President Trump’s second-term antitrust message couldn’t be clearer: Corporate monopolists who rig markets against working families, small businesses, and American interests have no place in a free economy.

That message found an early test last week — not through a bold new initiative, but by killing off a weak, leftover lawsuit from the Biden administration that threatened to derail Trump’s strategic antitrust agenda before it gained traction.

The Trump administration sent a clear message: America’s antitrust vision defends free markets and strong competition — not bureaucratic box-checking.

On Friday, the Trump Justice Department moved to dismiss the government’s misguided attempt to block the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. The lawsuit, filed in the final hours of the Biden administration, posed risks far beyond its narrow legal merits.

Had it gone to trial, it likely would have been dismissed — not because antitrust enforcement is unimportant, but because the case itself rested on flimsy legal grounds. That kind of early defeat would have undercut the Justice Department’s credibility just as Trump’s new antitrust team gets to work.

As a former state attorney general and an America First-minded lawyer, I know the value of strong antitrust enforcement. But strength requires discernment. Pursuing a weak case does more harm than good. It invites judicial setbacks, undermines future enforcement, and wastes political capital needed for tougher fights ahead.

The lawsuit was also strategically reckless. I dealt with the threat posed by Chinese state-controlled telecom giant Huawei during my time at the Department of Homeland Security. Huawei, closely tied to the Chinese military, aims to displace U.S. firms and infiltrate global infrastructure. That’s why the U.S. banned the company, and our allies followed suit.

The HPE-Juniper merger would strengthen America’s ability to counter Huawei’s dominance. Blocking it would have weakened two U.S. companies trying to compete globally — and handed a gift to both Huawei and entrenched domestic players like Cisco.

Even viewed narrowly under U.S. antitrust law, the case faltered. The merged company wouldn’t control even 25% of the relevant domestic market and would still trail Cisco in key sectors like wireless local area networks. Analysts found no credible evidence of future price hikes or innovation slowdowns. On the contrary, the merger could spur real competition — especially against Cisco, whose dominance persists despite lackluster performance.

The European Union, no friend to large corporate combinations, approved the deal. EU regulators found widespread agreement among competitors, distributors, and customers that the merger posed no anticompetitive threat. Cisco would remain twice the size of the new entity in WLAN, with at least seven other players still in the market — and recent entries showing the sector’s low barriers to entry.

RELATED: America First antitrust isn’t ‘socialism’ — it’s self-defense

Photo by Ying Tang/NurPhoto via Getty Images

That context matters. Cisco’s market power, despite inferior performance, reflects broader integration advantages — not consumer preference alone. Importantly, WLAN sales represent just one-sixth of the merged company’s total revenue.

Antitrust should focus on competitive strength across the industry, not just the size of the firms involved. As FTC Commissioner Mark Meador argued in his recent paper, “Antitrust Policy for the Conservative,” the key question is whether other firms can still compete — and they can. Market analysts agree this merger would promote, not stifle, competition and innovation.

The Justice Department should never have filed this case. That it came from the Biden team, just before Trump’s leadership arrived, makes its dismissal all the more welcome.

Had it gone forward, the lawsuit could have weakened America’s antitrust credibility, emboldened foreign adversaries like China, and limited future enforcement under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Judges don’t forget weak cases.

The consumer welfare standard still matters — and by that measure, the merger passes easily. Consumers surveyed by European regulators expressed no concerns about pricing or choice. The Biden Justice Department’s complaint contradicted the very principles now guiding Trump’s antitrust revival.

Dropping the case is both sound policy and smart politics. The Trump administration avoided a legal embarrassment, protected national security interests, and sent a clear message: America’s antitrust vision defends free markets and strong competition — not bureaucratic box-checking.

Kudos to the Trump Justice Department for making the right call.

​Opinion & analysis, Antitrust, Lawsuit, Joe biden, Donald trump, Department of justice, Justice department, Hewlett packard enterprise, Juniper networks, Monopoly, Competition, Cisco, China, Huawei, Wlan, Wireless, Networks, Infrastructure, Telecom, Big tech, Mark meador, America first 

This week, millions of Americans will celebrate the blood-bought freedoms our forefathers secured for us with fireworks, family, and cookouts.

