A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us



Imagine the Confederates attacking Fort Sumter in April 1861 and Abraham Lincoln negotiating terms of separation instead of mustering troops. We would be two separate countries. In a limited but real sense, we now live in two countries anyway — because Donald Trump has ceded ground to blue-state mobs.

States like Minnesota, working in tandem with local politicians to obstruct a basic federal function — protecting national sovereignty — are latter-day Confederates. Blue states claim the power to nullify federal immigration enforcement inside their borders. That raises a question no one in Washington wants to answer: If blue states can thwart national sovereignty to protect illegal aliens, why can’t red states remove them?

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind protecting Americans from political persecution.

This fight doesn’t hinge on Minneapolis or the specific riots that ended with two anti-ICE agitators dead. It reflects a sustained, coordinated campaign across blue cities: street militants, local Democrats, and friendly judges working in concert to shut down immigration enforcement. The activists don’t negotiate over “rules of engagement.” They aim to ban enforcement itself, at least anywhere Democrats hold power. Blue states now run a neo-Confederacy against one of the few legitimate functions of national government.

Now look at what happens on the other side of the divide. Some weak-kneed Republicans — James Comer of Kentucky among them — float the idea that Trump should leave blue cities to stew in their own sanctuary mess, as if the locals will eventually revolt. That fantasy collapses on contact with reality. Worse, ceding sovereignty to blue states hasn’t even produced more deportations in red states.

Courts have enjoined nearly every state statute that tries to treat illegal presence as a state crime. If red states attempted full-spectrum crackdowns under a Democrat president, the same judicial buzz saw would cut them down.

The result: Democrats can block federal law regardless of who sits in the White House, while red states can’t protect themselves when Democrats run the executive branch.

That asymmetry flows from something simple and ugly: Republicans don’t believe their own promises the way Democrats believe theirs. Republicans talk problems to death. Democrats build institutions.

Democrats staff agencies, cultivate prosecutors, and train judges to pursue a shared mission. Republicans often appoint people who treat their “mission” as career management and donor service.

Democrats built parallel systems designed to frustrate immigration enforcement under an opposing president. Conservatives in red states built little beyond press releases and campaign slogans.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

Democrats in Minnesota and elsewhere have effectively executed the state interposition James Madison described in Federalist 46.

“The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices … would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments,” Madison wrote. “And where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

So the first step is to stir public “disquietude.” Then teach “repugnance” toward federal action. Encourage refusal to cooperate with “officers of the Union.” Then use the governor, legislature, and adjacent states “in unison” to create obstacles so severe that the federal government hesitates to enforce the law.

Blue states have followed that script with discipline. They align the branches. They coordinate the message. They deploy local officials to deny cooperation. They rely on judges in blue jurisdictions to shred the Immigration and Nationality Act, even when Congress tried to limit judicial interference, and they order illegal aliens released from custody.

The political class says the quiet part out loud. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) invoked Fort Sumter to describe his interposition against the federal government. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) declared that Minneapolis “does not, and will not, enforce federal immigration law.” Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner threatened to “hunt down” ICE agents he believes violated civil liberties, calling them “wannabe Nazis,” and promised to identify them and pursue them.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind the proposition of protecting Americans from political persecution. Where did red-state leaders stand when the Biden Justice Department went after pro-lifers for praying outside abortion clinics? Where did they stand when federal authorities treated ordinary citizens like criminals for walking through the Capitol after barriers and rope lines moved?

Democrats now operate by a new rulebook: anarchy for their people, coercion for ours.

Republicans still operate as if the old system can save them. Even when a red-state leader shows spine, he often stands alone — without a legislature willing to act, without an attorney general willing to litigate, without courts willing to defend state interests.

Watching blue states succeed at sabotaging immigration enforcement under Trump should alarm everyone. A darker problem looms: the next Democrat Justice Department won’t limit itself to immigration. When it turns its machinery against Americans again, red states won’t have Madison’s “in unison” design ready to defend their citizens. They will prove as impotent against federal coercion as they have been against the importation of millions of illegal aliens.

