Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Tucker Carlson Show Reveals: Iran Harbored Osama bin Laden After 9/11

Al Qaeda boss and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden spent months living and receiving treatment in Iran, according to a bombshell interview on the Tucker Carlson Show this week.

The post Tucker Carlson Show Reveals: Iran Harbored Osama bin Laden After 9/11 appeared first on .

How Abraham Lincoln set the precedent for Trump’s deportation authority



Across the United States, Americans of all backgrounds recognize Juneteenth on June 19, commemorating the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Confederate-held Texas learned of President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

The same legal reasoning that ended slavery also supports a president’s authority to remove foreign nationals designated as domestic terrorists. President Donald Trump has the constitutional power to act in the interest of national security by deporting those who threaten the country.

When we celebrate Juneteenth, we implicitly acknowledge broad presidential national security powers.

Lawyers and judges study statutes and decide cases, but they rarely confront the true scope of executive power. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, but it provides little detail on the extent of that authority.

The closest legal precedent on executive power is Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Supreme Court upheld the race-based internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In 1983, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel overturned the decision as applied to Fred Korematsu and others, but the broader question of presidential national security powers remained unresolved.

President Trump does not need to justify his actions under the much-criticized Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Instead, he should invoke the same principle that underlies Juneteenth: the federal government’s power to secure liberty by enforcing the law and protecting the nation.

At the time of the Civil War, slaves were considered the property of their owners, and the Fifth Amendment dictated that the government could not emancipate them without due process and just compensation paid to their owners. Additionally, the execrable 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision and the Fugitive Slave Act reinforced legal support for slavery.

Despite those legal obstacles, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves only in the Confederate states at war with the Union. Those in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri remained enslaved because their states were not at war with the country.

As a skilled lawyer, Lincoln understood that his national security powers, implied within his role as commander in chief, superseded constitutional rights in times of war. He did not seek congressional approval, compensate slaveholders, or seek the approval of the courts. In essence, when we celebrate Juneteenth, we implicitly acknowledge broad presidential national security powers.

Historical precedent reinforces this principle. During the Whiskey Rebellion, President George Washington used force to suppress dissent without formal wartime authorization, arresting rebels without warrants. Congress authorized a militia for Washington but did not grant him wartime powers. In his efforts to quell the uprising, he ordered door-to-door searches and forcibly arrested suspected rebels without warrants, bringing several to the Capitol for trial.

The most compelling legal validation of these powers came in United States v. Felt. Mark Felt, the FBI associate director best known as Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal, was later prosecuted for authorizing warrantless searches to track terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and the Palestinian Liberation Organization following the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks.

At his trial, five former attorneys general, President Richard Nixon, and Felt himself testified that presidents and their agents are not always bound by the Bill of Rights when national security is at stake. Their argument underscored a long-standing reality: The executive branch has exercised extraordinary authority to protect the country in moments of national peril.

Felt’s controversial prosecution led to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, which established that national security searches intended to prevent terrorist attacks need not adhere to standard constitutional rights. FISA effectively codified a national security exception to otherwise conflicting constitutional mandates.

Taken together, the Whiskey Rebellion, Juneteenth, FISA, and United States v. Felt demonstrate that national security concerns can, at times, take precedence over constitutional protections.

How does this apply to President Trump’s deportation policy? As commander in chief, he has determined that the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs pose a national security threat. He classified these groups as terrorist organizations, recognizing that they entered the United States with organized criminal intent.

Most Americans would agree that, before a formal declaration of war against Germany, President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ordered the assassination of Adolf Hitler. Similarly, few would argue against detaining Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before 9/11. The United States need not wait for an atrocity to occur before acting decisively.

We elect the president to make tough national security decisions, not to be second-guessed by judges from another branch of government. The limits of this power remain open to debate, however. While courts may take a restrictive view, the subject is rarely taught in law schools or settled in case law.

Historical and legal precedent suggest that when national security is at stake, terrorists are not entitled to lawyers or pre-deportation hearings. As counterintuitive as it may seem, Juneteenth itself sets a precedent. Again, slaveholders were not granted due process hearings before the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did they receive Fifth Amendment compensation for the loss of enslaved labor.

When dealing with foreign criminal organizations, we should not analyze these disputes through the lens of antiseptic legal theory. National security demands a more hardheaded approach. As the saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — swift deportations may be part of that price.

Columbia Activist Retains Al-Qaeda Lawyer. Ilhan Omar’s Daughter Fundraises for Columbia Activist.

A match made in hell: The Columbia University student activist detained over the weekend by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials has lawyered up. When Mahmoud Khalil appeared in federal court on Wednesday (spoiler alert: the Obama-nominated judge, Jesse Furman, temporarily halted his deportation), he was represented by, among others, a fellow Columbia graduate by the name of Ramzi Kassem. The Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman reports:

The post Columbia Activist Retains Al-Qaeda Lawyer. Ilhan Omar’s Daughter Fundraises for Columbia Activist. appeared first on .

Lawyer for Radical Columbia Grad Student Repped Al Qaeda Members—Including 'Close Associate' of Bin Laden

When Hamas-supporting Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil appeared in court on Wednesday, he was represented by, among others, Ramzi Kassem, a lawyer perhaps best known for defending al Qaeda terrorists.

The post Lawyer for Radical Columbia Grad Student Repped Al Qaeda Members—Including 'Close Associate' of Bin Laden  appeared first on .