That declaration, signed by 56 men, was not just a recounting of grievances or an important political declaration. It was a document of war. These men were ready to defend their God-given freedoms with steel and shot. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister. While he was the only pastor who signed the document, the war for independence that followed was supported by clergy in nearly every colony. They brought the spiritual munitions necessary to justify their congregants’ and country’s fight against the British crown.

Many churches celebrate the religious liberty enumerated in the First Amendment, but few champion the Second.

This right of self-governance and self-defense was not a novel theological concept. It was baked into Protestant political thought. And it was out of this Protestant heritage that America was born.

However, this type of preaching and instruction seems muted in our day. As Americans’ Second Amendment rights remain besieged in various states and jurisdictions, many pulpits remain silent about the threats their congregants face.

Even more pressing for many churches, though, is the threat posed by those who wish to do the church harm, often while armed.

Why every church needs a security team

Every church needs a security team.

In an ideal world, the only weapons needed on a Sunday morning would be the sword of the Spirit and the shield of faith. Our children could run freely through the sanctuary without a single parent wondering if a madman might walk in. Evil would be rare and dealt with swiftly by just rulers who have been appointed to punish the evildoer. In such a world, peace would be the norm, not the exception.

In a merely less-than-ideal world, where threats exist, we would at least hope the civil magistrate would protect churches as sacred gathering spaces. The state would prioritize security for these vital institutions that shape the moral and social health of the nation. And we’d expect the state to make it easier — not harder — for congregations to defend themselves.

But that’s not the world we live in either.

We live in a world where churches are being actively targeted by would-be killers and where politicians pass laws that make congregants sitting ducks. We live in a world where police departments are understaffed, underpaid, and overtasked. And we live in a world where insurance companies and government bureaucracies penalize churches for taking common-sense steps to protect their people.

Recently, a man attempted to carry out a mass shooting at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Michigan. Thankfully, it was thwarted before tragedy struck. A deacon of the church heroically struck the assailant with his pickup truck, slowing the attacker’s approach. Then, a trained member of the church security team engaged the shooter and fatally shot him before he could enter the sanctuary. But the mere fact that it got that close, yet again, should shake pastors and church leaders out of their slumber.

This is not a one-off case. It is the reality that many churches face in a civilization unraveling.

RELATED: Church security team member recalls moment when ‘evil came to our door’

WoodyUpstate/Getty Images Plus

And yet when churches take steps to prepare — by forming volunteer security teams, for example — they are often punished by insurers. Many insurance companies raise a church’s premiums by up to 20% if the church has an organized security presence, unless those volunteers undergo professional training that can cost several thousand dollars per person. For small or midsize congregations, this burden is often too high.

Hiring off-duty police officers, meanwhile, can cost $60 to $75 an hour. That may be manageable for a megachurch with a multimillion-dollar budget. But for the average congregation trying to keep the lights on and fund ministry, $30,000 annually for armed security simply isn’t feasible.

It’s not just private institutions or police departments creating barriers. The state is becoming a direct obstacle.

In 2024, Colorado passed Senate Bill 24‑131, which declared churches and other religious buildings to be “sensitive spaces.” Under this law, concealed carry would have been forbidden on church property unless the church explicitly issues a written exemption for each individual. This was ultimately rescinded by the state. But in places like Boulder County, where leftist officials refused to grant the necessary permissions, the exemption requirement remains in place.

In practice, that means churches that want their congregants to carry cannot do so by law.

Colorado is not unique. Similar legislation exists in California, New York, Illinois, and other blue states. The trend is clear: Disarm peaceful citizens and disempower local churches from protecting their congregations.

This means churches are stuck in a legal and financial bind. On one hand, they are increasingly likely to be targeted by insane individuals seeking death or driven by ideological hatred. On the other hand, they are punished for taking even modest steps toward preparedness.

So what is the church to do?

First, we must stop pretending that spiritual and physical safety are mutually exclusive.

Some well-meaning pastors resist forming security teams or speaking of the importance of self-defense because they believe it’s a distraction from the gospel. But loving your neighbor includes defending your neighbor. Good shepherds guard the flock not only from false teachers but from wolves of every kind.