Americans now live like second-class citizens while illegal aliens enjoy first-class protection — because the party that claims to represent Americans has failed at the most basic task of representation: fighting to win.

Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good



Barack Obama used the same U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics as Donald Trump. During his eight years in the White House, his administration deported more illegal aliens than Trump has.

Yet the Obama years did not feature mass protests over deportations. No governors or mayors compared ICE to the Gestapo, a comparison so obscene it should end careers. No district attorneys vowed to “hunt down” ICE agents for doing their jobs. No late-night comedians insisted that ICE agents ranked “worse than Nazis.

Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power.

That backlash became routine only after Trump. Two factors explain why.

First, the left hates Trump to the core. Not as a political rival, but as a personal and moral affront. This visceral, uncontrolled hatred has swallowed identities and replaced judgment. It fuels social media tantrums, office politics, family feuds, and the constant need to punish dissent. Among allies, people congratulate each other for hating the right man. For everyone else, they virtue-signal.

This hatred will not fade with time. It will persist after Trump leaves office, and it may even outlive him. Ronald Reagan hate still lingers decades after his death. Trump hate runs hotter, deeper, and more irrational. It will not burn out on schedule.

Second, the immigration fight has turned strategic.

During the Obama years, the left had not yet internalized two tactics that now help it hold power.

Once Democrats win office, many push policy as far left as state and federal constitutions allow: higher taxes, soft-on-crime governance, heavier regulation, and soaring costs that punish families. That agenda drives productive citizens out of blue cities and blue states and into red states. Conservatives hold few truly red cities now; the activist class has captured many local institutions.

Red states gain taxpayers and workers. Blue states lose them.

Democrat leaders have chosen to replace the citizens who leave, but not with similarly productive citizens. They replace them with illegal aliens.

That strategy helps explain Joe Biden’s first-day border reversals and the torrent of executive actions that followed. The signal was plain: Enforcement would relax, entry would rise, and the federal government would look away. Millions came, many without legal status. Many settled in blue jurisdictions that offer sanctuary policies and advertise benefits.

Politicians sell those benefits as “free”: child care, health care, schooling, housing programs. Taxpayers pay the bills. Debt fills the rest.

California offers the clearest example. The state has lost large numbers of residents to Texas and Florida. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) does not treat the exodus as a crisis. He treats it as ideological sorting. If taxpayers leave, he can replace the head count with people who will not challenge his machine at the ballot box.

Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote. They still count. Biden made sure of that.

The census counts residents, and those numbers drive seats in the United States House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. Add population, gain power. Lose population, lose power. Democrats understand the arithmetic, which is why they fight enforcement as fiercely as they fight elections.

RELATED: ‘This isn't organic’: Joe Rogan says Minnesota's anti-ICE protests are ‘coordinated’ to induce chaos

Photo by Geoff Stellfox/Getty Images

Then comes the long game. Children born here can vote. Democrats assume those children will vote Democrat for life. They are building a future electorate while padding current representation.

Trump’s deportation strategy threatens that structure. Democrats have already watched citizens flee Illinois, New York, California, and other strongholds. If deportations also shrink the illegal-alien population those states have absorbed, Democrats lose House seats, Electoral College strength, and national leverage.

So they raise the temperature. They smear ICE as “secret police” and dare Trump to enforce the law anyway. They bait confrontation because chaos can create a veto: If streets burn long enough, Washington may flinch.

If Trump refuses to flinch, they reach for the next weapon: the camera. A clash becomes a “crackdown.” An arrest becomes “political persecution.” A dead protester becomes a martyr, and the headlines write themselves. The moral damage does not scare them; it serves them.

Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power. They do not need tanks to do it. They need prosecutors, mayors, and media partners willing to treat law enforcement as evil and disorder as virtue.

Trump offers hilarious rebuttal to Tim Walz's absurd Civil War analogy



President Donald Trump gave a hilarious response to Democratic Gov. Tim Walz's attempt to compare the conflicts in Minnesota to the Civil War.

