The era of managerial rule is over. Long live the sovereign!
There’s a world before President Trump’s descent down the escalator, and there’s a world after it. The recent No Kings protests transmitted the idée fixe of the pre-2015 world. That idea was hostility to personal authority, or personal power — hostility to the notion of sovereignty, to the power once exercised by kings. Donald Trump, the figure who has dominated politics since 2015, is its most visible sign of contradiction. In that sense, the protesters weren’t entirely wrong. Trump’s success marks the passing of the world of the latter half of the 20th century, which was defined by hatred of personal authority.
Successive generations demolished the concept of sovereignty, casting suspicion on the notion that a leader’s decisions can legitimately reshape political or social life. This shift began in the United States when the intelligentsia promulgated the concept of “the authoritarian personality.” They found this personality in the working classes, their churches and associations, their families and fathers, and the politicians who represented them. Where there was the whiff of authoritarian character traits, fascism probably lurked.
All the elements of Trump’s personality that his opponents loathe have proved, for better or worse, to be demonstrations of strength rather than weakness.
The anti-authority impulse then extended to challenge the authority of elected bodies. Popular sovereignty became dangerous. In the late 1950s and '60s, on matters such as school prayer, unctuous judges and administrators tied the hands of potentially reactionary legislatures and frog-marched them toward secularism.
In the 1970s, the target was popular sovereignty as embodied in the office of the president. The American Constitution enabled an energetic executive or administrative presidency, traces of the monarchical form. But the president’s authority was decapitated in the great act of regicide — otherwise known as Watergate.
The ‘golden straitjacket’
Sketching the gloomy landscape of the 1970s, the sociologist Robert Nisbet saw in the twilight of authority the rise of impersonal forces; administrators touting “best practices” stepped into the breach. Therapists, managers, and other experts became increasingly important. They coordinated with economic, social, and legal networks to constrain human agents who might otherwise upset progress.
That’s what globalization was all about. At the peak of the era of what Thomas Friedman called “the golden straitjacket,” sovereignty was outré. Successful politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair dazzled their electorates with the bullion of cheap credit and narratives of an impending gilded age while tightening the bonds ever further. They weakened the power of their offices, distributing it to central banks and international agencies.
Their actions clarified the vocation of right-thinking people. Stigmatize the authoritarian personality. Banish any individual or group that displayed its signs from the helm of government and public life. Spin an ever-tighter web of legal, administrative, and economic networks that could remove the risks of exercising personal human control over government — the risks of an energetic executive — once and for all.
All that changed with Trump’s descent down the escalator. “The golden straitjacket” had numerous critics, but no major public figure exposed its hatred of political, personal power as aggressively and abruptly as Trump did. In 2015, he thrust personal authority back to the center of public life. It’s been there ever since, an example to imitate — in enthusiasm or envy.
Restoring the executive
As president, Trump has fought hard to restore the bloodied Article II of the Constitution. His executive and legal actions on behalf of presidential power even won over skeptics in the conservative legal world. Not only did he challenge the presuppositions of government via the administrative state, but he also exposed the overreaching deep state that is devouring the American Constitution.
Indeed, No Kings could very well function as a pro-Trump slogan. Prior to Trump, American presidents largely functioned as kings. Like the monarch in Great Britain, U.S. presidents had long held power in theory as the “dignified” branch, while other actors in the security state made the real decisions — the “efficient” branch. Trump has been his most republican when he has upset this double government.
RELATED: The hidden motive behind the anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ protests
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
To be sure, anti-Trump No Kings protesters are more troubled by another phenomenon: Trump’s personal style of leadership. They’re not wrong to draw attention to it, but they’re wrong about its significance.
Authority depends on a person’s capacity to command in order to reshape politics. Trump mastered the new fragmented media environment, in which entertainment — rather than solemn statements — wins attention and deference. Trump made his personality an issue. His critics attacked him for it, claiming his persona was a manifestation of the dreaded authoritarian personality. But all the elements of Trump’s personality that his opponents loathe — rhetorical and physical aggression, incivility, scorn for discourse and discussion, brashness, maleness, unwillingness to apologize or express guilt, bluntly demarcating between American winners and losers, claiming the exceptional power to fix America’s problems — have proved, for better or worse, to be demonstrations of strength rather than weakness.
The importance of character traits such as “caring for people like me” or “experience,” which had mattered so much in late 20th-century mass democracy, faded away. Swaths of the electorate would of course still look for their “therapist in chief” or “expert in chief.” But more wanted a boss who asserted control and expected those under him to follow his lead.