In fact, it seems that we are in a day when advertising that the church has a security team would be an attraction, not a deterrent, to would-be churchgoers.

Scripture does not pit spiritual vigilance against physical readiness. Nehemiah, when rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, stationed men with swords in one hand and tools in the other. Jesus Himself instructed His disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36), not so they could go on the offensive, but so they would be prepared.

RELATED: Meek, not weak: The era of Christian loserdom is over

pamela_d_mcadams/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Second, churches must form well-organized volunteer teams. These don’t need to be tactical operators. They need to be faithful, dependable men vetted, trained, and alert. Veterans, off-duty officers, and responsible gun owners are often already sitting in the pews. Pastors or deacons should identify these men, invest in their development, and establish protocols for emergencies.

Third, churches should not be ashamed to advocate for their rights. As our forefathers understood, there is no biblical reason to surrender the ability to protect one’s people. Just as churches fight for religious liberty, we should also contend for self-defense and security. This includes contacting lawmakers, organizing with other local churches, and resisting unconstitutional laws through legal means.

Many churches celebrate the religious liberty enumerated in the First Amendment, but few champion the Second.

Finally, we must honor the men who already serve. Every week, there are faithful men who sit near the exits, who watch the doors, who glance sideways when a stranger walks in with a backpack, and who make quiet mental notes while others sing hymns. These men aren’t paranoid. They’re protective. They are answering the call to keep watch while others worship in peace.

It’s time for every church to acknowledge reality and act with courage. Our congregations should be places of peace, but not because we are blind to danger. Rather, they should be places of peace because good men stand ready at the gates.

We may live in a fallen world, but that doesn’t mean we must be foolish in it. God does not bless the naive. Churches have a unique calling to shepherd the souls of mankind in the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But that immaterial calling does not stay immaterial. It manifests itself in the material realm. Good shepherds will not just look after the state of the souls of the congregation but also the health of their bodies.

To ignore the physical threat is to misunderstand the Incarnation itself. Christ did not come to redeem disembodied spirits but whole persons, flesh and blood. His ministry was not merely spiritual but deeply material: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, driving out demons, laying down His physical life for His sheep. Likewise, our churches must reflect His care for the whole person.

We prepare the soul with preaching. We guard the body with vigilance. Both are acts of love.

​Church attack, Christianity, Christians, Church safety, Jesus, God, Second amendment, Faith 

The most striking images from the recent anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots in Los Angeles depicted protesters defiantly waving the Mexican flag. Some commentators noted the irony: Why carry the flag of the very country you don’t want to be deported to? Others offered a darker interpretation — the flag wasn’t just a symbol of heritage but a claim. The message: California rightfully belongs to Mexico.

That sentiment echoes the increasingly common ritual of “land acknowledgements” on college campuses. Event organizers now routinely recite statements recognizing that a school sits on land once claimed by this or that Indian tribe. But such cheap virtue signaling skips over a key point: Tribes seized land from each other long before Europeans arrived.

The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.

Do the descendants of the Aztecs have a claim to California and the rest of the American Southwest? The answer is a simple and emphatic no. The United States holds that territory by treaty, by financial compensation, and, yes, by conquest. But the full story is worth examining — because it explains why Spain and later Mexico failed to hold what the United States would eventually claim.

The rise and fall of the Spanish empire

Spain launched its exploration and conquest of the Americas in the 15th century and eventually defeated the Aztec empire in Mexico. But by the 18th century, Spanish control began to wane. The empire’s model of rule — exploitative, inefficient, and layered with class resentment — proved unsustainable.

At the top were the peninsulares, Spaniards born in Europe who ran colonial affairs from Havana and Mexico City. They had little connection to the land or the people they governed — and often returned to Spain when their service ended.

Below them stood the creoles, locally born Spaniards who could rise in power but never fully displace the peninsulares.

Then came the mestizos — mixed-race descendants of Spaniards and natives — and, finally, the native peoples themselves, descendants of the once-dominant Aztecs, who lived in state of peonage.