Blaze News asked Trump to address Walz's remarks likening the hostilities at Fort Sumter that sparked the Civil War to the heightened tensions seen on the ground in Minneapolis in recent weeks. When asked if he agreed with the characterization, Trump gave Blaze News a viral response.

'I was elected to do a job.'

"Does he know what Fort Sumter was, or do you think somebody wrote it out for him?"

"I was elected on law and order," Trump told Blaze News. "I was elected on a strong border. We had a border that allowed 25 million people to come in. Many were murderers. ... We had open borders."

RELATED: Trump's unusual Cabinet meeting may reveal which officials are on thin ice

Blaze Media's @rebekazeljko: "Tim Walz recently likened the conflict on the ground to Fort Sumter..."

President Trump: "Does he know what Fort Sumter was?" pic.twitter.com/blvsf1RDjl
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) January 30, 2026

Trump brushed off Walz's remarks, differentiating his tough-on-crime track record from the Democrat governor's state that is rampant with fraud and violent crime.

"I was elected on a lot of reasons, because when I took over we inherited a mess," Trump told Blaze News.

"When I was elected, I was elected to do a job, and one of the big things I was elected to do is law and order."

RELATED: 'Horrifying situation': Some Republicans retreat following Minneapolis shooting of anti-ICE agitator

Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump criticized Democrats' refusal to embrace law enforcement, pondering if they really want criminals to remain in their cities.

"If you look at Minnesota, Minneapolis, we have crime down there because we took out thousands of people, despite all the mess and everything else," Trump told Blaze News.

"But do these people really want to have rapists? Do they really want to have drug dealers and people from prisons and murderers?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hawaii tells Supreme Court our rights should exist only with permission



Something shocking just happened between Hawaii — a state that already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation — and the Supreme Court, and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is sounding the alarm.

In defense of a sweeping gun restriction, Hawaii argued that Americans’ rights only exist if someone else gives permission, citing "Black Codes" written to disarm freed slaves as “historical tradition.”

This means that gun owners can’t carry on private property, unless the owner explicitly allows it.

“That means your constitutional right only exists if somebody else says yes. And the judges are like, ‘I’m sorry, how are you doing the math on this one?’ And Hawaii steps up to the microphone and says, ‘Yeah, your honor, don’t worry, history supports us on this,’” Glenn says.


The initial Black Code law that Hawaii’s new law is modeled after was written after the Civil War, and it was meant to disarm newly freed slaves so they were unable to defend themselves from mobs, the clan, or corrupt authorities.

“People who normally recoil from Black Codes, you know, like garlic with a vampire, suddenly embrace them because it helps restrict guns,” Glenn explains.

“But the case isn’t really about guns,” he says. “And that’s what I think everybody who is analyzing this case is missing. It is not about guns. It’s about whether your rights exist before government or only after permission is granted.”

“Hawaii says your right exists if someone else allows it. The Constitution says no, no, your rights exist because you exist and you’re free. And the court’s being asked to answer the question, do we define American liberty by its highest principles? Or by its darkest moments?” he continues.

“And once you use poisoned history to limit rights, rights stop being rights,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

America now looks like a marriage headed for divorce — with no exit



Marriages rarely end over one argument. They fall apart through a long breakdown in communication, a growing inability to resolve disagreements, and the slow realization that two people no longer walk toward the same future.

Healthy marriages don’t require full agreement on every subject. They require compromise on the decisions that shape daily life: money, children, priorities, responsibilities. They also require shared goals.

No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When those goals diverge — and neither side will realign — the relationship becomes unsustainable. The law calls the condition “irreconcilable differences.”

America now lives in that condition.

We remain bound under one nation, one Constitution, and one civic home. But we no longer share a common purpose. We no longer share a common story about what the country is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to endure.

This conflict no longer turns on tax rates or regulatory policy. It turns on the legitimacy and direction of the American experiment itself.