FACT CHECK: Image Claims To Show Tupac And Osama Bin Laden

An image shared on X claims to show deceased rapper Tupac Shakur and deceased terrorist Osama Bin Laden together. The most unbelievable link ups in history. 1. Tupac Shakur and Osama Bin Laden pic.twitter.com/xT0qDy06FJ — 👑𝗞𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗷𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗵🌴🥥 (@_kingjonah) January 7, 2025 Verdict: False The image has been photoshopped. It does not show Bin laden and Tupac together. […]

Biden releases bin Laden bodyguards, other alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to Oman



As his days in office draw to a close, President Joe Biden has released nearly a dozen Yemenis from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba as part of a larger goal of closing the facility permanently.

On Monday, the Department of Defense announced that 11 prisoners would be transferred to Oman: Uthman Abd al-Rahim Muhammad Uthman, Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, Khalid Ahmed Qassim, Suhayl Abdul Anam al Sharabi, Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah, Tawfiq Nasir Awad Al-Bihani, Omar Mohammed Ali al-Rammah, Sanad Ali Yislam Al Kazimi, Hassan Muhammad Ali Bib Attash, Sharqawi Abdu Ali Al Hajj, and Abd Al-Salam Al-Hilah.

Both al-Alwi and al Sharabi worked as bodyguards for the late Osama bin Laden, former leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda and organizer of the 9/11 attacks.

Al-Alwi, who was also allegedly a member of Al-Qaeda, served on bin Laden's security detail in Afghanistan. A 2016 intelligence file noted that he had been "pardoned" for a number of infractions at Gitmo since his capture and suggested that he may still have an "extremist mindset" based on some of his statements while in prison, the New York Post reported.

In addition to working as bin Laden's bodyguard, al Sharabi, another suspected member of Al-Qaeda, was also allegedly involved in "an aborted 9/11-style hijacking plot in Southwest Asia," according to his 2020 intelligence file.

None of the 11 transferred detainees has ever been charged with a crime, though American courts have never firmly settled whether enemy combatants ... should be treated as accused criminals.

All 11 Gitmo prisoners are Yemeni nationals who were captured shortly after 9/11. They will all be transferred to Oman as part of a pledge from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in September 2023.

"The United States appreciates the willingness of the Government of Oman and other partners to support ongoing U.S. efforts focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population and ultimately closing the Guantanamo Bay facility," the DOD press release said.

None of the 11 transferred detainees has ever been charged with a crime, though American courts have never firmly settled whether enemy combatants captured on a battlefield should be treated as accused criminals, conferred with full due process rights and subject to the justice system.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, is an exception. After more than 20 years at Gitmo, Mohammed is expected to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty to plotting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Fox News reported.

Co-conspirators Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who have also been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2003, were also offered plea deals.

With the 11 detainees gone, Gitmo now has just 15 remaining prisoners, a tiny fraction of the number of prisoners held there at the peak of the War on Terror. In 2003, the facility housed 680 prisoners.

H/T: The Post Millennial

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

His Clients Have Included Bin Laden's Son-in-Law and a Hamas Cofounder. Now He's Helping Anti-Israel Columbia Students.

The anti-Semitic attorney who helped lift anti-Israel Columbia University students' suspensions has a history of representing terrorists and recently mourned the death of his "friend," top Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

The post His Clients Have Included Bin Laden's Son-in-Law and a Hamas Cofounder. Now He's Helping Anti-Israel Columbia Students. appeared first on .

Poll: Over 30% of Gen Z voters think Osama bin Laden had good viewpoints



Young adults may have an even more positive view of former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden than once believed.

Many were shocked when some young Americans embraced bin Laden's letter that justified 9/11 in a trend of TikTok videos in November 2023, but the overall level of support was hard to gauge on such a widely available platform.

Bin Laden's letter to U.S. citizens was released just over a year after the 9/11 terror attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. In it, the terrorist leader justified the killing of civilians with roundabout logic and called the U.S. the "worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind."

Just over a month after the disturbing TikTok trend, a Daily Mail poll of Americans voters revealed that 31% of young voters believe bin Laden had "good" views.

That number is a combination of 18- to 29-year-old voters who said bin Laden's "views were good but his actions were bad" (23%) and those who said that both his views and actions were good (8%).

Black respondents were the second-most likely group to share this view, with 29% agreeing his views were good. Voters over 65 years old were least likely to agree with bin Laden's views, at around 2%.

At the same time, 20% of 18- to 29-year-olds said that they either have a somewhat positive or completely positive view of bin Laden. When adding in those who said they have a "mix of positive and negative" views of bin Laden, that number jumps to 37%.

Again, black Americans had the most positive view of bin Laden of any racial group at 18%.

Just 10% of Democrats had a somewhat or completely positive view of bin Laden, while Republicans said the same at a rate of 9%.

NEW POLL: 3 in 10 American Youth Sympathize with Osama Bin Laden\n\n"What is wrong with our youth? How do they not realize the horrors of terrorism?"\n\nThree in Ten (3 in 10) Gen Z poll respondents and nearly the same of all Black Americans agree that 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden\xe2\x80\xa6
— (@)

In total, 14% of American voters said that bin Laden had some good in terms of his actions and/or views. That number was composed of 5% who said his views and actions were positive, 9% who said only his views were good; 7% said they didn't know, while 76% said he was bad across the board.

The poll was reportedly conducted for the outlet by J.L. Partners and asked 1,000 Americans.

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a cancer in the American body politic: a small but sizeable group of its youngest voters," said James Johnson, founder of J.L. Partners.

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