The reassertion of personal authority, after decades of opposition to it, has been a messy affair. It’s risible to think that Trump ever intended to abolish elections, set up a dictatorship, or establish a hereditary monarchy. But his style did help accelerate the collapse of institutional authority, such as that once held by the media. Although many of his more dramatic promises have been unrealized (stymied by a variety of forces), the symbology of authority has remained key for gaining and wielding legitimacy.
The twilight of liberalism
A numinous connection has developed between an electorate that confers sovereignty upon its chosen figure and the figure who exercises it. The acoustic and visual symbols this connection generates are all the more potent because, at this point in the 21st century, as Mary Harrington has argued, a culture of mass literacy has vanished. This culture was essential to transmit the symbols associated with the print ideals of liberalism (for instance, the importance placed on the freedom of the press, or on discourse itself). As print culture goes, so go the symbols of liberalism. Other symbols step into their place.
Trump’s more subtle critics, who are troubled by the twilight of liberalism, noticed this transformation. They sense something has changed and single out Trump as the chief villain. But wielding the symbols of personal authority is one area in which Trump has long ceased to be exceptional. Even those who are very far from Trump ideologically and politically still inhabit his symbolic universe, in which personal authority, hierarchy, and one’s capacity to reshape political life are of critical importance.
RELATED: Trump gave Americans what they didn’t know they needed
Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Emmanuel Macron’s predecessors, fearing being labeled authoritarians by the May ’68 generation, adopted a deliberately understated, egalitarian style. Macron shocked the French political system by embracing the persona of “Jupiter.” He seized the opportunity that Trump’s descent down the escalator made possible.
Pope Francis began his papacy in a conversational, freewheeling style, akin to a Clintonian or Blairite doing one’s best to manage the media narrative. But after the first few years, he also imitated Trump as his supporters embraced the theology of an imperial papacy.
Joe Biden likewise leaned into a “Dark Brandon” iconography of authority to create the impression that he was in charge, the simulacrum of a functioning presidency.
Politicians who can’t successfully embody the symbolism of authority, such as Biden, or those who shy away from it, such as Justin Trudeau, end up as failures. Trudeau launched his political career by an act of physical prowess, beating up a Conservative Party senator who was too lazy to train for a boxing match. It was a crude but effective way of legitimating Trudeau’s claim to lead the Liberal Party and Canada.
Even in an extremely progressive country, primal assertions of authority win admiration. But Trudeau forgot the underlying lesson. In office, he preferred the symbolism of colorful socks, and his unpopularity forced him to resign in ignominy. Meanwhile, Trudeau’s successor, who invokes the physical, masculine iconography of hockey fights to win votes, has returned to more visceral politics. The liberal norms of national civility go nowhere; it’s the brash Trumpian traits that are deployed to gain victory.
Slashing the straitjacket
The resurgence of authority is why there’s no chance of reverting to globalized, impersonal power — at least how the pre-2015 world conceived it. As candidates compete for personal authority, those vying for power repudiate the notion that economic, social, and legal networks should constrain human agents. The capacity to take back control over these networks is what matters. This helps us understand the deeper unity behind Trump’s signature policies.
All the major themes that Trump hit on when he descended the escalator — an end to mass immigration, free trade, and regime-change missions abroad — were on one level anti-globalization topics: They slashed away at the golden straitjacket.
Anti-globalization themes are now so mainstream that even Keir Starmer imitates Trump’s symbology by talking tough on border control. On one level, it’s a policy victory. But the success is more profound than that. To effect that agenda demands the reassertion of the personal, political will to effect social and political change. Faced with the diminishing returns of the old regime, that’s what more and more people are looking for.
In our new world, leaders rise and fall by how well they can speak the language of authority. Whatever the full implications of this paradigm shift may be, the longing for sovereigns shows no signs of letting up.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally as “A New Birth of Authority” at the American Mind.
Trump fighting 'unconstitutional power grab' by Obama judge who reopened the floodgates
President Donald Trump determined on his first day back in office that the "current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution."
He then proclaimed, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, that migrants stealing into the homeland would henceforth be restricted from claiming asylum until the invasion was over. Those who failed to provide federal officials with sufficient personal information at legal ports of entry would similarly be restricted in making asylum claims.
Of course, this proclamation enraged all the usual suspects on the left, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the asylum ban in February on behalf of three radical activist groups and a handful of foreigners denied asylum.
'An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.'
According to the activist groups' complaint, the proclamation was "as unlawful as it is unprecedented," and "immigration — even at elevated levels — is not an 'invasion.'"