The modern left no longer argues about how to preserve the American system. It treats the system as the problem. Democratic leaders and activists call for “fundamental transformation,” flirt with socialism, and talk about the founding less as a flawed but noble legacy than as a moral failure that demands replacement. In that worldview, America doesn’t need reform. America needs erasure.

The right still believes the country can be repaired and preserved. The left increasingly treats the country as something to dismantle.

This rupture shows up in concrete ways. In 2021, the National Archives placed a “harmful language” warning on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — the documents that define the nation. That doesn’t signal ordinary partisan dispute. It signals contempt for the country’s moral foundation.

Socialism sits at the center of this divide. It contradicts the American system at its roots. America rests on the premise that rights come from God, not government. Socialism elevates the state over the individual and makes rights conditional on political approval. It centralizes power in the name of enforced equality — “equity.”

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

America protects private property as an extension of liberty. It channels ambition into innovation and prosperity. Socialism treats success as a social offense and demands equality of outcome. When people refuse to surrender the fruits of their labor, socialism turns to coercion. Coercion requires centralized authority. Centralized authority punishes dissent.

The pattern repeats: less freedom, greater dependency, and a governing model incompatible with constitutional self-rule.

The irony remains hard to miss. The left calls Donald Trump “Hitler” while cheering figures like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist. Yet the Nazi Party sold itself as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — a collectivist project built on centralized power and state control.

The same left often excuses Antifa, a movement built on intimidation, street violence, and political enforcement designed to silence opposition. Those tactics don’t belong to liberal democracy. They belong to regimes that fear debate.

Even basic reality has become contested. The left and right can’t agree on something as elemental as what a man or a woman is. The Supreme Court recently showcased the collapse when ACLU attorneys arguing sex-based discrimination refused to define “woman.” When a society refuses to name biological facts that every civilization once treated as obvious, compromise collapses with it.

This crisis goes deeper than polarization. It reaches the level of knowledge itself. The left increasingly treats biology, history, and moral limits as malleable social constructs. The right still believes objective reality binds us all.

These aren’t normal disagreements. They describe incompatible worldviews. And incompatibility carries consequences.

During the COVID era, polls found majorities of Democrats willing to endorse coercive measures against the unvaccinated, including house arrest. Nearly half supported imprisoning people who questioned vaccine efficacy. Those numbers didn’t represent a fringe. They revealed a growing comfort with state force in service of ideological conformity.

After Trump’s 2016 election, many friendships survived political conflict. By 2020, after years of dehumanization — after constant accusations of “Nazism” aimed at ordinary voters — many of those relationships broke. The political battle stopped sounding like disagreement and started sounding like moral extermination.

RELATED: Washington, DC, has become a hostile city-state

Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images

In September 2025, someone assassinated Charlie Kirk. Large segments of the left didn’t just rationalize the killing. Many celebrated it.

After Scott Adams died following a long fight with cancer, prominent voices responded with mockery instead of decency. People magazine ran a headline labeling him “disgraced.” Even death became a political verdict.

This is what irreconcilable differences look like at a national scale.

A country cannot endure when one side believes the nation stands as fundamentally good — worthy of preservation and reform — while the other believes it stands as irredeemably evil and must be dismantled. Marriages end when partners stop seeing each other as allies and start treating each other as enemies.

Nations fracture for the same reason.

America cannot solve this the way a couple dissolves a marriage. The Constitution binds us to one civic order. No clean separation awaits. No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When irreconcilable differences exist but separation remains impossible, the danger grows.

Only three paths remain: recommitment to constitutional principles, enforced coexistence through expanding coercion, or escalation into open conflict as dehumanization becomes normal.

Pretending this amounts to another election cycle, another policy dispute, or another cable-news food fight invites catastrophe. A nation cannot survive when its people no longer agree on what it is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to continue.

Unlike a failed marriage, America can’t walk away.

Minneapolis ICE protesters are BEGGING for civil war — and we need to take them seriously



Liberal protesters have descended upon Minneapolis following the ICE shooting of Renee Nicole Good — and after viewing footage from the protests, BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales can’t help but get “civil war vibes.”

“I do take them seriously that they want violence,” Gonzales says. “OK, I want to be clear. I do take them seriously that they are trying to take down America from within and that they do very much want a civil war.”

“Over the weekend, you’ve got more civil unrest, once again, you have all of these people putting their lives on the line to protest and obstruct ICE agents who are there to round up criminals. Like that’s all there is to it. They are there to cause a problem for the law enforcement officials who went out there to round up actual criminals,” she continues.

One clip from the weekend protests even shows a man screaming that he plans to buy a gun and learn how to use it because it’s “time for armed resistance against the United States of America.”


“First of all, I need the administration to take this very seriously. They need to take this extremely seriously. Any of these protesters who are out there threatening these ICE agents who are out there threatening, saying, ‘I’m going to get a gun and then I’m going to kill you,’ should be arrested,” Gonzales says.

“You’ve gone far over freedom of speech. You do not get to threaten someone with murder. You’re not allowed to do that. You know how I know? I’ve had people prosecuted for doing the same thing. You are not allowed to do that,” she continues.

And Gonzales can’t help but notice that the reason for their protest is about as ridiculous as it was the last time Minneapolis saw riots.

“And this is the state of leftism. They are rioting over a chick who tried to protect Somali criminals from being deported. And that is why I’m saying this is actually worse. People protesting this are actually like, this is actually dumber than the George Floyd protests,” she says.

“It’s actually dumber ... if you obstruct ICE, if you make the wrong decision, if you put their life on the line and they are forced to defend themselves or their partners or any other innocent people, they will do that,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck exposes the REAL reason Tim Walz is fanning civil war flames — and it’s not Trump resistance



After the death of Renee Nicole Good — the woman shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7 after she struck him with her car during a large-scale immigration operation — Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), who publicly condemned the shooting as unnecessary, intentionally fanned the flames by issuing a warning order to prepare the National Guard for deployment.

The Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause, forbids state military forces from impeding, obstructing, or interfering with federal military or law enforcement officials carrying out federal duties, as federal law and authority are supreme over conflicting state actions.

Walz, says Glenn Beck, undoubtedly knows such a violation of this clause would mean serious consequences, so his words were clearly meant to accomplish a different purpose.

That purpose, he says, is to send a "signal” to “the Democrats' own revolutionary guard.”

“Those are the people who have been so duped or … hate America because America is the worst place in the world … they're on a mission to stop the federal government any way they possibly can,” Glenn explains.

In other words, Walz was stoking a “civil war.”

The following day, he went a step farther. At a press conference on January 8, Walz said, “When things looked really bleak, it was Minnesota First that held that line for the nation on that July 3, 1863, and I think now we may be in that moment, that the nation's looking to us to hold the line on democracy, to hold the line on decency, to hold the line on accountability, and more than that, to rise up as neighbors and simply say, ‘We can look out for one another.”’

“What he's doing here right now is just, it's the most selfish thing I've ever seen. He is only protecting himself,” says Glenn, predicting that it’s a matter of time before Walz is behind bars for his almost certain complicity in the massive, mostly Somali-perpetrated fraud schemes uncovered in Minnesota.

“The guy is guilty,” he says frankly.

It’s this guilt — not anything related to Renee Good — that is fueling Walz’s recent statements, Glenn says.

“He, first of all, stole your money, gave it to people who were shipping it out of the country. He and his administration enabled and assisted in all of this, then turned a blind eye when everybody realized … something wrong is happening. They did nothing. Why? Because if they did something in the Somali community, it guaranteed that they would not be re-elected,” Glenn says.

“It was all about getting elected.”

Then when the fraud schemes started to catch up with him, prompting the massive influx of ICE officers into Minnesota, followed by protests and obstructions and eventually Good’s death, Walz saw an opportunity to take the spotlight off his own crimes by inciting radicals to resist federal agents, framing it as defending democracy and neighbors.

“He is calling for a civil war and making himself the white knight on the white horse, saying, ‘I'm just here to protect you’ ... even though he's the guy who enabled people to come into your house and steal all of your stuff,” scoffs Glenn. “He’s saying, ‘I'm here to protect you from the bad guys who are trying to put me in jail."’