Inspired by the American Revolution, Mexico declared itself a republic in 1824. But it lacked the civic traditions and institutional structure to sustain self-government. Political chaos followed. Factionalism gave way to the dictatorship of Antonio López de Santa Anna, who brutally suppressed a rebellion in Coahuila y Tejas.

Texas had long been a trouble spot. Even before independence from Spain, Mexican officials encouraged American settlement to create a buffer against Comanche raids. The Comanche — superb horsemen — dominated the Southern Plains, displacing rival tribes and launching deep raids into Mexican territory. During the “Comanche moon,” their war parties could cover 70 miles in a day. They were a geopolitical power unto themselves.

RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class

Photo by: Prisma/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Anglo settlers in Texas brought their own ideas of decentralized government. When tensions escalated, they declared independence. Santa Anna responded with massacres at Goliad and the Alamo. But after his defeat and capture at San Jacinto, he granted Texas independence in exchange for his life. Mexico’s government refused to honor the deal — and continued to claim Texas, insisting that the border lay at the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande.

How the Southwest was won

After the United States annexed Texas in 1845, conflict became inevitable. Mexican forces crossed the Rio Grande and clashed with U.S. troops. President James Polk requested a declaration of war in 1846.

The Mexican-American War remains one of the most decisive — and underappreciated — conflicts in U.S. history. The small but capable U.S. Army, bolstered by state volunteers, outclassed Mexican forces at every turn. American troops seized Santa Fe and Los Angeles.

General Zachary Taylor pushed south, winning battles at Resaca de la Palma and Monterrey. General Winfield Scott launched a bold amphibious assault at Veracruz, then cut inland — without supply lines — to capture Mexico City. The Duke of Wellington called the campaign “unsurpassed in military annals.”

The war served as a proving ground for a generation of officers who would later lead armies in the Civil War.

Diplomatically, the war might have been avoided. The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.

Territory bought and paid for

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the conflict. Mexico ceded California and a vast swath of land that now includes Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming. Mexico also gave up its claim to Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as the southern border.

In return, the United States paid Mexico $15 million “in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States” and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. Mexicans living in the newly acquired territory could either relocate within Mexico’s new borders or become U.S. citizens with full civil rights. The Gadsden Purchase added even more land.

The United States gained enormously from the war at the expense of Mexico. Critics of the expansionist policy known as “manifest destiny,” including the Whigs and Ulysses S. Grant, called the result unjust. Some Southerners wanted to annex all of Mexico to expand slavery. That plan was wisely rejected, though the “law of conquest” made it a possibility.

Still, the U.S. paid for the land, offered citizenship to the inhabitants, and declined to claim more than necessary. In the rough world of 19th-century geopolitics, that counted as a just outcome.

​Opinion & analysis, Mexican-american war, James polk, Mexico city, Land acknowledgement, California, Ownership, Conquest, American southwest, Texas, Independence, Spain, Comanche, Santa anna, The alamo, Rio grande, Border crisis, Ulysses s grant, Whigs, Duke of wellington, Arizona, New mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Treaty of guadalupe hidalgo 

A 19-year-old man is facing 40 criminal charges for numerous incidents, including one where he is accused of raping a mother and her daughter at gunpoint in Ohio.

Doyral Wynn was indicted on the charges by a Cuyahoga County grand jury, according to a press release by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley.

‘Doyral Wynn’s violence knows no boundaries. … He is capable of harming anyone at any time.’

Wynn is accused of sexually assaulting a 37-year-old mother and her 19-year-old daughter on May 2, 2024, as they were walking home from a local store in East Cleveland. He was dressed in all black and armed with a gun when he told them to put their possessions into a bag.

Afterward he forced them into a nearby field, where he sexually assaulted the two of them before firing two shots in the air and telling them to flee. The two sought medical treatment at a hospital, and police said they were able to recover two shell casings from the scene.

Wynn was identified as the suspect in a shooting in March as well. In that incident, a 34-year-old male said Wynn followed his vehicle in a black Jeep Cherokee before Wynn fired two shots into the car. The man was driving with his wife and his two children in the car, but none of them were injured.

