Glenn has long warned about the development of this new anti-Western axis of power.

Following Hamas' terror attacks in Israel, World War III is trending again, and this time, it feels more imminent than ever. This new axis of power has escalated into military action to counter the American-Euro response to the conflict, inching towards the precipice of full-blown war. Here are five global events that demonstrate the deepening ties between the new axis of power—Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—and how, as Glenn predicts, World War III is imminent.

China deploys 6 war ships to the Red Sea

Chinese soldiers stand at attention during a Navy celebration for the People's Liberation Army.

Chinese soldiers stand at attention during a Navy celebration for the People's Liberation Army.

Following Hamas' terror attacks, China's People's Liberation Army deployed six warships to the Middle East. Though the Chinese Communist Party and White House National Security Advisor John Kirby deny any connection between the deployment and Hamas' terrorist attacks, Israel is calling their bluff, and Glenn is too.

China, Russia, and Iran hold joint military exercises off the Gulf of Oman

\u200bRussian ships depart Moscow headed to the Middle East.

Russian ships depart Moscow headed to the Middle East.

STRINGER / Contributor | Getty Images

Shortly after China deployed its six warships to the Gulf of Oman, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PCLA) engaged in joint military exercises with Russia and Qatar, the world's largest sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Glenn said that these joint military exercises debunk any semblance of credibility to China's self-touted "neutral" deployment of six warships to the Middle East.

This is concerning for several reasons. First, China has sided with Arab nations, criticizing Israel's retaliatory military engagement in Gaza following the Hamas terror attacks. Chinese minister Wang Yi said Israel is "acting beyond self-defense" and continues to criticize the IDF's objective to take out Hamas. It is clear that China is no friend to Israel.

It is clear that China is no friend to Israel.

Moreover, China's military position in Africa poses a considerable geopolitical threat if the Israel-Hamas war becomes the catalyst for World War III. China maintains its only foreign military base in Djibouti, across the Gulf of Oman. These joint-military drills simulate the ease with which China could deploy additional troops from its naval base to the Middle East should the Israel-Hamas war erupt into a global conflict with Russia close behind.

US forces in Syria, Iraq, and the Red Sea come under attack

US troops operate a tank in Syria.

US troops operate a tank in Syria.

Anadolu Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon announced that U.S. forces based in the Middle East have been attacked at least 13 times in the past week. According to Brigadier-General Pat Ryder, American troops were targeted ten times in Iraq and three times in Syria “via a mix of one-way attack drones and rockets." Though Iran has yet to claim responsibility, the Pentagon said these attacks have "Iranian fingerprints all over it.

Iran backs multiple militia groups in the Middle East, including the insurgent groups in Iraq and Syria that are suspected to have launched the recent attacks against U.S. troops in the region. In addition, Iran funds Houthi militias in Yemen, who incited an ongoing Yemeni Civil War against the U.S. and Saudi-backed Yemeni government. It is clear that Iran's military influence extends throughout the greater Middle East beyond its borders.

These attacks have "Iranian fingerprints all over it.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carriers to the Middle East in addition to multiple retaliatory airstrikes over Syria in response to the Iranian-backed attacks, signaling the escalating tension between the two powers.

Russia’s foreign minister offers security talks with North Korea and China as he visits Pyongyang

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov meets with North Korea's Kim Jon Un in Pyongyang to discuss ways to deter the US's growing military alliances in the region.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov meets with North Korea's Kim Jon Un in Pyongyang to discuss ways to deter the US's growing military alliances in the region.

Anadolu Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Russia has taken on the lead role in deepening ties of what Glenn has described as the "new Axis of power" with China, Iran, and North Korea. Most recently, Russia's chief diplomat, Foreign Minister Lavrov visited Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang to address what he described as the US's increasing regional military threats in the region. Lavrov said:

The United States, Japan, and South Korea intensifying military activity here and Washington working toward moving strategic infrastructure, including nuclear aspects, here, are of great concern to us and our North Korean friends.

North Korea has played a crucial role in supplying Russia with weapons, enabling the Kremlin to bypass international sanctions to fund their war effort in Ukraine. The White House reported that North Korea had delivered more than 1,000 containers of military equipment and munitions to Russia. The revolving aid between traditionally sanctioned countries like Russia and North Korea demonstrates the decreasing effectiveness of Western sanctions to deter global aggression towards U.S. allies.

39 countries are ready to join the BRICS alliance in 2024

Putin, Xi, and other world leaders gather at the South African BRICS summit.

Putin, Xi, and other world leaders gather at the South African BRICS summit.

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has long warned of the threat the BRICS alliance poses to the U.S. dollar and, consequently, the U.S.'s national security. BRICS was originally founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to provide an alternative to the U.S. dollar's global dominance in international trade. The dollar has been the default international currency since the end of World War I due to its stability and dependability compared to other currencies. This position gives the U.S. major leverage in geopolitical relationships.

BRICS provides an alternative to the U.S. dollar's global dominance in international trade.

However, BRICS has significantly diminished the U.S. dollar's global significance, giving developing nations who have been disillusioned by U.S. foreign policy a tantalizing alternative. The alliance has already enabled Russia, China, and Iran to bypass sanctions and solidify their influence in Africa and South America. Now, with Iran formally joining the alliance in 2024, Russia, China, and Iran will have an established means of bypassing Western sanctions and the "petrodollar" to build their parallel global economy.

Should a global war erupt, the petrodollar and sanctions will be rendered useless to stifle the war efforts of the opposing powers. Moreover, BRICS is expanding into 34 countries in 2024, shifting many countries that have traditionally looked to the U.S. for economic partnership elsewhere. As the developing world is being pulled towards the East, the U.S.'s historic economic supremacy during wartime would be severely diminished.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.