“He's willing to have people killed. He is willing to see a civil war. For what reason? To keep him out of jail. I don't think I've ever seen anything this selfish in my life.”

To hear more of his analysis, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The algorithm sells despair. Christmas tells the truth.



I recently did something that I usually avoid. I stayed up too late and wandered into the digital sewer we politely call “the conversation.” X, feeds, clips, comments, rage-bait. I knew it would not end well, but I kept scrolling anyway. By the time I finally shut it off, it was clear that the despair and resentment social media produces are not a bug — they are the feature.

The world you see online is a world stripped of context and proportion. Everything is framed as an emergency, everything demands outrage, nothing asks for wisdom. Human suffering is turned into ammunition, children are turned into slogans, and hatred is dressed up as moral clarity. If you sit with it long enough, you begin to feel foolish for believing in decency at all.

God is not dead. He is not asleep. And the story is not finished, no matter how much the algorithm wants you to believe otherwise.

It made me think of a poem I had not thought about for some time.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “Christmas Bells” is often quoted for its opening lines about peace on earth and goodwill toward men. That is usually where people stop.

But Longfellow wrote the poem in the middle of the Civil War. His country was fractured, his own son a casualty of the fighting, and his wife killed in a tragic accident. The poem is an honest look into the mind of a man laid low.

In the early stanzas, Longfellow describes hearing church bells repeat the old promise of peace. Then reality intrudes, cannons thunder, violence drowns out the song. He writes that it felt “as if an earthquake rent the hearthstones of a continent.” That is what civil war feels like from the inside.

That line has stayed with me for a very long time.

We are not there yet, but the pressure is mounting. Anti-Semitism has returned openly, not whispered, but justified. The Jewish people — history’s most reliable early warning system — are being threatened again, and too many voices respond with silence, excuses, or applause. We swore we would never allow this again. Now it is happening all over the West.

At the same time, the world is edging toward wider conflict. Alliances are hardening, borders matter again. But this time, there is no obvious force capable of stabilizing the chaos. America is busy devouring itself. Europe is exhausted. The rest of the world is watching to see what happens next.

This is the part of the poem most people skip.

Longfellow does not rush to hope. He admits his despair. “There is no peace on earth,” he writes, “for hate is strong, and mocks the song.” Honesty is not weakness. Pretending everything is fine when it is not is how civilizations collapse quietly.

But the poem does not end there.

The final stanza matters because it follows despair instead of denying it. Longfellow writes:

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men.”

That is not cheap optimism promising a quick end to suffering. It is a conviction insisting that evil does not get the last word.

That distinction matters a lot right now.

RELATED: Culture’s great subversion machine has broken down at last

Blaze Media Illustration

Hope is not pretending the algorithm is wrong. It is recognizing that what trends is rarely what endures. The quiet courage that holds families together, the decency that stops violence when no camera is present, the faith that steadies people when institutions fail — those things do not go viral, but they do prevail. History does not turn on outrage. It turns on character.

Every civilization that survives a moment like this does so because enough people refuse to surrender their moral bearings. They do not deny the danger or excuse the evil. They do not outsource conscience to crowds or machines. They decide, quietly and stubbornly, to let their lives reflect the fact that truth still matters.

Longfellow had not yet seen the end of the war when he wrote that poem. He wrote it because despair was real and hope was necessary anyway. The bells did not silence the cannons overnight. But they reminded him — and us — that order is not an illusion and truth is not negotiable.

God is not dead. He is not asleep. And the story is not finished, no matter how much the algorithm wants you to believe otherwise.

The Left’s Real Target In Its Latest Attack On Robert E. Lee Is America Itself

Those on the left who label Robert E. Lee a traitor and call for statues of him to be torn down have no interest in the historical facts or good faith debate.

Mamdani dares ICE to come get him — and throws the Constitution in the trash



New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani calls himself a “Democratic Socialist,” but he clearly doesn’t support the cooperative federalism that keeps American democracy functioning.