On Wednesday, an Obama judge weaseled around the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 determination regarding nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA Inc. in order to universally bar the administration from expelling asylum seekers from the United States.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump had exceeded his executive authority in adopting "an alternative immigration system" and that his day-one proclamation was unlawful.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
While the Supreme Court indicated last week that the national injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized in his concurring opinion that district courts may still be able to "grant or deny the functional equivalent of a universal injunction — for example, by granting or denying a preliminary injunction to a putative nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2)."
Moss embraced this "functional equivalent of a universal injunction" and certified all border-jumping asylum seekers "who are now or will be present in the United States" as a protected class.
'The American people see right through this.'
Moss did, however, stay his ruling two weeks pending an appeal from the Trump administration. Depending on how the appeal goes, the floodgates could be reopened to multitudes of foreign nationals seeking asylum.
"To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States," wrote White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
Miller added, "The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored."
Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin similarly underscored the gravity of Moss' ruling, noting in a statement obtained by CNN, "The President secured the border in historic fashion by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. Today, a rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions."
RELATED: Alligator Alcatraz is a warning to illegal immigrants in the US: Leave now or end up here
Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images
While the White House did not comment on whether Trump might follow President Abraham Lincoln's example of taking actions that bypass or supersede the rulings of meddlesome judges, it indicated the administration expects to win on appeal.
"A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Blaze News. "The judge's decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come in illegally."
"This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," continued Jackson. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal."
Attorney General Pam Bondi characterized Moss as a "rogue" judge "trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's recent ruling against nationwide injunctions."
"The American people see right through this," said Bondi. "Our attorneys ... will fight this unconstitutional power grab as [Trump] continues to secure our border."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In Latest Term, Supreme Court’s ‘Conservative Majority’ Plays By The Left’s Rules
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal
Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.
Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.
The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.
An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.
Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.
The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.
Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.
A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.
Federalism isn’t a suggestion
The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.
For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.
If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.
A federal case for caution
David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.
— (@)
Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.
But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.
America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.
Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.
States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.
AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.
State regulation is necessary
The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.
In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.
RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo
BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty Images
From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.
These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.
The real danger: Doing nothing
This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.
If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.
Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.
It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.
The real land-grab isn’t Mike Lee’s — it’s Biden’s ‘30 by 30’
Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.
You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.
Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.
I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.
Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.
What Lee actually proposed
Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.
Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.
— (@)
That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.
It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.
The Biden land-grab
To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.
His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.
In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.
Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?
RELATED: No, Mike Lee isn’t paving over Yellowstone for condos
JohnnyGreig via iStock/Getty Images
As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.
That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.
Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.
Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.
Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?
American families pay the price
The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”
BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.
That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.
I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.
Divide and conquer
This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.
More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
DOJ slaps Karen Bass, LA City Council with 'long overdue' lawsuit: 'It ends under President Trump'
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stated earlier this month while radicals were savagely attacking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in her city, "We will not stand for this."
The Democratic mayor was not condemning her fellow leftists' attacks on federal agents but rather the agents' enforcement of federal immigration law.
In the wake of the Los Angeles riots, Bass has kept up her anti-ICE, pro-illegal alien rhetoric, noting on Sunday, for instance, "Every community in L.A. is feeling the shock of these horrific ICE raids — this isn't just targeting one group, it's striking at the heart of our collective safety and trust."
The Trump administration gave Bass more than just ICE raids to complain about on Monday, filing a lawsuit against the mayor, Los Angeles City Council, and the City of Los Angeles over their alleged interference with the federal government's enforcement of immigration law.
"Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. "Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump."
The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California notes that immediately after President Donald Trump's re-election, the Los Angeles City Council, "wishing to thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations, began the process of codifying into law its Sanctuary City policies."
RELATED: Democrats who locked down America during COVID now cry dictator over Trump's deportations
Photo by BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
In late November, the L.A. City Council unanimously voted to establish L.A. as a "Sanctuary City."
The following month, Bass ratified the corresponding ordinance titled "Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement," which enshrined sanctuary policies into municipal law and barred "the use of City resources, including property and personnel, from being utilized for immigration enforcement or to cooperate with federal immigration agents engaged in immigration enforcement."
'Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law.'
The ordinance — the "urgency clause," which makes clear that undermining the "incoming federal administration" was the goal — also prohibits city officials, including law enforcement officers, from directly or indirectly sharing data with federal immigration authorities.
The DOJ's lawsuit notes that L.A.'s sanctuary city laws are illegal and "are designed to and in fact do interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."
Lawyers for the government asked the district court to recognize that the ordinance's violation of the Supremacy Clause and 8 U.S. Code § 1373 makes it unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio, as well as to enter a permanent injunction barring Los Angeles, its city council, and the mayor from enforcing the ordinance.