Police said they were able to recover one shell casing from the scene, and after entering it into a database, they found that it matched the casings in the double rape case.

In April, police executed a search warrant at Wynn’s Cleveland residence and recovered seven firearms in a safe. About a week later, Wynn was arrested, and police found in his possession the firearm that matched the casings in the two incidents.

Police said the firearm had been reported missing two years earlier.

In addition to the firearm evidence, prosecutors said they had DNA evidence and eyewitness testimony to charge Wynn.

He is also charged in four other shootings at a vacant lot between February and July in 2024.

RELATED: ‘Just end him’: 5th-grade girls allegedly plotted to stab boy to death at school and make it look like a suicide

“Doyral Wynn’s violence knows no boundaries,” reads a statement from O’Malley. “He sexually assaulted a mother and her daughter at gunpoint in a field in East Cleveland, then he fired two shots at a car with his relative and family members inside. He is capable of harming anyone at any time.”

The suspect is charged with seven counts of rape, four counts of kidnapping, two counts of gross sexual imposition, four counts of felonious assault, and numerous gun charges.

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

​19 year old rape, Doyral wynn arrest, Cleveland rape mom and daughter, 40 counts against doyral wynn, Crime 

The left has fostered a culture that encourages Americans to despise this country by focusing exclusively on the darkest parts of American history – and in some cases, distorting the narrative to portray our nation and her most significant historical figures in the worst light possible. It’s part of their plan to uproot the nation’s foundational values and principles and install a new progressive order.

For the last “25 years,” says Glenn Beck, all the left has talked about is the “genocide of indigenous peoples,” “the legacy of racism and colonialism,” “how anti-Muslim we are,” our suppression of “homosexual rights,” “climate genocide,” “patriarchal control,” how “capitalism inherently generates inequality,” and how “the state is nothing more than a tool of class denomination,” among other complaints on a never-ending list of grievances launched at the United States.

Is it any wonder that recent polling found Democrats willing to say they’re “extremely proud to be an American” has fallen from 87% in 2001 to just 36% today? Conservatives, however, have largely maintained their faith in this country. They know that while mistakes have been made, some of them egregious, this country is still the best country in the world.

“You’ve grown up only hearing the sins,” says Glenn, but “the nation’s story is not propaganda – it’s proof. Yes, it’s brutal; yes, it’s flawed; yes, it’s ugly … but there’s also some undeniable truths,” the most important being “that one country rooted in liberty reshaped the planet for good.”

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn reminds us of all the good America has done in the world and why she is worthy of our 4th of July celebrations.

WWII

“Without America, Hitler wins; Japan keeps the Pacific; fascism becomes the dominant force of the 20th century,” says Glenn.

During WWII, “America mobilized faster, produced more, fought longer than anyone else. We built more tanks and planes than the Axis combined; we led the invasion that broke the Nazi grip; we dropped food as well as bombs,” he reminds.

And “we didn’t conquer; we rebuilt, and while communism tried to replace fascism, we were the ones on the front line and stood our ground, again. For 45 years we held the line – not with brute force alone but with ideas, with culture, with freedom, with jeans, with music, with hope,” he continues.

“The Soviet Union collapsed because people wanted what America had … freedom,” he says.

Capitalism

“Before America’s rise, extreme poverty was the norm,” until America’s “engine of capitalism” arrived on the scene and was “exported” to other countries.

The result? “Over a billion human beings lifted from starvation-level poverty in just 50 years,” says Glenn.

Patents

Before America’s Benjamin Franklin, “you could invent something, and you had no power to keep it,” Glenn reminds. “Some rich guy would come and steal it right from underneath you, and they would get rich and you would get nothing.”

Enter Franklin, a brilliant inventor himself. He was the one who said, “We have to have a patent” to stop the “exploitation” of inventors.

And yet – even when he invented the potbelly stove, which ended the epidemic of women dying from cooking over open fires – Franklin, the genius behind the patent, chose not to patent his lifesaving creation because “he felt it was right to give this to the world.”

Blueprint for other democracies

“We wrote the operating system for modern freedom,” says Glenn. “Every modern democracy borrows from our Constitution. Our founders invented a government designed to limit power.”

“Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison – they didn’t just write rules; they lit a fuse. From Tiananmen Square to Tehran, dissidents quote our words; they hold our flags,” he says.

“That’s not nationalism, that’s impact.”

To dive deeper into Glenn’s compelling take on how American history should be taught, check out the episode 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 glenn beck program, Blazetv, Blaze media, Glenn beck, American history, Left wing propaganda, Leftist lies, Progressivism 

Zohran Mamdani didn’t win New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary because he is young and charismatic, empathizes with people’s everyday grievances, or ran a brilliant campaign. The real reason is much more terrifying.

The reason the Muslim Marxist from Queens crushed his opponents may be summarized in two words: indoctrinated kids. Simple math shows you what happened.

This isn’t going to remain isolated to New York City. This playbook is about to be replicated faster than E. coli in petri dishes in every city across America.

New York City counts roughly 5.1 million registered voters. Between 750,000 and 850,000 are between the ages of 18 and 29. Another 1.6 to 1.8 million fall between 30 and 49.

Together, those groups total about 2.5 million voters — half the city’s electorate. In other words, half of New York’s voting base consists of what I call “indoctrinated kids.”

Ten years ago, I had a recurring weekly segment on my show called “Campus Madness.” Every week, we told the grisly stories of conservative students facing awful discrimination on campus — simply because they were conservative: grades docked, free speech infringed, humiliation by professors, denied funding from the student body, and so on. The point of the segment was to expose the rampant abuse of conservatives on leftist college campuses.

But honestly, we missed the point. Sure, conservative students faced discrimination — and still do. That was unjust and remains a serious problem.

The greater threat came from students who arrived on campus either apolitical or mildly liberal. They didn’t face discrimination. They didn’t need to. They were the targets.

Their minds were open and their politics malleable. Four years later, they emerged not as moderates but as committed Marxists — true believers in a worldview shaped by relentless indoctrination. Their professors didn’t just challenge ideas. They hammered home an agenda: anti-American, anti-white, anti-God, anti-human.

RELATED: Voters loved the socialist slogans. Now comes the fine print.

Photo by Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Back then, people joked, “Wait till these silly Millennials get to the real world.” Nope. Those students brought their radicalism with them. Instead of waking up, they woke everything else. And the result is today’s “woke-ified” culture — one shaped more by the classroom than by common sense.

Returning to how this nutty Muslim Marxist just won the Democrat primary for mayor, New York City’s voting demographic explains it all.

Two and a half million of 5.1 million total registered voters are in the “indoctrinated kids” age bracket. One million of those 2.5 million are college graduates. That means 20% of voters in the city are the product of the Marxist indoctrination factories we call “colleges” and “universities.”

Only 11% of New York City voters of all ages are registered Republicans, so read the writing on the wall.

Zohran Mamdani isn’t the Democrats’ nominee because voters didn’t understand his Marxism. The indoctrinated kids chose Mamdani because of his Marxism.

The indoctrinated kids are committed radical leftist ideologues — thanks to our colleges and universities that were subverted decades ago by communists who knew exactly what they were doing. They were playing the long game, knowing they were stealing the minds of whole generations of youth who one day — today — would be the deciding factor in our elections.

The scariest part is that this isn’t going to remain isolated to New York City. This playbook is about to be replicated faster than E. coli in a petri dish in every city across America.

It must be stopped. President Donald Trump must defund any college or university that indoctrinates youth in anti-American ideology — including private schools that accept federally subsidized student loans and research grants. Cut it all. They won’t survive a week without the federal government’s largesse. The Marxists are in it to win it. If we don’t use the authority we have while we’re in power, the United States of America will be lost.

If you don’t believe me, just listen to Mamdani speak for two minutes.

​Opinion & analysis, Zohran mamdani, Andrew cuomo, New york city, Eric adams, Mayoral election nyc, Mayor, Democratic party, Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, Radicals, Islam, Intifada, Anti-semitism, Jews, White people, Taxes, Rent, Campus madness, Liz wheeler, Indoctrination, Indoctrinated kids, Voters, Liberals, Marxism, Education, College, University