Just weeks after projecting a diplomatic, moderate tone during an Oval Office visit, Mamdani issued a message that should chill any American who values the rule of law. Responding to a recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid in Chinatown, Mamdani in a video urged illegal aliens to “stand up” to federal agents by exploiting every legal loophole to stall enforcement.

Mamdani’s encouragement mirrors the toxic doctrine of states’ rights absolutism that fueled the nation’s march toward civil war.

“We can all stand up to ICE if you know your rights,” he declared, offering a tutorial on how to shut doors in agents’ faces, demand endless clarifications, and film operations to disrupt them.

This is a blueprint for openly defying federal authority, wrapped in the rhetoric of righteous resistance. As a self-avowed Democratic Socialist who promised to “fight back” against ICE and labeled the agency a “reckless entity,” Mamdani reveals a contempt for constitutional order that has moved from fringe to mainstream on the American left.

The peril in this rhetoric is not theoretical. While the circumstances differ, Mamdani’s encouragement mirrors the toxic doctrine of states’ rights absolutism that fueled the nation’s march toward civil war. In the 1850s, leaders of the nascent Confederacy preached nullification — the idea that states could ignore federal laws they deemed unjust, particularly those touching slavery.

South Carolina’s 1832 Ordinance of Nullification, defying federal tariffs, was a dry run for the secessionism that exploded in 1861. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens later declared in his “Cornerstone Speech” that the Confederacy rested on the principle of state sovereignty over federal authority.

Fast-forward to Mamdani’s New York, a sanctuary city where local laws are exalted above national ones and illegal aliens are coached to treat ICE as an invading force. This reckless approach can only ratchet up tensions, increasing the likelihood of violent confrontations and accelerating the erosion of our constitutional order.

This isn’t rights protection. It’s the resurrection of a philosophy that once split the nation in two. The Civil War claimed more than 600,000 lives because defiant states elevated their local priorities over the union’s supremacy. Mamdani’s sanctuary-state playbook risks igniting a similar dynamic — one resisted arrest at a time.

The hypocrisy is glaring. For nine years, Democrats and their media allies branded Donald Trump a “threat to democracy,” insisting that “no one is above the law.” Nancy Pelosi tore up his State of the Union address on camera, declaring his actions an assault on the Constitution. Chuck Schumer warned that Trump’s border enforcement would “Balkanize” America.

Yet when Mamdani — a rising progressive star — directly subverts federal immigration statutes, the same chorus falls silent. No calls for indictments. No panic-stricken editorials about authoritarianism.

Democrats declared Trump’s alleged election interference a constitutional crisis. But Mamdani’s defiance goes straight at the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” By elevating New York’s sanctuary policies and restricting cooperation with ICE to only 170 “serious crimes,” Mamdani is not safeguarding democracy. He is undermining it.

America’s founders envisioned a balance: states as laboratories of democracy but always subordinate to the union’s paramount authority. Sanctuary cities flip that design on its head. Once New York shields violators of immigration law, copycats are inevitable. What happens when California nullifies EPA emissions rules? Or Texas ignores ATF gun tracing? Or Florida decides federal taxes are optional?

RELATED: ‘Shoot ICE on sight’: Twin brothers arrested after allegedly threatening to hang DHS' Tricia McLaughlin

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

Localized resistance metastasizes into a patchwork of fiefdoms where the law becomes whatever the local politician decrees.

Mamdani’s vision, if replicated, promises rapid national deterioration: a swelling illegal population operating in the shadows, strained public resources, and cities like New York — home to at least a half-million illegal aliens — functioning as de facto no-go zones for federal agents.

Progressives who cheered Mamdani’s victory must reckon with the monster they helped unleash: a leader who cloaks defiance in compassion while sowing the seeds of anarchy. American federalism depends on shared laws, not selective compliance. If New York wants to lead, it should honor the union that made its success possible — not mimic the Rebels of 1861.

Otherwise we’re not securing the nation. We’re dismantling the house that stands between order and oblivion.