RELATED: JD Vance rejects Democrats' narrative, names the 'real threat to democracy'
Photo by Apu Gomes/Getty Images
"Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law," said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California, who stressed in a tweet that the lawsuit was "long overdue."
'Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again.'
"The United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not," continued Essayli. "By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City's unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end."
The Los Angeles Times, which indicated Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment, noted that radical L.A. city officials are contemplating striking back at the Trump administration with a lawsuit of its own.
The DOJ's lawsuit appears to be a major step toward another promise kept on Trump's part.
In his Tuesday speech at the 250th anniversary of the Army at Fort Bragg, Trump said, "Within the span of a few decades, Los Angeles has gone from being one of the cleanest, safest, and most beautiful cities on Earth to being a trash heap with entire neighborhoods under the control of transnational gangs and criminal networks."
"They don't like it when I say it, but I'll say it loudly and clearly: They'd better do something before it's too late," continued Trump. "Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again."
"We will use every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore law and order right away," stressed the president.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump’s Effort To Remove Noncitizens From Census Would Affect Elections
A gun in the hand is worth more than ‘never again’
Let’s face the truth. Being Jewish is a marvelous way of life, but it is also a very dangerous one. Jews need to wake up to the fact that there are imminent threats to their safety seemingly everywhere now in our country: in their homes, workplaces, synagogues, community centers, schools, and wherever else they happen to be.
FBI hate crime statistics against Jews are now at the highest they have been in decades. Just in the past several weeks, there have been two high-profile anti-Semitic attacks in America: the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum on May 21 and the Molotov cocktail attacks against Jews at a pro-Israel event in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1.
Jewish gun ownership isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. Don’t wait. Do it now.
But the truth is, these incidents are not unusual. They are becoming all too common. Anti-Semites from both the radical left and radical right are out for Jewish blood. Their violent, unhinged anger is not going away any time soon.
It is also chilling how many Americans, especially in the younger generations, believe that violence is justified in the name of their political ideals. This is evidenced, for example, by the astonishingly high percentage of younger Americans who sympathize with Luigi Mangione in the murder of a health care executive.
Although Mangione’s case has nothing to do with Jews, it’s indicative of what people think are reasonable forms of activism. Increasingly, people believe that killing innocents is justified and normal.
The fact is, plenty of radicals blame “the Jews” for whatever they happen to be angry about that day — whether it’s the conflicts in the Middle East, America’s economic support for Ukraine, capitalism, globalism, woke ideology, high prices, or whatever else. Both sides have their reasons for wanting to see Jews dead.
Now that we recognize just how precarious Jewish lives have become, American Jews have two solutions going forward. The first is to rely on government to protect us. How is that working out, though? While many attacks are foiled by law enforcement, plenty still slip through the cracks. Unless we’re prepared to turn America into a full-on Orwellian surveillance state that watches everyone’s every move and strips basic freedoms from all, dangerous people will always slip through.
The second solution is more reasonable: Jews must become more self-reliant. That means becoming armed.
Unfortunately, American Jews are among the groups least likely to own guns. According to a survey from the American Jewish Committee, Jewish gun ownership is around 10%. Compare that to roughly 32% for the general population, according to Pew. And the AJC also found that 70% of Jews support strict gun control laws.
The irony is maddening. Jews face greater threats than most, yet they oppose the very means of self-defense they need most. This needs to change.
RELATED: Now more than ever, Jews must learn to shoot
Mike Stocker/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Jewish Americans need to buy guns, seek firearms training, and carry legally. Synagogues and community centers should sponsor training workshops and allow lawful carry on premises. They should also build neighborhood watch teams and community security groups.
Most American Jews live in the three most virulently anti-gun states: New York, New Jersey, and California. They need to support state-level reforms to restore the God-given right to self-defense as America’s founders intended.
Two things stand in the way. The first is hoplophobia — irrational fear of guns. Many Jews treat firearms as inherently evil simply because bad people use them. They need to understand good people use them, too.
The second obstacle is uncertainty. For those unfamiliar with gun culture, it can be daunting. But help is easy to find. NRA-certified instructors are available across the country. The NRA website has a full directory. And several excellent Jewish gun-rights organizations already exist — including Cherev Gidon in the Catskills and Magen Am in Los Angeles.
Jewish gun ownership isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. Don’t wait. Do it now. Your life, your family, and your community may depend on it.
If Trump Doesn’t Reject Judicial Supremacism, His Presidency Is Finished
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories